# If God did not exist



## pacer

Pope Francis responded to editorials written in July and August by Eugenio Scalfari, an agnostic and the paper's founder, in which he was asked whether the Christian God forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.

"Scalfari said he had not expected the Pope to answer "so extensively and so affectionately, with such fraternal spirit."

*Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: 
"An open dialogue with non-believers"*

Dear Dott. Scalfari,

I would cordially like to reply to the letter you addressed to me from the pages of "La Repubblica" on July 7th, which included a series of personal reflections that then continued to enrich the pages of the daily newspaper on August 7th.

First of all, thank you for the attention with which you have read the Encyclical "Lumen fidei". In fact it was the intention of my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, who conceived it and mostly wrote it, and which, with gratitude, I have inherited, to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and rigorous dialogue with those who, like you, define themselves as "for many years being a non-believer who is interested and fascinated by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth".

Therefore, without a doubt it would seem to be positive, not only for each one of us,  but also for the society in which we live, to stop and speak about a matter as important as faith and which refers to the teachings and the figure of  Jesus.

More at link below.
* * * 

In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead pivot on the absolute transcendency of God.

I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to participate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others:  but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.

Of course a consequence of this is also  -  and this is not a minor thing  -  that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by  "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed  by Jesus and upon which, the history  of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the definitive destination of our destiny in the hereafter, while civil and political society has the difficult duty of expressing and embodying a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the periphery of history and keeping the sense of hope alive, striving for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.

At the end of your first article, you also ask me what to say to our Jewish brothers about the promise God made to them:  Has this been forgotten? And this  -  believe me  -  is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting  from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jewish people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jewish brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have asked God, especially when I remember the terrible experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terribile trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved. 

As for the three questions you asked me... (more at link below)

With brotherly love,

Francesco

(Translated from Italian by Sara Cecere)

(11 SETTEMBRE 2013)

Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers" - Repubblica.it


----------



## Chuckt

Hebrews 11:6   But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.  

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> Hebrews 11:6   But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
> 
> Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


Here is what Pope Francis had to say in a letter to Eugenio Scalfari (agnostic and founder of La Republicca) in response to three questions he posed in recent editiorials.

The letter is so beautifully written, it is worth reading whether one is a believer or non-believer, just for the linguistic style of the letter.

*Extract from Pope Francis letter:*

*As for the three questions you asked me in the article of August 7th. It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.*

Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision. 

*Second of all, you ask if the thought, according to which no absolute exists and therefore there is no absolute truth, but only a series of relative and subjective truths is a mistake or a sin.*

To start, I would not speak about, not even for those who believe, an "absolute" truth, in the sense that absolute is something detached, something lacking any relationship. Now, the truth is a relationship! This is so true that each of us sees the truth and expresses it, starting from oneself: from one's history and culture, from the situation in which one lives, etc. This does not mean that the truth is variable and subjective. It means that it is given to us only as a way and a life. Was it not Jesus himself who said: "I am the way, the truth, the life"? In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed. Therefore we must understand the terms well and perhaps, in order to avoid the oversemplification of absolute contraposition, reformulate the question. I think that today this is absolutely necessary in order to have a serene and constructive dialogue which I hoped for from the beginning.

*In the last question you ask if, with the disappearance of man on earth, the thoughts able to think about God will also disappear.*

Of course, the greatness of mankind lies in being able to think about God. That is in being able to experience a conscious and responsible relationship with Him. But the relationship lies between two realities. God - this is my thought and this is my experience, but how many, yesterday and today, share it! - is not an idea, even if very sublime, the result of the thoughts of mankind. God is a reality with a capital "R". Jesus reveals this to us - and he experiences the relationship with Him - as a Father of infinite goodness and mercy. God therefore does not depend on our thoughts. On the other hand, even when the end of life for man on earth should come - and for Christian faith, in any case the world as we know it now is destined to end, man will not finish existing and, in a way that we do not know, nor will the universe created with him. The Scriptures speak of "new skies and a new land" and confirm that, in the end, at the time and place that it is beyond our knowledge, but which we patiently and desirously await, God will be "everything in everyone".


----------



## Alfalfa

Seems like the first question was a yes/no.

Why would any omniscient/omnipresent being make understanding his words so difficult, contradictory and ambiguous?


----------



## Chuckt

Alfalfa said:


> Seems like the first question was a yes/no.
> 
> Why would any omniscient/omnipresent being make understanding his words so difficult, contradictory and ambiguous?



God abolished the priesthood and they re-established it.  They break the rules when it suits them because they want a job and for people to follow them and give them money.

Ephesians 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;  

Matthew 27:51   And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;  

Peter is speaking about us and not the Papacy:

1 Peter 2:9   But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_(doctrine)

The papacy are just squatters.


----------



## pacer

Alfalfa said:


> Seems like the first question was a yes/no.
> 
> Why would any omniscient/omnipresent being make understanding his words so difficult, contradictory and ambiguous?


You have to realize the letter was translated from Italian but you are right&#8230;the answer to the first question does not seem to address the subject of forgiveness.  I interpret it to mean God is all merciful and therefore as long as one follows ones own good conscience, whether one is a believer or non-believer, it is not necessary to believe in God.  To listen and to follow your own conscience means you have to have a conscience (haha) and understand the difference between good and evil.


----------



## theword

pacer said:


> Pope Francis responded to editorials written in July and August by Eugenio Scalfari, an agnostic and the paper's founder, in which he was asked whether the Christian God forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.
> 
> "Scalfari said he had not expected the Pope to answer "so extensively and so affectionately, with such fraternal spirit."
> 
> *Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica:
> "An open dialogue with non-believers"*
> 
> Dear Dott. Scalfari,
> 
> I would cordially like to reply to the letter you addressed to me from the pages of "La Repubblica" on July 7th, which included a series of personal reflections that then continued to enrich the pages of the daily newspaper on August 7th.
> 
> First of all, thank you for the attention with which you have read the Encyclical "Lumen fidei". In fact it was the intention of my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, who conceived it and mostly wrote it, and which, with gratitude, I have inherited, to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and rigorous dialogue with those who, like you, define themselves as "for many years being a non-believer who is interested and fascinated by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth".
> 
> Therefore, without a doubt it would seem to be positive, not only for each one of us,  but also for the society in which we live, to stop and speak about a matter as important as faith and which refers to the teachings and the figure of  Jesus.
> 
> More at link below.
> 
> * * *
> 
> In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead pivot on the absolute transcendency of God.
> 
> I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to participate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others:  but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.
> 
> Of course a consequence of this is also  -  and this is not a minor thing  -  that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by  "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed  by Jesus and upon which, the history  of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the definitive destination of our destiny in the hereafter, while civil and political society has the difficult duty of expressing and embodying a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the periphery of history and keeping the sense of hope alive, striving for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.
> 
> (more at link below)
> 
> With brotherly love,
> 
> Francesco
> 
> (Translated from Italian by Sara Cecere)
> 
> (11 SETTEMBRE 2013)
> 
> Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers" - Repubblica.it



No Christian has ever been given "faith" by our Creator to know Him like His saints do. We saints and prophets are the only ones who were given faith by our Creator because we're God's invisible servant "Christ' in our created existence.


----------



## orogenicman

It is a bit of a red herring for an atheist (such as myself) to even ask a question such as whether or not 'god' forgives those who do not believe.  Why?  Because we don't believe.  And since we don't believe, it matters not whether some mythical deity forgives.  It cannot forgive or not forgive because it doesn't exist.  What matters is that people seek forgiveness from the people in their lives, because  they are what is important, not some mythical magical sky daddy.


----------



## pacer

orogenicman said:


> It is a bit of a red herring for an atheist (such as myself) to even ask a question such as whether or not 'god' forgives those who do not believe.  Why?  Because we don't believe.  And since we don't believe, it matters not whether some mythical deity forgives.  It cannot forgive or not forgive because it doesn't exist.  What matters is that people seek forgiveness from the people in their lives, because  they are what is important, not some mythical magical sky daddy.


mythical magical sky daddy...hahaha  I like that.  Steppenwolf's Magic Carpet Ride popped into my head.  Gonna have to play it.


----------



## orogenicman

Even better, it people treated one another with courtesy and respect, they wouldn't need to seek forgiveness.  Sorry if I seem to be quoting Miss Manners.


----------



## pacer

I agree.  It is not necessary to have the fear of _a_ god instilled into one's psyche in order to live a moralistic, respectable lifestyle.


----------



## Avatar4321

Alfalfa said:


> Seems like the first question was a yes/no.
> 
> Why would any omniscient/omnipresent being make understanding his words so difficult, contradictory and ambiguous?



I was unaware that the Pope was omniscient/omnipresent


----------



## MontyBurns

Well, thank goodness. Now I just have to work on all other religious leaders to forgive me for an invented stain on my existence. Whoopee


----------



## pacer

An atheist was walking through the woods, admiring all that the "accidents" that evolution had created.

"What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him. 

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw the grizzly was closing. 

Somehow, he ran even faster, so scared that tears came to his eyes. He looked again and the bear was even closer.

His heart was pounding and he tried to run faster. He tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but the bear was right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw strike him.

At that instant the atheist cried, "Oh my God...!"

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.  Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help
you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be religious after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear religious?"

"Very well" said the voice.

The light went out. The river ran. The sounds of the forest resumed.

..and then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful..."


----------



## rightwinger

God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it


----------



## pacer

I agree.


----------



## BreezeWood

> At that instant the atheist cried, "Oh my God...!"



so much for his being an atheist ... a real one would rather have just been eaten alive.

.


----------



## rightwinger

God prefers atheists to Christians

He finds Christians to be pompous boors.......just like everyone else


----------



## LittleNipper

rightwinger said:


> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it



God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.

Please consider the following: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html


----------



## TheOldSchool

Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast!!!

For it is a human number...

And that number...

is 666

[YOUTUBE]jsmcDLDw9iw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Noomi

LittleNipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> Please consider the following: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
Click to expand...


Bullshit. People pray for the lives of their loved ones, and God doesn't answer their prayers. God doesn't cure cancer, does he?


----------



## rightwinger

LittleNipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> Please consider the following: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
Click to expand...

What is he wearing?


----------



## Chuckt

rightwinger said:


> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it


 
God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up.  Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up.  Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
Click to expand...

The question of why God permitted the Holocaust and whether the victims entered the promised land is a highly sensitive one and requires a sensitive answer.  Here is what one Christian source has to say:

*Why did God permit the Holocaust?*  We believe that one reason God permitted the Holocaust was in order to gain world sympathy for the Jews and facilitate the legal process needed to establish their statehood. It is important to remember that God is in control. He allowed the Holocaust for a purpose. The good news is that He has a wonderful divine plan for Israel and the world. All who were exterminated in the Holocaust will soon be awakened from the sleep of death and receive new bodies free from pain and starvation. Our job is to trust in God and his promises knowing that he cannot lie and that in his time all that he has promised will come to pass. 

The Scriptural background can be found at this link:

http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up.  Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on how God showed up?  What were the signs?


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up. Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you elaborate on how God showed up? What were the signs?
Click to expand...

 
You haven't read the Bible then.


----------



## Caroljo

Noomi said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> Please consider the following: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People pray for the lives of their loved ones, and God doesn't answer their prayers. God doesn't cure cancer, does he?
Click to expand...


God answers prayer all the time, to people that believe.  He's also cured all kinds of illnesses, to people who really believe.  Our prayers are not always answered as we think they should be or how we want them to be.  But the answers we get are always the best answer.  People that are not believers would never understand this.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up. Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on how God showed up? What were the signs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't read the Bible then.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't.  I am asking you.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up. Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question of why God permitted the Holocaust and whether the victims entered the promised land is a highly sensitive one and requires a sensitive answer. Here is what one Christian source has to say:
> 
> *Why did God permit the Holocaust?* We believe that one reason God permitted the Holocaust was in order to gain world sympathy for the Jews and facilitate the legal process needed to establish their statehood. It is important to remember that God is in control. He allowed the Holocaust for a purpose. The good news is that He has a wonderful divine plan for Israel and the world. All who were exterminated in the Holocaust will soon be awakened from the sleep of death and receive new bodies free from pain and starvation. Our job is to trust in God and his promises knowing that he cannot lie and that in his time all that he has promised will come to pass.
> 
> The Scriptural background can be found at this link:
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
Click to expand...

 
It doesn't mean He approves.

Adan gave headship of the earth away to Satan.

Satan  is the god of this world for now:

New Living Translation
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Why did God allow the Holocaust?
Why did God allow the Holocaust?


----------



## pacer

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up.  Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question of why God permitted the Holocaust and whether the victims entered the promised land is a highly sensitive one and requires a sensitive answer.  Here is what one Christian source has to say:
> 
> *Why did God permit the Holocaust?*  We believe that one reason God permitted the Holocaust was in order to gain world sympathy for the Jews and facilitate the legal process needed to establish their statehood. It is important to remember that God is in control. He allowed the Holocaust for a purpose. The good news is that He has a wonderful divine plan for Israel and the world. All who were exterminated in the Holocaust will soon be awakened from the sleep of death and receive new bodies free from pain and starvation. Our job is to trust in God and his promises knowing that he cannot lie and that in his time all that he has promised will come to pass.
> 
> The Scriptural background can be found at this link:
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
Click to expand...

For the Scriptural background, you have to cut and paste the link into your browser.

http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf


----------



## Katzndogz

A lot of atheists became religious, after they spent a lifetime at atheism.

Dostoevsky,
CS Lewis
Sir Anthony Flew
Peter Hitchens
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 
William J. Murray (son of atheist Madeline Murry O'Hare)

Hundreds of atheists turned to God.  

List of converts to Christianity from nontheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> God showed up and there was a whole generation of Jewish people who didn't enter the promised land.. It only reveals that man is incapable of governing himself even if God shows up. Showing up isn't always the answer to man's condition.
> 
> 
> 
> The question of why God permitted the Holocaust and whether the victims entered the promised land is a highly sensitive one and requires a sensitive answer. Here is what one Christian source has to say:
> 
> *Why did God permit the Holocaust?* We believe that one reason God permitted the Holocaust was in order to gain world sympathy for the Jews and facilitate the legal process needed to establish their statehood. It is important to remember that God is in control. He allowed the Holocaust for a purpose. The good news is that He has a wonderful divine plan for Israel and the world. All who were exterminated in the Holocaust will soon be awakened from the sleep of death and receive new bodies free from pain and starvation. Our job is to trust in God and his promises knowing that he cannot lie and that in his time all that he has promised will come to pass.
> 
> The Scriptural background can be found at this link:
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the Scriptural background, you have to cut and paste the link into your browser.
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
Click to expand...

 
You are quoting them and they don't even have a statement of faith posted.  In other words, why should we trust them if we don't know who they are or what they believe?


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of why God permitted the Holocaust and whether the victims entered the promised land is a highly sensitive one and requires a sensitive answer. Here is what one Christian source has to say:
> 
> *Why did God permit the Holocaust?* We believe that one reason God permitted the Holocaust was in order to gain world sympathy for the Jews and facilitate the legal process needed to establish their statehood. It is important to remember that God is in control. He allowed the Holocaust for a purpose. The good news is that He has a wonderful divine plan for Israel and the world. All who were exterminated in the Holocaust will soon be awakened from the sleep of death and receive new bodies free from pain and starvation. Our job is to trust in God and his promises knowing that he cannot lie and that in his time all that he has promised will come to pass.
> 
> The Scriptural background can be found at this link:
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> For the Scriptural background, you have to cut and paste the link into your browser.
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quoting them and they don't even have a statement of faith posted.  In other words, why should we trust them if we don't know who they are or what they believe?
Click to expand...

Whether one chooses to trust them is irrelevant?  It is one of many Christian hypotheses with regard to the Holocaust.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the Scriptural background, you have to cut and paste the link into your browser.
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quoting them and they don't even have a statement of faith posted. In other words, why should we trust them if we don't know who they are or what they believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether one chooses to trust them is irrelevant? It is one of many Christian hypotheses with regard to the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

 
Doesn't mean it is vetted or reliable and how would you know if you haven't read the whole Bible?  Could you pass a pastor's test?


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are quoting them and they don't even have a statement of faith posted. In other words, why should we trust them if we don't know who they are or what they believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Whether one chooses to trust them is irrelevant? It is one of many Christian hypotheses with regard to the Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it is vetted or reliable and how would you know if you haven't read the whole Bible?  Could you pass a pastor's test?
Click to expand...

Please, enlighten us.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether one chooses to trust them is irrelevant? It is one of many Christian hypotheses with regard to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it is vetted or reliable and how would you know if you haven't read the whole Bible? Could you pass a pastor's test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, enlighten us.
Click to expand...

 
Even if you were licensed, Pacer, our church wouldn't have to accept your license.

Some churches even require a Psychological evaluation before you're ever allowed to enter the ministry.

Some Bible colleges won't even accept you unless you can prove that you've gone to a church for a number of years.

It is not enough for you to quote someone else's articles on the internet.

I've been studying for years and even pastors and people who go to Bible college stick up their nose at me.

A pastor's search comittee takes weeks or months to find a candidate.  They don't want someone posting stuff on the internet from their underwear.

Most churches want someone who has been trained by someone who has been trained by someone who has been trained.  They want the real deal.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether one chooses to trust them is irrelevant? It is one of many Christian hypotheses with regard to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it is vetted or reliable and how would you know if you haven't read the whole Bible? Could you pass a pastor's test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, enlighten us.
Click to expand...

 
The other thing is when you start promoting another religion and then defend it, we can as Christians, we can mark you for causing division by posting this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/313008-buddhist-philosophy-on-health-building.html

Romans 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  

So it might pass the test of USMessageboard but not for us because you don't meet the qualifications of elder, pastor or teacher for us.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it is vetted or reliable and how would you know if you haven't read the whole Bible? Could you pass a pastor's test?
> 
> 
> 
> Please, enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you were licensed, Pacer, our church wouldn't have to accept your license.
> 
> Some churches even require a Psychological evaluation before you're ever allowed to enter the ministry.
> 
> Some Bible colleges won't even accept you unless you can prove that you've gone to a church for a number of years.
> 
> It is not enough for you to quote someone else's articles on the internet.
> 
> I've been studying for years and even pastors and people who go to Bible college stick up their nose at me.
> 
> A pastor's search comittee takes weeks or months to find a candidate.  They don't want someone posting stuff on the internet from their underwear.
> 
> Most churches want someone who has been trained by someone who has been trained by someone who has been trained.  They want the real deal.
Click to expand...

You did not address my comment.  The hypothesis I posted from the other website regarding the Holocaust is no more authoritative than the hypotheses offered here.


----------



## Smilebong

Noomi said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> Please consider the following: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People pray for the lives of their loved ones, and God doesn't answer their prayers. God doesn't cure cancer, does he?
Click to expand...


Actually he does. Just not all the time.

I was present when we prayed for a woman who had cancer. It was gone within weeks.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you were licensed, Pacer, our church wouldn't have to accept your license.
> 
> Some churches even require a Psychological evaluation before you're ever allowed to enter the ministry.
> 
> Some Bible colleges won't even accept you unless you can prove that you've gone to a church for a number of years.
> 
> It is not enough for you to quote someone else's articles on the internet.
> 
> I've been studying for years and even pastors and people who go to Bible college stick up their nose at me.
> 
> A pastor's search comittee takes weeks or months to find a candidate. They don't want someone posting stuff on the internet from their underwear.
> 
> Most churches want someone who has been trained by someone who has been trained by someone who has been trained. They want the real deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not address my comment. The hypothesis I posted from the other website regarding the Holocaust is no more authoritative than the hypotheses offered here.
Click to expand...

 
It is missing the reason and the verses that could give reason.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> It is missing the reason and the verses that could give reason.


I provided a link to the Scriptural background.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is missing the reason and the verses that could give reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link to the Scriptural background.
Click to expand...

 
So.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is missing the reason and the verses that could give reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link to the Scriptural background.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So.
Click to expand...

It provides the Scriptural verses and reasoning behind the hypothesis.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link to the Scriptural background.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It provides the Scriptural verses and reasoning behind the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

 
It is incomplete because it is missing a reason.  In addition, it is offensive because it questions God and doesn't give man's guilt.

Not the kind of material I would give someone.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.
> 
> 
> 
> It provides the Scriptural verses and reasoning behind the hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is incomplete because it is missing a reason.  In addition, it is offensive because it questions God and doesn't give man's guilt.
> 
> Not the kind of material I would give someone.
Click to expand...

That is why I say perhaps you can enlighten us.  Give us your Scriptural references and reasoning.


----------



## Alfalfa

Smilebong said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> Please consider the following: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Is There a God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People pray for the lives of their loved ones, and God doesn't answer their prayers. God doesn't cure cancer, does he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he does. Just not all the time.
> 
> I was present when we prayed for a woman who had cancer. It was gone within weeks.
Click to expand...


It's called the law of averages.

For every 10,000 people with cancer that christians pray over, one goes into recession and everyone cries "A MIRACLE! A MIRACLE! PRAISE JEBUS!".  It's posted on 50,000 websites and gets a segment on "The 700 Club".

It's like the psychic who makes 500 predictions, one (by the law of averages) happens and yet that one incident will become "proof" that the psychic is real.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It provides the Scriptural verses and reasoning behind the hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is incomplete because it is missing a reason. In addition, it is offensive because it questions God and doesn't give man's guilt.
> 
> Not the kind of material I would give someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why I say perhaps you can enlighten us. Give us your Scriptural references and reasoning.
Click to expand...

 
Job 42:7 ¶ And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.  

Exodus 20:7 ¶ Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.  

Your article didn't speak right about God and the above verses are an analogy for you and when I can Biblically criticize your post like that then it needs work because your Christian audience isn't receiving it.


----------



## Chuckt

Alfalfa said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People pray for the lives of their loved ones, and God doesn't answer their prayers. God doesn't cure cancer, does he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does. Just not all the time.
> 
> I was present when we prayed for a woman who had cancer. It was gone within weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the law of averages.
> 
> For every 10,000 people with cancer that christians pray over, one goes into recession and everyone cries "A MIRACLE! A MIRACLE! PRAISE JEBUS!". It's posted on 50,000 websites and gets a segment on "The 700 Club".
> 
> It's like the psychic who makes 500 predictions, one (by the law of averages) happens and yet that one incident will become "proof" that the psychic is real.
Click to expand...

 
Usually the person follows the doctor around while they're praying and they're taking the medicine or treatments and when it goes into remission, they say, "God healed me" while promoting false doctrine.

God can heal and I don't know this situation but I don't see it as the law of averages because you would have to show me case studies where people heal themselves from cancer.


----------



## Alfalfa

pacer said:


> An atheist was walking through the woods, admiring all that the "accidents" that evolution had created.
> 
> "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
> 
> As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to look, he saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
> 
> He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw the grizzly was closing.
> 
> Somehow, he ran even faster, so scared that tears came to his eyes. He looked again and the bear was even closer.
> 
> His heart was pounding and he tried to run faster. He tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but the bear was right over him, reaching for him with its left paw and raising its right paw strike him.
> 
> At that instant the atheist cried, "Oh my God...!"
> 
> Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.  Even the river stopped moving.
> 
> As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help
> you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
> 
> The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical to ask to be religious after all these years, but perhaps you could make the bear religious?"
> 
> "Very well" said the voice.
> 
> The light went out. The river ran. The sounds of the forest resumed.
> 
> ..and then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed its head and spoke: "Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful..."



Christians love stories like this, for them it's proof that their god exists.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is incomplete because it is missing a reason. In addition, it is offensive because it questions God and doesn't give man's guilt.
> 
> Not the kind of material I would give someone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I say perhaps you can enlighten us. Give us your Scriptural references and reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Job 42:7 ¶ And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
> 
> Exodus 20:7 ¶ Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
> 
> Your article didn't speak right about God and the above verses are an analogy for you and when I can Biblically criticize your post like that then it needs work because your Christian audience isn't receiving it.
Click to expand...

You lose credibility when you change the subject, in order to avoid the question.  The other website provided Scriptural references and possible explanation for the Holocaust.  You provide nothing as you criticize other authorities.  Can you at least copy and paste the segment in the article that "didn't speak right about God"?


----------



## Smilebong

Alfalfa said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. People pray for the lives of their loved ones, and God doesn't answer their prayers. God doesn't cure cancer, does he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does. Just not all the time.
> 
> I was present when we prayed for a woman who had cancer. It was gone within weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the law of averages.
> 
> For every 10,000 people with cancer that christians pray over, one goes into recession and everyone cries "A MIRACLE! A MIRACLE! PRAISE JEBUS!".  It's posted on 50,000 websites and gets a segment on "The 700 Club".
> 
> It's like the psychic who makes 500 predictions, one (by the law of averages) happens and yet that one incident will become "proof" that the psychic is real.
Click to expand...


I disagree. She was the only woman we ever laid hands on and prayed for healing for.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your article didn't speak right about God and the above verses are an analogy for you and when I can Biblically criticize your post like that then it needs work because your Christian audience isn't receiving it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point out where in the following Scriptural background, the originator of the letter didnt speak right about God.  Here is the complete letter.
> 
> ***
> 
> Dear Jim,
> 
> Thank you for writing us at Christian Questions Radio. You asked why God let six million Jews (his own people) die during World War Two.
> 
> This is a very good question and requires some scriptural background in order to answer it adequately. God said to Abraham, Through your offspring all peoples of the earth will be blessed. This promise was given to Abraham in Genesis 22:18 and again to his son Isaac in Genesis 26:4. In Genesis 22:17 God tells Abraham that he will make his descendants (his seed) as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. The seed as the stars we believe refers to the heavenly seed of Abraham (Christ and the Church). However, we believe that Abraham's earthly seed (the nation of Israel [the sand]), will be the channel through which all the nations of the earth will be blessed. This was a unilateral promise of God, meaning that God swore on himself that his promise would come to pass, and, as we know, it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2). Therefore, even though the nation of Israel was temporarily cast off from Gods favor and her land left desolate (Matthew 23:38-39), God promised that the nation of Israel would again be restored. How was this restoration to take place?
> 
> Isaiah 43:5-6 is one of many prophecies that foretell the re-gathering of the Jewish people to the Promised Land. "Fear not, for I am with thee; I will bring thy seed from the east and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north: Give up, and to the south: Keep not back, bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth." For God said: "As the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the countries whither He had driven them; and I will bring them back into their land that I gave unto their fathers. Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks." (Jeremiah 16:15-16)
> 
> The Zionist movement compares to the fishing method of gathering. The Zionist activities provided the land with a vital nucleus of people that enabled it to become the new state of Israel. The many hunters would be those persecuting forces that led the Jews to face the necessity of return to Palestine. The Holocaust was a diabolical attempt to destroy the "seed of Abraham" and to make void the promise of God. Satans plan was thwarted when thousands of Jews who managed to escape the Holocaust found a refuge in Palestine. This occurrence opened the door for the next step in the ultimate fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. (Genesis 22:16-18) That step was the reestablishment of Israel as an independent nation in 1948. Israel was further blessed with Gods favor in the six day war of 1967. Her victory was nothing short of miraculous and insured that Jerusalem belonged to Israel.
> 
> Jacobs trouble still awaits Israel and the world. At that time God will fight for Israel as in the days of old. The Ancient faithful ones (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) will then come forth from their graves to lead and instruct the nation. Then the hearts of the Jewish people will be turned to their God. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep Mine ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God." (Ezekiel 36:26-28)
> 
> Why did God permit the Holocaust? We believe that one reason God permitted the Holocaust was in order to gain world sympathy for the Jews and facilitate the legal process needed to establish their statehood. It is important to remember that God is in control. He allowed the Holocaust for a purpose. The good news is that He has a wonderful divine plan for Israel and the world. All who were exterminated in the Holocaust will soon be awakened from the sleep of death and receive new bodies free from pain and starvation. Our job is to trust in God and his promises knowing that he cannot lie and that in his time all that he has promised will come to pass.
> 
> The Bible plainly states that God gave the Land to the Jewish people as an everlasting possession. The Lord has declared that all efforts to remove Israel from her Land will fail. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. (Amos 9:15) Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people around about . . . in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: All that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. (Zechariah 12:2-3) As students of the Bible we are watching with great interest as the events in the Middle East continue to unfold and prophecy is fulfilled.
> 
> We hope we have shed some light on your question. Be sure to sign up for CQ Rewind at Christian Questions Talk Radio ? Talk Radio with a Purpose. The service is free without obligation and will provide you with scriptural perspective on many questions and topics.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Christian Questions Radio
> 
> http://www.christianquestions.net/en/$sysimages/CQ%20Death%20Of%206%20Million%20Jews.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## rdean

Atheist finds God

If you are going to find God, at least tell us where.


----------



## pacer

rdean said:


> Atheist finds God
> 
> If you are going to find God, at least tell us where.


In his imagination.


----------



## Alfalfa

rdean said:


> Atheist finds God
> 
> If you are going to find God, at least tell us where.



A piece of toast.


----------



## pacer

By PZ Myers, Published: August 21 at 8:22 am
Washington Post

A curious thing happened to my thoughts on the way to composing this essay.

It was supposed to be about how to be an atheist, but I realized that that wasnt right. Atheism is the default position. You dont have to do anything to be an atheist, but you have to work awfully hard to not be one  atheism strips away a lot of superfluous nonsense, rather than piling on remarkable requirements and strange creeds and bizarre pointless rituals that you need to obey. So instead, I thought Id address the believers and tell you what baggage you can throw off ol Conestoga Wagon of life, the stuff that we know is completely unnecessary because atheists have traveled the trail without it, and come out just fine.

&#9726;Ditch the Sunday church services first thing. Hanging out with friends and neighbors is great, we atheists do it all the time, but guess what? We do it without a boring dude in a dog collar droning away at us, without sitting in those uncomfortable pews, without snoozing through the same old homilies. Its like church where you skip the tedious bits and cut straight to the coffee social or the Sunday picnic.

&#9726;The imaginary threat of hell and promise of heaven arent needed to keep us in line. We do good because were happy to help our communities and see our fellow human beings thrive. Telling us were going to be set on fire by a malicious god if we dont behave isnt just unbelievable, its insulting  we dont need extortion or offers of imaginary paradise cookies to do the right thing. Why do you?

&#9726;No more prayers, no more worship of an unresponsive invisible man. Believers seem to spend a lot of effort rationalizing the silence at the other end of the line: God will give you what you need, not what you want, hell answer in surprising ways, not answering is sometimes the best answer, hes got a plan that you just dont see yet. Atheists have the simplest answer: no one is listening. It fits just as well, even better, than all the convoluted explanations you might come up with. And it means you can stop the futile babbling, hang up and do something productive.

&#9726;The guilt! The pointless guilt is gone! Oh, sure, you still feel guilty if you harm people  and that is right and appropriate. But you dont need to feel guilty about not appeasing a deity, or not following archaic dogma. Most importantly, you never have to feel bad about reciprocating love with another person, because medieval rules to govern relationships have all lost their divine foundation.

&#9726;Speaking of medieval rules, throw away the hierarchical view of society. Rulers arent better than those they rule, priests are not above the congregation, women are not mans helpmeet, your tribe is no longer the chosen people. Wake up to equality, realize that every single human being on the planet is on the same plane, and respect everyones rights as the same.

&#9726;Have you ever lost someone you love? You know what churchy people will tell you: Theyre in a happier place, God needed another angel, theyre having strawberries and waffles with Jesus right now. Atheists wont do that: theyll tell you that its OK to grieve. Weve lost a good person, the right and good thing to do is to mourn and honor the memory of the dead. We dont make people feel guilty for failing to appreciate the kindness a god has done by destroying a good person.

You may have needed a book of rules and a master to put on the shackles of faith, but you dont need a guidebook to live a life of liberty. Do you know why atheists are so happy? Because theyre the freest people on Earth, and their only responsibilities are to their fellow human beings, not phantasms.

Myers is author of the recently-released book, The Happy Atheist.

An atheist?s guide to the good life


----------



## pacer

Good book!


----------



## pacer

&#8220;Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.&#8221;

&#8213; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


----------



## Alfalfa

The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, Richard Dawkins:

"Richard Dawkins defended "mild pedophilia" in an interview this weekend.  And while the quote itself is quite jarring, especially to those who  look to Dawkins for his influential writings on atheism (but haven't noticed some of his other strange stances), it's far from the first time that the scientist has launched a defense of the behavior"

"His reasons for defending the behavior seem to focus on three points.  First, that "hysteria" over a fear of pedophilia is overblown by  society; second, that instilling a child with fundamentalist religious  beliefs is actually a worse way to abuse a child; and third, that he  personally overcame childhood sexual abuse, meaning it must not be that  big of a deal for anyone else who was subjected to similar behavior."

"
 	There's more. In 2012, a few conservative publications finally noticed what Dawkins wrote in 2006, and dredged it up. Dawkins then defended pedophilia, again, in defense of those earlier remarks: 
I was myself sexually abused by a teacher when I was about nine or ten  years old. It was a very unpleasant and embarrassing experience, but  the mental trauma was soon exorcised by comparing notes with my  contemporaries who had suffered it previously at the hands of the same  master. ​  	The following quote, from the same defense, drives home what's so off  about Dawkins's argument here, beyond the knee-jerk recoiling of the  idea of defending a pedophile. Dawkins, a scientist, relies on anecdotal  evidence and speculation to "prove" his point: 
  	 		Thank goodness, I have never personally experienced what it is like to believe &#8211; really and truly and deeply _believe *&#8211;_ in  hell. But I think it can be plausibly argued that such a deeply held  belief might cause a child more long-lasting mental trauma than the  temporary embarrassment of mild physical abuse."


A great person to model yourself after. And thank you for continuing to use the forum to bash Christians, using the very best perverts around!


Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again - Abby Ohlheiser - The Atlantic Wire


----------



## Mr. H.

Maybe he's a Radio Controlled Christian.


----------



## pacer

koshergrl said:


> Ah, Richard Dawkins:
> A great person to model yourself after. And thank you for continuing to use the forum to bash Christians, using the very best perverts around!


Perhaps you can point out where he defends mild pedophilia.

***

*Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters &#8220;pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.&#8221;

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: &#8220;I don&#8217;t think he did any of us lasting harm.&#8221;

&#8220;I am very conscious that you can&#8217;t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don&#8217;t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can&#8217;t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,&#8221; he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called &#8220;just mild touching up.&#8221;*


----------



## koshergrl

You're  not helping yourself, zealot.


----------



## koshergrl

From your own quote:

"I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning,  like mild pedophilia, and can&#8217;t find it in me to condemn it.."


----------



## pacer

koshergrl said:


> From your own quote:
> 
> "I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning,  like mild pedophilia, and cant find it in me to condemn it.."


You cannot isolate one sentence and try to suggest he defends mild pedophilia.  You have to take it in its entire context.  The next thing he says:  He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called just mild touching up.  You need to read it carefully.


----------



## koshergrl

He said he is okay with mild pedophilia, you moron. You really are too stupid to breathe. Your own example and your continued spasmings do nothing except prove that you lack basic reasoning skills.


----------



## koshergrl

"
Dawkin's comments have been strongly criticised by the Prevention of  Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) an organisation  that works with survivors  of abuse.
"Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was  committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way," NSPCC  child protection director David Watt told RNS. "But
we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday."
Founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, Peter Saunders has also spoken out against Dawkin's remarks.
"Abuse  in all its forms has always been wrong. Evil is evil and we have to  challenge it whenever and wherever it occurs," Sanders told reporters.

Read more:  He was a victim of child sexual abuse but Richard Dawkins refuses to condemn the behaviour | News.com.au
​


----------



## pacer

Gee...you showed your true Christian colours.  Don't ever point the finger at others with your ballyhooing about Christians being jeered and insulted.  Read what Dawkins had to say carefully.


----------



## pacer

koshergrl said:


> "
> Dawkin's comments have been strongly criticised by the Prevention of  Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) an organisation  that works with survivors  of abuse.
> "Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was  committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way," NSPCC  child protection director David Watt told RNS. "But
> we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday."
> Founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, Peter Saunders has also spoken out against Dawkin's remarks.
> "Abuse  in all its forms has always been wrong. Evil is evil and we have to  challenge it whenever and wherever it occurs," Sanders told reporters.
> 
> Read more:  He was a victim of child sexual abuse but Richard Dawkins refuses to condemn the behaviour | News.com.au
> ​


The comments were taken out of context and of course keep getting perpetuated.


----------



## koshergrl

I doubt you have any clearer understanding of what I've shown than you have of the words you actually put on the page yourself. Overall, your understanding is deplorable, and your method is a joke.


----------



## koshergrl

pacer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Dawkin's comments have been strongly criticised by the Prevention of  Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) an organisation  that works with survivors  of abuse.
> "Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was  committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way," NSPCC  child protection director David Watt told RNS. "But
> we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday."
> Founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, Peter Saunders has also spoken out against Dawkin's remarks.
> "Abuse  in all its forms has always been wrong. Evil is evil and we have to  challenge it whenever and wherever it occurs," Sanders told reporters.
> 
> Read more:  He was a victim of child sexual abuse but Richard Dawkins refuses to condemn the behaviour | News.com.au
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> The comments were taken out of context and of course keep getting perpetuated.
Click to expand...


Yeah, by those horrible anti-child abuse loons.

Are you a fan of Peter Singer, too?


----------



## pacer

Don't change the subject.  READ what Dawkins said in its entirety.  Don't take it out of context.


----------



## pacer

Check this out for your reading pleasure.  There is a ton of material.

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs


----------



## hjmick

Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?


People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.


----------



## pacer

*Child Abuse: a misunderstanding.*

by Richard Dawkins posted on September 12, 2013 02:40PM GMT 

A is bad. B is worse. How dare you defend A?

In my memoir, _An Appetite for Wonder_, I wrote the following, about an incident at boarding school.

I would watch games of squash from the gallery, waiting for the game to end so I could slip down and practise by myself. One day  I must have been about eleven  there was a master in the gallery with me. He pulled me onto his knee and put his hand inside my shorts. He did no more than have a little feel, but it was extremely disagreeable (the cremasteric reflex is not painful, but in a skin-crawling, creepy way it is almost worse than painful) as well as embarrassing. As soon as I could wriggle off his lap, I ran to tell my friends, many of whom had had the same experience with him. I dont think he did any of us any lasting damage, but some years later he killed himself.

This paragraph, together with a subsequent statement to the Times that I would not judge that teacher by the standards of today, has been heavily criticised. These criticisms represent a misunderstanding, which I would like to clear up.

The standards of today are conditioned by our increasing familiarity with the traumatising effect that pedophile abuse can have on children, sometimes scarring them psychologically for life. Today we read, almost daily, of adults whose childhood was blighted by an uncle perhaps, or even a parent, who would day after day, week after week, year after year, sexually abuse a vulnerable child. The child would often have no escape, would not be believed if he/she told the other parent, or told a teacher. In many cases it is only now, when the abused children have reached adulthood, that these stories are coming out. To make light of their stories, even after all these years, might in some cases re-awaken the trauma of not being believed at the time when it was all happening, and when being believed would have meant so much to the child.

Only slightly less culpable than the abusers themselves are the institutions that protected them, of which the most prominent examples are to be found in the senior hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. This is why I personally donated £10,000 of my own money towards a fund, instigated by Christopher Hitchens and me, to build the legal case for prosecuting Pope Benedict XVI for his part (when Cardinal Ratzinger) in covering up sexual abuse of children by priests. Our initiative, for which I paid 50%, the rest being raised by Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, resulted in the book  The Case of the Pope: Vatican accountability for human rights abuse, in which the distinguished barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC laid out the case for the prosecution should any jurisdiction in the world choose to take it up in the future.

Now, given the terrible, persistent and recurrent traumas suffered by other people when abused as children, week after week, year after year, what should I have said about my own thirty seconds of nastiness back in the 1950s? Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head?

No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. To have done so would have invited the justifiably indignant response: How dare you make a fuss about the mere half minute of gagging unpleasantness that happened to you only once, and where the perpetrator was not your own father but a teacher who meant nothing special to you in your life. Stop playing the victim. Stop trying to upstage those who really were tragic victims in their own situations. Dont cry wolf about your own bad experience, because it undermines those whose experience was  and remains  so much worse.

That is why I made light of my own bad experience. To excuse pedophiliac assaults in general, or to make light of the horrific experiences of others, was a thousand miles from my intention.

I should have hoped that much was obvious. But I was perhaps presumptuous in the last sentence of the paragraph quoted above. I cannot know for certain that my companions experiences with the same teacher were are brief as mine, and theirs may have been recurrent where mine was not. Thats why I said only I dont think he did any of us lasting damage. We discussed it among ourselves on many occasions, especially after his suicide, and there was indeed general agreement that his gassing himself was far more upsetting than his sexual depredations had been. If I am wrong about any particular individual; if any of my companions really was traumatised by the abuse long after it happened; if, perhaps it happened many times and amounted to more than the single disagreeable but brief fondling that I endured, I apologise.

RDFRS: Child Abuse: a misunderstanding.


----------



## koshergrl

Thank you. Now we understand that you agree with him. Some sexual abuse is okay.


----------



## pacer

He is clarifying exactly what I had pointed out to you.  READ.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, he is dismissing *mild* pedophilia, based on his understanding that there are worse crimes out there. Using his rating system, *mild* murder would be murder committed sans torture...*mild* rape would be rape by a guy with a tiny dick.


----------



## Sunni Man

I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..


----------



## pacer

He did not say he could not condemn but rather he could not condemn it (mild touching) by the same standards as he would today.  Read it closely.

"...I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and cant find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today, he said.

He said the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called just mild touching up.


----------



## pacer

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..


haha You have that reversed.


----------



## Sunni Man

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
Click to expand...

Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..


----------



## pacer

Sunni Man said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
Click to expand...

I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?


----------



## hjmick

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..




Not all of us do. Personally, I couldn't care less what a person believes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian simply for disagreeing with a certain Christian member?
Click to expand...


You are not allowed to post PM's without the senders permission. Sorry to burst your bubble but God exists.


----------



## Sunni Man

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian simply for disagreeing with a certain Christian member?
Click to expand...

*No*


----------



## pacer

RetiredGySgt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian simply for disagreeing with a certain Christian member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to post PM's without the senders permission. Sorry to burst your bubble but God exists.
Click to expand...

I would not have anyway.


----------



## koshergrl

Lol. 

So dish..you're a Peter Singer fan too, aren't you?


----------



## pacer

I know how to comprehend what I'm reading.


----------



## turzovka

pacer said:


> Check this out for your reading pleasure.  There is a ton of material.
> 
> God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs




Cool web site.   Thanks.

Question for you:    How many miracles would it take to convince you that the supernatural is real?    One?   Two?

The point is... it always appears to require one more than whatever one may demonstrate.

Time will not allow it, but I can assure you that you will be hard pressed to deny the supernatural quality and facts of Fatima, 1917.    In addition, your science does far, far more to prove the supernatural quality of the cloth of the Shroud of Turin than their adversaries within try desperately to call it a fraud.    So many questions go unanswered we can hardly take those deniers seriously.

I could get into the weeping statues that have been witnessed by tens of thousands of faithful and skeptics alike.   I suppose they are all liars?   Or perhaps those nuns were busy in their basement concocting clever devices to make it look like human tears were streaming from Mary's eyes?

And I know... the stigmata wounds on Padre Pio's hands and feet that bled daily for 50 years defying medical explanations were secretly induced by him on a regular basis.   Until he got tired of doing it because they completely disappeared including any scars within a couple weeks before his death.  

I won't go into much detail about the Virgin Mary appearing on the dome of a Coptic Cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt in 1968 on about 20 occasions all in the late of night.   Only about 250,000 Egyptians (mostly Muslims of course) swear to have seen her ----- despite the fact another 100,000 or so saw nothing!    Apparently you or the skeptics will not allow God to do as He pleases?    It's either all or nothing, otherwise the 250,000 either lied or hallucinated?      I might add there are some strange photographs of her on these occasions, even though the great majority of the photos showed nothing, but others did!   Again, God is not allowed this trick, right?


----------



## koshergrl

No, you don't. I am fairly certain you don't comprehend what you write, yourself, either.


----------



## koshergrl

And you're avoiding the question. Share your opinion of Singer...


----------



## pacer

Good book.  A must read for believers and non-believers alike.


----------



## koshergrl

Lolol...


----------



## pacer

&#8220;To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries&#8221;  &#8213; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


----------



## koshergrl

pacer said:


> To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries  &#8213; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion



"Sexual assault victims organizations are slamming evolutionary  biologist and leading atheist Richard Dawkins for comments he made about  the inoffensiveness of mild pedophilia.
Read more:  Atheist Richard Dawkins makes shocking, offensive claim about pedophilia | The Daily Caller
​


----------



## koshergrl

"Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for  Prevention of Cruelty to Children, castigated the evolutionary  biologist&#8217;s comments as a &#8220;terrible slight&#8221; to victims of abuse who  often suffer for decades afterward."

Richard Dawkins, World-Renowned Atheist, Slammed By Abuse Victim Advocates For Downplaying Pedophilia

Yes, we should certainly listen to this man.


----------



## pacer

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."  Richard Dawkins


----------



## AVG-JOE

hjmick said:


> Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?
> 
> 
> People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.



That's true, that's true!  

Just 'cause _my_ God is imaginary to _you_, doesn't make Her any less real to me.  

At least no more so than my skepticism regarding _your_ God makes Him/Her/It any less real to you in _your_ heart.



Care to know how many belief sets, or 'religions' there are on any given day?  
Count humanity.​


Beliefs are like nipples... Everyone gets a set, and no two sets are identical.  



Attitudes, on the other hand, are like genitals...  Everyone gets a set and the inability to control more than one set can be... frustrating.
​


----------



## koshergrl

pacer said:


> "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."  Richard Dawkins



"There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example  of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was 7 years  old, she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
              &#8220;At the same time, a friend of hers, also 7, who was of a Protestant  family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant,  she had gone to hell and will be roasting in hell forever.
              &#8220;She told me, of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it  was yucky, but she got over it. But the mental abuse of being told  about hell, she took years to get over. " 
Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again - Abby Ohlheiser - The Atlantic Wire​


----------



## pacer

AVG-JOE said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?
> 
> 
> People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, that's true!
> 
> Just 'cause _my_ God is imaginary to you doesn't make Her any less real to me.
> 
> At least no more so than my skepticism regarding _your_ God makes Him/Her/It any less real to you in _your_ heart.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to know how many belief sets, or 'religions' there are on any given day?
> Count humanity.​
> 
> 
> Beliefs are like nipples... Everyone gets a set, and no two sets are identical.
> 
> 
> 
> Attitudes, on the other hand, are like genitals...  Everyone gets a set and inability to control more than one set can be... frustrating.
> ​
Click to expand...

That is so true.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Allow me to start by clarifying that I am not a man of faith.  I don't presume to know whether or not there's anything more to this existence than what I've observed, or even to know whether what I've observed is reality.  

So assuming that the assumptions that sincere, Christian prayers backed by honest faith don't work is correct (and I know quite a few Christians who'd vehemently disagree based on experiences they've claimed to have had) and you've proved that the bible is fallible, how does it follow that you've disproven the existence of even the Judeo-Christian god?  Consider the possibility that despite claims to infallibility and 100% divine inspiration, the bible, being written by man, is in fact riddled with mistakes, but that a good deal was actually inspired by the divine, which happens to be the being that, for the most part, the bible describes as God.  I won't argue the likelihood of this scenario by any means, as I'm not a believer myself, I simply draw this illustration to point out that this proof that God is imaginary leaves doubt, even where Christianity is concerned.

The greater question is this:  Assuming that this was undeniable proof that Christianity is false, how does that then disprove the existence of any god?  There are infinite potential explanations for existence.  Even if you had managed to strike one down beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, how does it follow that you've disproven every explanation involving a god?

As a side note, this burden of proof argument that keeps happening between the religious and the atheists is the silliest shit ever.  The only way you're not making an assertion is if you accept the possibility of either (that there is a god or that there is not).  If you say, there is a god, you've made an assertion and the burden of proving that assertion lies with you.  If you say there is no god, you've also made an assertion and the burden of proof for -that- assertion lies with you.  Quit trying to pawn your responsibilities off on each other, you lazy zealots.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Allow me to start by clarifying that I am not a man of faith.  I don't presume to know whether or not there's anything more to this existence than what I've observed, or even to know whether what I've observed is reality.
> 
> So assuming that the assumptions that sincere, Christian prayers backed by honest faith don't work is correct (and I know quite a few Christians who'd vehemently disagree based on experiences they've claimed to have had) and you've proved that the bible is fallible, how does it follow that you've disproven the existence of even the Judeo-Christian god?  Consider the possibility that despite claims to infallibility and 100% divine inspiration, the bible, being written by man, is in fact riddled with mistakes, but that a good deal was actually inspired by the divine, which happens to be the being that, for the most part, the bible describes as God.  I won't argue the likelihood of this scenario by any means, as I'm not a believer myself, I simply draw this illustration to point out that this proof that God is imaginary leaves doubt, even where Christianity is concerned.
> 
> The greater question is this:  Assuming that this was undeniable proof that Christianity is false, how does that then disprove the existence of any god?  There are infinite potential explanations for existence.  Even if you had managed to strike one down beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, how does it follow that you've disproven every explanation involving a god?
> 
> As a side note, this burden of proof argument that keeps happening between the religious and the atheists is the silliest shit ever.  The only way you're not making an assertion is if you accept the possibility of either (that there is a god or that there is not).  If you say, there is a god, you've made an assertion and the burden of proving that assertion lies with you.  If you say there is no god, you've also made an assertion and the burden of proof for -that- assertion lies with you.  Quit trying to pawn your responsibilities off on each other, you lazy zealots.



Proved, proven, disproved, disproven. . . I've gotta brush up on my vocabulary


----------



## AVG-JOE

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..



Same reason evangelical Christians, Muslims, Hari Krishnas, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. are hell bent on spreading the Word...  They think they know in which direction happiness lay.



Tolerance really is the key.  

Unless one God or another reestablishes provable contact via a burning bush or some such on CNN & FOX pretty soon, we're going to have to figure out a better way to get along while we wait.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

hjmick said:


> Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?
> 
> 
> People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.



For the most part, distinguishing people of faith -and- atheists seems redundant.


----------



## hortysir

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
Click to expand...


Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?


----------



## AVG-JOE

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
Click to expand...


*No.  

That would be an official USMB  and more red ink would be spilled.*


----------



## pacer

"The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture."  Richard Dawkins


----------



## AVG-JOE

turzovka said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out for your reading pleasure.  There is a ton of material.
> 
> God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool web site.   Thanks.
> 
> Question for you:    How many miracles would it take to convince you that the supernatural is real?    One?   Two?
Click to expand...


Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Love the attack the messenger approach.  "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."

Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.

A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it.  Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?


----------



## AVG-JOE

hortysir said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?
Click to expand...


Do we _*have*_ to?    



Sounds like paperwork.


----------



## percysunshine

By definition, the existence of a supernatural being can be neither proven nor disproven.

Yet people keep trying to do both. Oh well.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm not sure that a loon who maintains that teaching children the Bible is *worse* than molesting them is the go-to person with regards to the validity and value of the Bible. Why should we listen to an admitted reprobate regarding our value system? He has no particular expertise, he isn't a historian, archaeologist or Biblical scholar. So why would we not consider his background and the insanity he is currently spouting when we're being asked to give him credence?

The analogy wouldn't be Manson and the color of the sky..but rather should we lend Manson credence regarding the value of human life?


----------



## koshergrl

And is a man who maintains that child molestation is not as harmful as Sunday school be taken seriously on the topic of the sins of religion?


----------



## hjmick

AVG-JOE said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we _*have*_ to?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like paperwork.
Click to expand...



Sounds like there might be math involved...


----------



## pacer

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Love the attack the messenger approach.  "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."
> 
> Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.
> 
> A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it.  Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?


I do not believe I could trust someone whose only reason for being good was to avoid punishment or to gain reward from the "mythological magical sky daddy."


----------



## daws101

RetiredGySgt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian simply for disagreeing with a certain Christian member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to post PM's without the senders permission. Sorry to burst your bubble but God exists.
Click to expand...

 wrong. there is no proof that god does or does not exist..that conundrum is not a licence for believers to exploit it.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Given the nature of the statement, whether or not you trust the man is irrelevant.  He's not asking you to purchase anything or trying to convince you to let him babysit your kids, just spouting philosophical opinions.  Rather than saying his statements are true or false based on your knowledge of his sexual history, why not take an honest look at what he's saying and use your ability to reason to decide whether or not there's any validity to what he's proposed.

Good God, kids.  Turn your logic on.


----------



## koshergrl

Another progressive gasbag who thinks he knows what people think.

Why don't you just focus on what people actually say, hmm? Leave the mind reading to the professionals.


----------



## pacer

pacer said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the attack the messenger approach.  "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."
> 
> Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.
> 
> A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it.  Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe I could trust someone whose only reason for being good was to avoid punishment or to gain reward from the "mythological magical sky daddy."
Click to expand...

Disregard this post.  I quoted the wrong thread.


----------



## koshergrl

So you think we should throw out the moral code we have, and replace it with his? That's certainly logical. Why is his preferable?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

pacer said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the attack the messenger approach.  "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."
> 
> Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.
> 
> A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it.  Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe I could trust someone whose only reason for being good was to avoid punishment or to gain reward from the "mythological magical sky daddy."
Click to expand...


Conversely, assuming everything someone says is false because you don't agree with their religion or what you assume to be their motives for observing that religion, that's equally silly.

I won't go into the reasoning, kinda redundant after my previous post.  In stead I'll assume you were saying this ironically to counter koshergirl's similar argument.


----------



## pacer

Not2BSubjugated said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the attack the messenger approach.  "That guy said some perverted shit, so anything he says must be false."
> 
> Sorry, but if Charles Manson told me the sky was blue I wouldn't start assuming that I was color blind.
> 
> A statement is either valid or it is not, regardless of the mouth spewing it.  Can we debate the point in stead of playing sophist?
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe I could trust someone whose only reason for being good was to avoid punishment or to gain reward from the "mythological magical sky daddy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conversely, assuming everything someone says is false because you don't agree with their religion or what you assume to be their motives for observing that religion, that's equally silly.
> 
> I won't go into the reasoning, kinda redundant after my previous post.  In stead I'll assume you were saying this ironically to counter koshergirl's similar argument.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I quoted the wrong thread.  I totally agree with you.


----------



## koshergrl

No, he isn't smart enough to catch the irony.


----------



## turzovka

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Allow me to start by clarifying that I am not a man of faith.  I don't presume to know whether or not there's anything more to this existence than what I've observed, or even to know whether what I've observed is reality.
> 
> So assuming that the assumptions that sincere, Christian prayers backed by honest faith don't work is correct (and I know quite a few Christians who'd vehemently disagree based on experiences they've claimed to have had) and you've proved that the bible is fallible, how does it follow that you've disproven the existence of even the Judeo-Christian god?  Consider the possibility that despite claims to infallibility and 100% divine inspiration, the bible, being written by man, is in fact riddled with mistakes, but that a good deal was actually inspired by the divine, which happens to be the being that, for the most part, the bible describes as God.  I won't argue the likelihood of this scenario by any means, as I'm not a believer myself, I simply draw this illustration to point out that this proof that God is imaginary leaves doubt, even where Christianity is concerned.
> 
> The greater question is this:  Assuming that this was undeniable proof that Christianity is false, how does that then disprove the existence of any god?  There are infinite potential explanations for existence.  Even if you had managed to strike one down beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, how does it follow that you've disproven every explanation involving a god?
> 
> As a side note, this burden of proof argument that keeps happening between the religious and the atheists is the silliest shit ever.  The only way you're not making an assertion is if you accept the possibility of either (that there is a god or that there is not).  If you say, there is a god, you've made an assertion and the burden of proving that assertion lies with you.  If you say there is no god, you've also made an assertion and the burden of proof for -that- assertion lies with you.  Quit trying to pawn your responsibilities off on each other, you lazy zealots.



Not the easiest narrative to follow;  you sometimes seemed to be implying that I was doubting God?    Anyway, we all live by certain axioms or truths that do not require repeated proof.   I assume I exist and the person I am facing in a room exists.    Given that, I have enough empirical evidence and reasoned evidence for God that I do not need to prove that to myself.  Ever.     If an atheist cannot acquiesce to the evidence then I attribute it to an unexplained blindness put there by who know what?   Probably pride, the devils favorite weapon.

FYI, I am Catholic and we do not refer to Scripture as infallible, nor literal.   It is the inspired Word of God, yes, we do refer to it as that.    If there are paradoxes contained therein, it is for a purpose.   If there are contradictions, I am pretty certain it is based on circumstance.   The Book of Eccclesiastes says a time to build up, a time to tear down, a time to embrace, a time to shun embraces.   Circumtstances and learned reason dictate the course.

PS  Cannot say I was charmed by your Milton Friedman reference.   That has to appear on everyone of your posts?


----------



## turzovka

AVG-JOE said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out for your reading pleasure.  There is a ton of material.
> 
> God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool web site.   Thanks.
> 
> Question for you:    How many miracles would it take to convince you that the supernatural is real?    One?   Two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.
Click to expand...



Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more.  I.E.,  miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof.   The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred.   This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored.      Then we hear sometime later  "there is no evidence for God."


----------



## NoNukes

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..



Most of us are not. We just do not believe.


----------



## dblack

hjmick said:


> Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?



People who seek a clearer understanding of their lives.

I think the reason this question is problematic is because we inaccurately equate 'imaginary' with 'not real'.


----------



## orogenicman

hjmick said:


> Who cares if GOD is imaginary or not?
> 
> 
> People of faith will not likely change there opinion on the matter, and the same can be said of atheists.



On the contrary.  If you show me unambiguous, repeatable, fasifiable evidence for the existence of your god, I will most likely change my opinion on the matter.  Got anything like that?


----------



## Ernie S.

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
Click to expand...


Oh. How many threads do you see here started by people trying to convince atheists to become believers? We may not agree with your choices, but in general, we let you be. Show us the same courtesy.


----------



## Ernie S.

pacer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha You have that reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
Click to expand...


I'd like that.


----------



## pacer

Ernie S. said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like that.
Click to expand...

haha  I would not.  I was merely trying to point out that simply disagreeing with certain Christian philosophy can draw the wrath of some members.


----------



## Ernie S.

RetiredGySgt said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian simply for disagreeing with a certain Christian member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to post PM's without the senders permission. Sorry to burst your bubble but God exists.
Click to expand...


Shhhh!


----------



## Ernie S.

AVG-JOE said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you, or did you not, start this thread??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No.
> 
> That would be an official USMB  and more red ink would be spilled.*
Click to expand...


You too! Quiet!


----------



## Ernie S.

AVG-JOE said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started the thread for everyone's reading enjoyment.  Shall I post what I was sent via PM from a Christian member simply for disagreeing with another member?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we compare the number of threads started by atheists denying God to the number started by Christians asserting there IS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we _*have*_ to?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like paperwork.
Click to expand...


So? You're getting paid for it. Hop to it, Joe


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

As a police officer for 20 years, I've seen and been near many, many people when they have passed from this earth.  I have held broken bodies, held their face in my hands reaching through shattered windshields, held their hands and told them that they would be okay, even if I knew that they wouldn't.  I held my 41 day old son in my arms while he passed away.  And I sat holding her hand as the only woman I have ever loved slipped away to be with her father and the son we lost in heaven.

When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.  

I know of many instances as well of people who had tumors, cancers, sicknesses that should have taken their lives come from doctor visits only to report that those things are just gone.  No sign.  Nothing.  Just gone and cured.

God is real and He is alive, working with His children each and every day.  As an evangelical Christian I choose to believe that the Christian bible is the written word of God and that Jesus Christ was His living Son.  But I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Catholics and Jewish followers of their faith.  As an American, I don't care if you wish to worship door knobs, that is your right as a citizen. 

As for athiests, I have no animosity because when I was young, I was a devoted athiest.  I do pity athiests because they put their faith into a flawed organism as their supreme being.  If man is the height of this universe and there is no more, then my friend, we are in deep trouble.

You can post all of the information you want on why there is not a God.  I know what I know and what I have seen and heard.  I get down on my knees everyday and thank Christ for the wisdom to see his works in my life.


----------



## turzovka

pacer said:


> Good book!





How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind | Strange Notions

For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. A couple months before the book's release, Flew sat down with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin Wiker for an interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons that led him to God. 

Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual processa "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"

Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itselfwhich is far more complex than the physical Universecan only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is *Richard Dawkins' comical effort* to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.


----------



## koshergrl

Bingo.


----------



## pacer

"God exists if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."  Richard Dawkins


----------



## orogenicman

OldUSAFSniper said:


> As a police officer for 20 years, I've seen and been near many, many people when they have passed from this earth.  I have held broken bodies, held their face in my hands reaching through shattered windshields, held their hands and told them that they would be okay, even if I knew that they wouldn't.  I held my 41 day old son in my arms while he passed away.  And I sat holding her hand as the only woman I have ever loved slipped away to be with her father and the son we lost in heaven.
> 
> When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.
> 
> I know of many instances as well of people who had tumors, cancers, sicknesses that should have taken their lives come from doctor visits only to report that those things are just gone.  No sign.  Nothing.  Just gone and cured.
> 
> God is real and He is alive, working with His children each and every day.  As an evangelical Christian I choose to believe that the Christian bible is the written word of God and that Jesus Christ was His living Son.  But I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Catholics and Jewish followers of their faith.  As an American, I don't care if you wish to worship door knobs, that is your right as a citizen.
> 
> As for athiests, I have no animosity because when I was young, I was a devoted athiest.  I do pity athiests because they put their faith into a flawed organism as their supreme being.  If man is the height of this universe and there is no more, then my friend, we are in deep trouble.
> 
> You can post all of the information you want on why there is not a God.  I know what I know and what I have seen and heard.  I get down on my knees everyday and thank Christ for the wisdom to see his works in my life.



I hate to break it to you but you aren't the only person on the planet who has witnessed death.  I have witnessed more than my fair share, and I've never witnessed any of the alleged phenomena you claim.  The long and short of it is that 10 anecdotes are no better than one, and 100 are no better than ten.  All we have here is your first person revelation, and as such, no one is obligated to believe that your revelation is any more or less valid than mine or anyone else's.    Anecdotes are not scientific, nor are they objective evidence.

By the way, just because someone's cancer goes into spontaneous remission doesn't mean that it did so at the beck and call of some supreme being.  Cancers sometimes go into spontaneous remission, sometimes for reasons we understand, sometimes for reasons we currently don't.  The god of the gaps is not a valid argument for the existence of the supernatural.


----------



## Alfalfa

While Flew embraced the concept of there potentially being an inteeligent design to the universe, he castegorically rejected the notion of God as presented by christians, muslims and judaism.

"He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[6]

Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[21]"

Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..



Actually, its the other way around. 

You'll never open your door on a Saturday morning to a rude little granny, little kid in tow, loaded down with tracts they want you to read. 

What's actually fascinating is that almost all cultures have had the need for a super being to believe in, lean on, blame and credit. 

Seems like that's a very basic weakness that we humans all share.


----------



## turzovka

Alfalfa said:


> While Flew embraced the concept of there potentially being an inteeligent design to the universe, he castegorically rejected the notion of God as presented by christians, muslims and judaism.
> 
> "He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[6]
> 
> Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[21]"
> 
> Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



One step at a time is all we can hope for.     We have now established Intelligent Design with the previous atheist intelligentsia.   Based on reason.   


PS -- I am rather hostile to Islam myself.


----------



## pacer

OldUSAFSniper said:


> When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.


What you are describing is a state of full body presence or consciousness.  It is a serene, peaceful, beautiful, almost dreamlike state.  Buddhists refer to it as Nirvana, a state of profound peace, calm, stillness of mind.


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, its the other way around.
> 
> You'll never open your door on a Saturday morning to a rude little granny, little kid in tow, loaded down with tracts they want you to read.
> 
> What's actually fascinating is that almost all cultures have had the need for a super being to believe in, lean on, blame and credit.
> 
> Seems like that's a very basic weakness that we humans all share.
Click to expand...


I consider it a strength.

It may be a weakness if your "super being" is government.


----------



## Alfalfa

turzovka said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Flew embraced the concept of there potentially being an inteeligent design to the universe, he castegorically rejected the notion of God as presented by christians, muslims and judaism.
> 
> "He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[6]
> 
> Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[21]"
> 
> Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One step at a time is all we can hope for.     *We have now established Intelligent Design with the previous atheist intelligentsia.   *Based on reason.
> 
> 
> PS -- I am rather hostile to Islam myself.
Click to expand...


No, you haven't.  It was one guy, late in his years bordering on senility.


----------



## deltex1

pacer said:


> Good book!



The god delusion is far better than the no god delusion.


----------



## daws101

OldUSAFSniper said:


> As a police officer for 20 years, I've seen and been near many, many people when they have passed from this earth.  I have held broken bodies, held their face in my hands reaching through shattered windshields, held their hands and told them that they would be okay, even if I knew that they wouldn't.  I held my 41 day old son in my arms while he passed away.  And I sat holding her hand as the only woman I have ever loved slipped away to be with her father and the son we lost in heaven.
> 
> When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.
> 
> I know of many instances as well of people who had tumors, cancers, sicknesses that should have taken their lives come from doctor visits only to report that those things are just gone.  No sign.  Nothing.  Just gone and cured.
> 
> God is real and He is alive, working with His children each and every day.  As an evangelical Christian I choose to believe that the Christian bible is the written word of God and that Jesus Christ was His living Son.  But I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Catholics and Jewish followers of their faith.  As an American, I don't care if you wish to worship door knobs, that is your right as a citizen.
> 
> As for athiests, I have no animosity because when I was young, I was a devoted athiest.  I do pity athiests because they put their faith into a flawed organism as their supreme being.  If man is the height of this universe and there is no more, then my friend, we are in deep trouble.
> 
> You can post all of the information you want on why there is not a God.  I know what I know and what I have seen and heard.  I get down on my knees everyday and thank Christ for the wisdom to see his works in my life.


excellent story and if it works for you then have at it .
on the other hand it's totally subjective.
no atheist that I know considers human kind a supreme being of any kind.
I would say if we need a supreme to worship and deliver punishment ,we are not just in deep trouble but are fated to be treated as violent children forever or at least till imaginary rapture.


----------



## Newby

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Given the nature of the statement, whether or not you trust the man is irrelevant.  He's not asking you to purchase anything or trying to convince you to let him babysit your kids, just spouting philosophical opinions.  Rather than saying his statements are true or false based on your knowledge of his sexual history, why not take an honest look at what he's saying and use your ability to reason to decide whether or not there's any validity to what he's proposed.
> 
> Good God, kids.  Turn your logic on.



You yourself pointed out they're his 'philosophical opinions', so how would they be either true or false, they're opinions?  And why would anyone take the opinion of a man that has an obvious agenda and give it validity?  Not only an agenda, but perhaps the apparent reason behind the agenda has been exposed if he's a proponent of sexual behavior with children.   In that case, his opinion is worthless and deserves no 'honest look'.  I guess if I thought inappropriately touching children caused no harm then I would also like to believe that there is no moral code of any kind to hold me back, and vilify any moral standard that labeled me as deviant.  How's that for 'reason' and 'logic'?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

daws101 said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a police officer for 20 years, I've seen and been near many, many people when they have passed from this earth.  I have held broken bodies, held their face in my hands reaching through shattered windshields, held their hands and told them that they would be okay, even if I knew that they wouldn't.  I held my 41 day old son in my arms while he passed away.  And I sat holding her hand as the only woman I have ever loved slipped away to be with her father and the son we lost in heaven.
> 
> When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.
> 
> I know of many instances as well of people who had tumors, cancers, sicknesses that should have taken their lives come from doctor visits only to report that those things are just gone.  No sign.  Nothing.  Just gone and cured.
> 
> God is real and He is alive, working with His children each and every day.  As an evangelical Christian I choose to believe that the Christian bible is the written word of God and that Jesus Christ was His living Son.  But I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Catholics and Jewish followers of their faith.  As an American, I don't care if you wish to worship door knobs, that is your right as a citizen.
> 
> As for athiests, I have no animosity because when I was young, I was a devoted athiest.  I do pity athiests because they put their faith into a flawed organism as their supreme being.  If man is the height of this universe and there is no more, then my friend, we are in deep trouble.
> 
> You can post all of the information you want on why there is not a God.  I know what I know and what I have seen and heard.  I get down on my knees everyday and thank Christ for the wisdom to see his works in my life.
> 
> 
> 
> excellent story and if it works for you then have at it .
> on the other hand it's totally subjective.
> no atheist that I know considers human kind a supreme being of any kind.
> I would say if we need a supreme to worship and deliver punishment ,we are not just in deep trouble but are fated to be treated as violent children forever or at least till imaginary rapture.
Click to expand...


Here we can agree.  Here and there I come across that sentiment from religious folks, this assumption that human-kind, as a whole, needs to have some higher power to worship.  A spiritual father figure for the entire species.

Personally, I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed to discover that no such being exists.  I don't feel an emptiness within me due to any lack of gods to worship.  Life's pretty fulfilling even if taken at face value.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

turzovka said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to start by clarifying that I am not a man of faith.  I don't presume to know whether or not there's anything more to this existence than what I've observed, or even to know whether what I've observed is reality.
> 
> So assuming that the assumptions that sincere, Christian prayers backed by honest faith don't work is correct (and I know quite a few Christians who'd vehemently disagree based on experiences they've claimed to have had) and you've proved that the bible is fallible, how does it follow that you've disproven the existence of even the Judeo-Christian god?  Consider the possibility that despite claims to infallibility and 100% divine inspiration, the bible, being written by man, is in fact riddled with mistakes, but that a good deal was actually inspired by the divine, which happens to be the being that, for the most part, the bible describes as God.  I won't argue the likelihood of this scenario by any means, as I'm not a believer myself, I simply draw this illustration to point out that this proof that God is imaginary leaves doubt, even where Christianity is concerned.
> 
> The greater question is this:  Assuming that this was undeniable proof that Christianity is false, how does that then disprove the existence of any god?  There are infinite potential explanations for existence.  Even if you had managed to strike one down beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, how does it follow that you've disproven every explanation involving a god?
> 
> As a side note, this burden of proof argument that keeps happening between the religious and the atheists is the silliest shit ever.  The only way you're not making an assertion is if you accept the possibility of either (that there is a god or that there is not).  If you say, there is a god, you've made an assertion and the burden of proving that assertion lies with you.  If you say there is no god, you've also made an assertion and the burden of proof for -that- assertion lies with you.  Quit trying to pawn your responsibilities off on each other, you lazy zealots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the easiest narrative to follow;  you sometimes seemed to be implying that I was doubting God?    Anyway, we all live by certain axioms or truths that do not require repeated proof.   I assume I exist and the person I am facing in a room exists.    Given that, I have enough empirical evidence and reasoned evidence for God that I do not need to prove that to myself.  Ever.     If an atheist cannot acquiesce to the evidence then I attribute it to an unexplained blindness put there by who know what?   Probably pride, the devil&#8217;s favorite weapon.
> 
> FYI, I am Catholic and we do not refer to Scripture as infallible, nor literal.   It is the inspired Word of God, yes, we do refer to it as that.    If there are paradoxes contained therein, it is for a purpose.   If there are contradictions, I am pretty certain it is based on circumstance.   The Book of Eccclesiastes says a time to build up, a time to tear down, a time to embrace, a time to shun embraces.   Circumtstances and learned reason dictate the course.
> 
> PS &#8211; Cannot say I was charmed by your Milton Friedman reference.   That has to appear on everyone of your posts?
Click to expand...


The argument to which you've responded was actually making the point that God, even Christianity in particular, can't be disproved.  You're clearly on the opposite end of the argument and, I must say, no less arrogant about it than the atheists.

If you see what you consider evidence of your God and that's enough for you to believe, more power to you.  Assuming that anybody else who doesn't believe has been stricken with blindness because the evidence is just so obvious, however. . . that's some silly shit.  You point out any piece of evidence of your God and I can offer you a plethora of alternate, potential explanations for that evidence.  The only reason someone coming to a different conclusion from yours could have that conclusion attributed to blindness is that the evidence you've been party to proves your catholic faith beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Pretty sure if anybody had evidence that steep it'd be big news but, since you haven't offered up any specifics, I'll have to leave this at generalities.

P.S. - I put that quote in my sig because I like it, not because I thought you'd like it.  Most devout Christians aren't big Doug Stanhope fans to begin with.


----------



## The Professor

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..



I'm an atheists; I swear to God I am.

The title of the thread is Proof that God is Imaginary;  however, the OP  does not even attempt to prove the non-existence of a Supreme being.  His/her entire argument is that parts of the Christian Bible cannot be believed.  If  everything the OP said were to be taken as absolute truth, the most one could conclude is that the Christian Bible contains elements which are either unbelievable or must be more fully explained in order to be believable.

I believe in God, although I will not define my perception of God; however, my God exists no matter what the Bible, the Qur'an or any other book says or doesn't say.


----------



## pacer

I'm confused.  You say you are atheist and then you say you believe in God.  Everyone perceives God differently for those who believe in God.  So, that fact you believe in a God of your own perception/understanding would make you a believer, would it not?


----------



## koshergrl

Exactly.


----------



## PoliticalChic

pacer said:


> Good book!





*The Devil's Delusion: A*theism and its Scientific Pretensions Paperback
by David Berlinski  (Author)

Better.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Luddly Neddite said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, its the other way around.
> 
> You'll never open your door on a Saturday morning to a rude little granny, little kid in tow, loaded down with tracts they want you to read.
> 
> What's actually fascinating is that almost all cultures have had the need for a super being to believe in, lean on, blame and credit.
> 
> Seems like that's a very basic weakness that we humans all share.
Click to expand...



It's not a _weakness_, Bro'....  It's a productive cost of our greatest gift:  *Sentience*.



The thing that separates the Monkeys from the monkeys and other animals is that Monkeys understand that death is inevitable.  Animals just deal with the next moment as it comes.

Man is an animal that dies very reluctantly its entire life, not just at the end.  Various beliefs in life-after-death scenarios and a psyche that embraces religious beliefs makes evolutionary sense to me, considering how productive humans got as they learned to organize around common beliefs.  

Say what you will about religion... without it, modern society would not be possible.  

Religion taught humans to organize, the greedy industrialized the concept, and 10,000 years later, here we are.   

A simple read of history tells the cost of Religion.  Same can be said of the cost of Industrialization.   WYGD?   



Here's something to put in your pipe and smoke on...  'Religion' made 'Government' necessary. 
​


----------



## AVG-JOE

turzovka said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool web site.   Thanks.
> 
> Question for you:    How many miracles would it take to convince you that the supernatural is real?    One?   Two?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more.  I.E.,  miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof.   The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred.   This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored.      Then we hear sometime later  "there is no evidence for God."
Click to expand...


The point is, once someone BELIEVES they've seen a miracle, they're a 'believer'.  It doesn't take two.


----------



## daws101

Not2BSubjugated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a police officer for 20 years, I've seen and been near many, many people when they have passed from this earth.  I have held broken bodies, held their face in my hands reaching through shattered windshields, held their hands and told them that they would be okay, even if I knew that they wouldn't.  I held my 41 day old son in my arms while he passed away.  And I sat holding her hand as the only woman I have ever loved slipped away to be with her father and the son we lost in heaven.
> 
> When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.
> 
> I know of many instances as well of people who had tumors, cancers, sicknesses that should have taken their lives come from doctor visits only to report that those things are just gone.  No sign.  Nothing.  Just gone and cured.
> 
> God is real and He is alive, working with His children each and every day.  As an evangelical Christian I choose to believe that the Christian bible is the written word of God and that Jesus Christ was His living Son.  But I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Catholics and Jewish followers of their faith.  As an American, I don't care if you wish to worship door knobs, that is your right as a citizen.
> 
> As for athiests, I have no animosity because when I was young, I was a devoted athiest.  I do pity athiests because they put their faith into a flawed organism as their supreme being.  If man is the height of this universe and there is no more, then my friend, we are in deep trouble.
> 
> You can post all of the information you want on why there is not a God.  I know what I know and what I have seen and heard.  I get down on my knees everyday and thank Christ for the wisdom to see his works in my life.
> 
> 
> 
> excellent story and if it works for you then have at it .
> on the other hand it's totally subjective.
> no atheist that I know considers human kind a supreme being of any kind.
> I would say if we need a supreme to worship and deliver punishment ,we are not just in deep trouble but are fated to be treated as violent children forever or at least till imaginary rapture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we can agree.  Here and there I come across that sentiment from religious folks, this assumption that human-kind, as a whole, needs to have some higher power to worship.  A spiritual father figure for the entire species.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed to discover that no such being exists.  I don't feel an emptiness within me due to any lack of gods to worship.  Life's pretty fulfilling even if taken at face value.
Click to expand...

that's as it should be ...we make meaning in life it's not given to us.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

How does God know who he really is? If he is like us, how can he be sure and not be mixed up or gotten confused? That's a long time for oversights to occur.


----------



## freedombecki

pacer said:


> I'm confused. You say you are atheist and then you say you believe in God. Everyone perceives God differently for those who believe in God. So, that fact you believe in a God of your own perception/understanding would make you a believer, would it not?


He was just making a joke, pacer. Some very enchanting and delightful speakers begin their case with a joke. "I swear to God I am an atheist," is such a statement. It was meant to be amusing.

He believes in God, doesn't wish to go into detail here to cause a stir or offend. It's just that he was trying to break a little ice. It wakes up the students in an auditorium and makes them wish to listen once they "get it."

Get it?


----------



## orogenicman

AVG-JOE said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more.  I.E.,  miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof.   The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred.   This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored.      Then we hear sometime later  "there is no evidence for God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, once someone BELIEVES they've seen a miracle, they're a 'believer'.  It doesn't take two.
Click to expand...


Of course, believing in a miracle does not make it real.


----------



## AVG-JOE

It does to the believer.

Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?


----------



## Steven_R

I have no data either way regarding the supernatural. Maybe there's a god, maybe there isn't, maybe there's an unlimited number, maybe there's something no human being can conceptualize, I just don't know. What I do know is the physical and archaeological evidence says that Jehovah and Jesus are no more real than Odin and Thor or Zeus and Hercules and that the Bible is no more an accurate depiction of the creation of the world than the Egyptian Book of the Dead is. 

As a scientist, I'm not interested in the supernatural in any event. I can do nothing with the supernatural, and it doesn't fit anywhere in what I do. There is a natural explanation for every event in whatever plane of existence we're on and my goal is to find those explanations without putting some deity in the equation. If we start saying "dunno, ergo God did it" I'm out of a job and we might as well stop looking for anything outside of a holy book.

Some atheists are assholes who delight in telling religious people how stupid they are. Some fervently religious types are assholes who delight in telling everyone how they are going to burn for not worshiping exactly as they do. That's not a character flaw for atheists or fundamentalists; that's a human character flaw.


----------



## Steven_R

AVG-JOE said:


> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?



It depends on what the believer is doing with that belief. If someone sees a miracle and it gets them through the day, it's no skin off my nose. If that same believer uses that same miracle as the basis of a new law or tries to shut down science in a classroom because science says the miracle is nothing but a natural process, then it's a different story.


----------



## orogenicman

AVG-JOE said:


> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?



Does it?  What is the objective measure of a delusion?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Steven_R said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what the believer is doing with that belief. If someone sees a miracle and it gets them through the day, it's no skin off my nose. If that same believer uses that same miracle as the basis of a new law or tries to shut down science in a classroom because science says the miracle is nothing but a natural process, then it's a different story.
Click to expand...


Fortunately, respect does not equate to submission, ass-u-me-ing that the believer is as tolerant and respectful as the non-believer, or there is a government in place to guarantee boundaries when respect can no longer be assumed.


----------



## AVG-JOE

orogenicman said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?  What is the objective measure of a delusion?
Click to expand...


Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government, guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.

Have you NEVER been wrong?


----------



## orogenicman

AVG-JOE said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?  What is the objective measure of a delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.
> 
> Have you NEVER been wrong?
Click to expand...


Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?


----------



## turzovka

Alfalfa said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Flew embraced the concept of there potentially being an inteeligent design to the universe, he castegorically rejected the notion of God as presented by christians, muslims and judaism.
> 
> "He supported the idea of an Aristotelian God with "the characteristics of power and also intelligence", stating that the evidence for it was stronger than ever before. He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact though he has allowed a short chapter arguing for Christ's resurrection to be added into his latest book.[6]
> 
> Flew was particularly hostile to Islam, and said it is "best described in a Marxian way as the uniting and justifying ideology of Arab imperialism."[6] In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".[21]"
> 
> Antony Flew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One step at a time is all we can hope for.     *We have now established Intelligent Design with the previous atheist intelligentsia.   *Based on reason.
> 
> 
> PS -- I am rather hostile to Islam myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  It was one guy, late in his years bordering on senility.
Click to expand...


Then senility may be of benefit to some?      Antony Flew used intelligence and reason to conclude that evolution without ID was utterly untenable... comical even, the way Dawkins proposed it.


----------



## turzovka

AVG-JOE said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... if you're not convinced by the first 'miracle', you're still waiting for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more.  I.E.,  miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof.   The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred.   This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored.      Then we hear sometime later  "there is no evidence for God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, once someone BELIEVES they've seen a miracle, they're a 'believer'.  It doesn't take two.
Click to expand...


Another point is that bona fide miracles do not require any belief at all.   God is not limited to natural manifestations only.     I personally find it quite sad to see the desperation in so many trying to explain away the obvious.


----------



## AVG-JOE

orogenicman said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?  What is the objective measure of a delusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.
> 
> Have you NEVER been wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?
Click to expand...


There is no answer, Brother.  One Monkeys delusion is another Monkeys God Almighty.

A neutral government enforcing the right of each and every citizen to believe in whatever bullshit floats their boat is the closest thing to an answer we can expect in a society of hard-headed Monkeys wishing for individual freedom.


----------



## pacer

If God is a necessary condition of objective morality, where would mankind ascertain a means of objective morality, if God did not exist?

Dostoevsky once wrote: _'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'_.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

AVG-JOE said:


> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?



Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope. They fuel our every movement...well many of us. LOL


----------



## Old_Liberal

Sunni Man said:


> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..



That is their religion, a belief in a Godless universe. They place their belief, or base their belief using a limited knowledge. And from this limited knowledge they are so egocentric as to think they can draw conclusions from an extremely limited knowledge of existence. 

In short they may be long on a tentative science, but short on intelligence and honesty, in regards to the limitation of human knowledge. It really is the height of egocentricity. 

Most atheists have tremendous egos, which is the source of their confusion. They don't realize exactly what the ego is. And this creates the delusion from which they then move from. It is best to just ignore them, and their extremely limited knowledge. 

You may as well try to teach a chimp to speak English. Neither the atheist nor the chimp have the capacity to understand. The atheist still views the universe using classical physics. Scientific materialism. Yet materialism begins its life with one helluva assumption. That assumption is that consciousness comes from matter. When it is probably true that matter comes from consciousness. If this is ever proven, these atheists will probably have mental breakdowns, unable to live in a universe that came from consciousness, as their own egos would then be insignificant. 

And so these atheists believe in something that is nothing more than an assumption. Only a big ego could ever do that. But these guys are a supersititious lot.


----------



## orogenicman

AVG-JOE said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personal, ass-u-me-ing a modicum of respect and tolerance on all sides, and / or boundaries enforced by a neutral government guaranteeing the right of each and every citizen to be quite wrong.
> 
> Have you NEVER been wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no answer, Brother.  One Monkeys delusion is another Monkeys God Almighty.
> 
> A neutral government enforcing the right of each and every citizen to believe in whatever bullshit floats their boat is the closest thing to an answer we can expect in a society of hard-headed Monkeys wishing for individual freedom.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that we don't have the clinical capability to define delusions?  Because I can provide evidence that we do, in fact have that capability.


----------



## orogenicman

QuickHitCurepon said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope. They fuel our every movement...well many of us. LOL
Click to expand...


That's an odd claim considering the rather large number of people who don't believe in miracles and yet aren't prepared to put a bullet in their heads.


----------



## orogenicman

Old_Liberal said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is their religion, a belief in a Godless universe. They place their belief, or base their belief using a limited knowledge. And from this limited knowledge they are so egocentric as to think they can draw conclusions from an extremely limited knowledge of existence.
> 
> In short they may be long on a tentative science, but short on intelligence and honesty, in regards to the limitation of human knowledge. It really is the height of egocentricity.
> 
> Most atheists have tremendous egos, which is the source of their confusion. They don't realize exactly what the ego is. And this creates the delusion from which they then move from. It is best to just ignore them, and their extremely limited knowledge.
> 
> You may as well try to teach a chimp to speak English. Neither the atheist nor the chimp have the capacity to understand. The atheist still views the universe using classical physics. Scientific materialism. Yet materialism begins its life with one helluva assumption. That assumption is that consciousness comes from matter. When it is probably true that matter comes from consciousness. If this is ever proven, these atheists will probably have mental breakdowns, unable to live in a universe that came from consciousness, as their own egos would then be insignificant.
> 
> And so these atheists believe in something that is nothing more than an assumption. Only a big ego could ever do that. But these guys are a supersititious lot.
Click to expand...


You just gotta love the way that religious folk completely ignore what atheists are telling them about atheism and simply make up their own utterly ludicrous ad hominem bullshite, as if that is the proper and acceptable way to have a conversation.  None of what you posted was accurate, and I think you know it.  Which makes you someone who argues from willful dishonesty, the worst kind of argument.  Congratulations.


----------



## oldfart

pacer said:


> If God is a necessary condition of objective morality, where would mankind ascertain a means of objective morality, if God did not exist?
> 
> Dostoevsky once wrote: _'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'_.



Most people consider the Dalai Lama a moral person, yet he does not believe in "God".  Your post reveals a cultural conceit based on ignorance which is offensive to half of the world's population as well as being incorrect.  

BTW Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, Shinto, and similar religious/ethical systems are far more rigorous than Christian ethics; they don't give everyone who behaves badly absolution for the harm they do others.  In the eyes of most of the world, the perverted religion is Christianity.


----------



## The Professor

freedombecki said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You say you are atheist and then you say you believe in God. Everyone perceives God differently for those who believe in God. So, that fact you believe in a God of your own perception/understanding would make you a believer, would it not?
> 
> 
> 
> He was just making a joke, pacer. Some very enchanting and delightful speakers begin their case with a joke. "I swear to God I am an atheist," is such a statement. It was meant to be amusing.
> 
> He believes in God, doesn't wish to go into detail here to cause a stir or offend. It's just that he was trying to break a little ice. It wakes up the students in an auditorium and makes them wish to listen once they "get it."
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...


Thanks for explaining it.  I got that phrase (I'm an atheists; I swear to God I am) from a comedian a long time back.  I can't remember whether it was George Carlin or someone else, but I thought it was funny.


----------



## pacer

Please do not shoot the messenger.  I lifted the topic from another website...thought it would generate an interesting discussion on this board.  Sorry if I offended.

I agree it is not necessary to believe in God or divine punishment in order to be a moral person.  I believe morality is biological and that all mankind is inherently good.  Mankind is intrinsically compassionate and can certainly distinguish between right and wrong and good and evil without a set of commandments.


----------



## pacer

freedombecki said:


> He was just making a joke, pacer. Some very enchanting and delightful speakers begin their case with a joke. "I swear to God I am an atheist," is such a statement. It was meant to be amusing.
> 
> He believes in God, doesn't wish to go into detail here to cause a stir or offend. It's just that he was trying to break a little ice. It wakes up the students in an auditorium and makes them wish to listen once they "get it."
> 
> Get it?


Thanx for the explanation, freedombecki.


----------



## Steven_R

All those morals we discuss really boil down to "don't be a dick." Rape, murder, theft, butting into other people's business just stem from ignoring that principle. It doesn't require any divine guidance to not be a dick.


----------



## dblack

Obviously, religion's role in getting everyone 'on the same page' has been crucial to the development of civilization. But there are many things we've been able to find consensus on without common religious beliefs. It certainly doesn't seem _necessary_ for morality, though obviously useful.


----------



## BreezeWood

*Can we be good without God*

in our physiological world there is no God, your choice is to be anything you like - only if you aspire to be a DNA engineer as a Spirit in the Everlasting is the Degree required.


----------



## peach174

If God did not exist, nothing would be here.
No universe and no earth, animals or people.

Look at our society today without having God in your life.
More and More Murders, Wars, thefts, more people lying, young people having no regard to human life, more divorces, more young women getting pregnant, more women raising children by themselves, millions of babies being murdered by abortion. Corruption in almost all Governments of the World.
All because they are not moral and don't have God in their lives.


----------



## Steven_R

There were plenty of wars, murder, thefts, and premarital sex when God was the driving force in people's lives. There were bloody decades and centuries long wars and murders specifically for God's glory.


----------



## theword

pacer said:


> If God is a necessary condition of objective morality, where would mankind ascertain a means of objective morality, if God did not exist?
> 
> Dostoevsky once wrote: _'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'_.



If God didn't exist, no energy would exist, therefore, we wouldn't exist.


----------



## Peterf

pacer said:


> Please do not shoot the messenger.  I lifted the topic from another website...thought it would generate an interesting discussion on this board.  Sorry if I offended.
> 
> I agree it is not necessary to believe in God or divine punishment in order to be a moral person.  I believe morality is biological and that all mankind is inherently good.  Mankind is intrinsically compassionate and can certainly distinguish between right and wrong and good and evil without a set of commandments.




By 'mankind is inherently good'   do you mean that each individual is inherently good?  If so I disagree; psychopathic tendencies, along with other personality, are imo genetically determined.   A psychopath is 'inherently' bad - or so it seems to me.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

orogenicman said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a police officer for 20 years, I've seen and been near many, many people when they have passed from this earth.  I have held broken bodies, held their face in my hands reaching through shattered windshields, held their hands and told them that they would be okay, even if I knew that they wouldn't.  I held my 41 day old son in my arms while he passed away.  And I sat holding her hand as the only woman I have ever loved slipped away to be with her father and the son we lost in heaven.
> 
> When someone dies, you can feel it.  You don't even have to be looking and you can feel it when their soul slips from this earth into heaven or what ever you want to call it.  I can't even describe it but it is something that is real and it is palpable.
> 
> I know of many instances as well of people who had tumors, cancers, sicknesses that should have taken their lives come from doctor visits only to report that those things are just gone.  No sign.  Nothing.  Just gone and cured.
> 
> God is real and He is alive, working with His children each and every day.  As an evangelical Christian I choose to believe that the Christian bible is the written word of God and that Jesus Christ was His living Son.  But I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Catholics and Jewish followers of their faith.  As an American, I don't care if you wish to worship door knobs, that is your right as a citizen.
> 
> As for athiests, I have no animosity because when I was young, I was a devoted athiest.  I do pity athiests because they put their faith into a flawed organism as their supreme being.  If man is the height of this universe and there is no more, then my friend, we are in deep trouble.
> 
> You can post all of the information you want on why there is not a God.  I know what I know and what I have seen and heard.  I get down on my knees everyday and thank Christ for the wisdom to see his works in my life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but you aren't the only person on the planet who has witnessed death.  I have witnessed more than my fair share, and I've never witnessed any of the alleged phenomena you claim.  The long and short of it is that 10 anecdotes are no better than one, and 100 are no better than ten.  All we have here is your first person revelation, and as such, no one is obligated to believe that your revelation is any more or less valid than mine or anyone else's.    Anecdotes are not scientific, nor are they objective evidence.
> 
> By the way, just because someone's cancer goes into spontaneous remission doesn't mean that it did so at the beck and call of some supreme being.  Cancers sometimes go into spontaneous remission, sometimes for reasons we understand, sometimes for reasons we currently don't.  The god of the gaps is not a valid argument for the existence of the supernatural.
Click to expand...


You didn't even get the point of the post.  I don't care if you don't believe.  I don't care if you can give me ten million reasons why there is no God.  

I believe...


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Newby said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the nature of the statement, whether or not you trust the man is irrelevant.  He's not asking you to purchase anything or trying to convince you to let him babysit your kids, just spouting philosophical opinions.  Rather than saying his statements are true or false based on your knowledge of his sexual history, why not take an honest look at what he's saying and use your ability to reason to decide whether or not there's any validity to what he's proposed.
> 
> Good God, kids.  Turn your logic on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself pointed out they're his 'philosophical opinions', so how would they be either true or false, they're opinions?  And why would anyone take the opinion of a man that has an obvious agenda and give it validity?  Not only an agenda, but perhaps the apparent reason behind the agenda has been exposed if he's a proponent of sexual behavior with children.   In that case, his opinion is worthless and deserves no 'honest look'.  I guess if I thought inappropriately touching children caused no harm then I would also like to believe that there is no moral code of any kind to hold me back, and vilify any moral standard that labeled me as deviant.  How's that for 'reason' and 'logic'?
Click to expand...


Still pretty piss poor, honestly.

First off, I never said true or false.  Just because a philosophical opinion can't be proven doesn't mean they're not worth considering.  Certainly there are philosophies that you prefer over other philosophies for various reasons?  Hopefully you don't base that preference on which people propose which philosophies.

Now, if one must ignore the philosophical opinions of anyone with an philosophical agenda, there's really no reason to look into the thoughts of any philosopher ever.

If by agenda you're referring to something more nefarious, a hidden agenda, that's different, to a degree.  However, your basis for that statement is that dude might've had a secret agenda to promote sex with children.  When he essentially said that feeling a child up isn't as bad as fucking one, I don't think that the message he was trying to get across was that sex with kids is awesome.  Given the statement in question, it's pretty hard to make the logical leap that his problem with Christianity is that it doesn't approve of his pedophile agenda, but if I've misinterpreted, please point out where I should've made that connection.

Next, and perhaps most importantly, I wasn't discussing whether or not the guy was "worth looking into".  The idea that I was getting at is that, WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTED WITH A THOUGHT, it seems to me that, if you're confident in your own ability to reason, you can take or leave that thought based on the merit of the thought itself, rather than slipping on your horse-blinders if you find out its from someone of whose morality you disapprove.  If you don't want to read his book because you think he's a pedophile, cool, I wouldn't either.  However, you came to this post like I did and already read the shit, so what's the point in not processing it?  Seems silly as shit.  If you're already here to argue, why not argue the point in stead of playing attack the messenger?


----------



## daws101

AVG-JOE said:


> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?


imo we should take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## daws101

turzovka said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if one reads between the lines they might consider something more.  I.E.,  miracles are presented, documented and offered up as proof.   The skeptic does not render an opinion and moves on, pretty much forgetting such an event ever occurred.   This leaves the believer the task of presenting some other event or proof, where once again it is not disprove, but ignored.      Then we hear sometime later  "there is no evidence for God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, once someone BELIEVES they've seen a miracle, they're a 'believer'.  It doesn't take two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another point is that bona fide miracles do not require any belief at all.   God is not limited to natural manifestations only.     I personally find it quite sad to see the desperation in so many trying to explain away the obvious.
Click to expand...

another false premise ..there is no evidence for god or against god .
to attempted dictate what IS at this point  a concept NOT  A FACT, what "god" could or could not do  is specious speculation.
for believers like yourself, any out of the ordinary event is a miracle even when it's not and that's almost always.
that miracles/ phenomena happen is not evidence of a god.


----------



## daws101

Old_Liberal said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is their religion, a belief in a Godless universe. They place their belief, or base their belief using a limited knowledge. And from this limited knowledge they are so egocentric as to think they can draw conclusions from an extremely limited knowledge of existence.
> 
> In short they may be long on a tentative science, but short on intelligence and honesty, in regards to the limitation of human knowledge. It really is the height of egocentricity.
> 
> Most atheists have tremendous egos, which is the source of their confusion. They don't realize exactly what the ego is. And this creates the delusion from which they then move from. It is best to just ignore them, and their extremely limited knowledge.
> 
> You may as well try to teach a chimp to speak English. Neither the atheist nor the chimp have the capacity to understand. The atheist still views the universe using classical physics. Scientific materialism. Yet materialism begins its life with one helluva assumption. That assumption is that consciousness comes from matter. When it is probably true that matter comes from consciousness. If this is ever proven, these atheists will probably have mental breakdowns, unable to live in a universe that came from consciousness, as their own egos would then be insignificant.
> 
> And so these atheists believe in something that is nothing more than an assumption. Only a big ego could ever do that. But these guys are a supersititious lot.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

The Professor said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused. You say you are atheist and then you say you believe in God. Everyone perceives God differently for those who believe in God. So, that fact you believe in a God of your own perception/understanding would make you a believer, would it not?
> 
> 
> 
> He was just making a joke, pacer. Some very enchanting and delightful speakers begin their case with a joke. "I swear to God I am an atheist," is such a statement. It was meant to be amusing.
> 
> He believes in God, doesn't wish to go into detail here to cause a stir or offend. It's just that he was trying to break a little ice. It wakes up the students in an auditorium and makes them wish to listen once they "get it."
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for explaining it.  I got that phrase (I'm an atheists; I swear to God I am) from a comedian a long time back.  I can't remember whether it was George Carlin or someone else, but I thought it was funny.
Click to expand...

IT also appeared in an episode M*A*S*H


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

pacer said:


> If God is a necessary condition of objective morality, where would mankind ascertain a means of objective morality, if God did not exist?
> 
> Dostoevsky once wrote: _'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'_.



Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). It can also be belief that is not based on proof.[1] The word faith is often used as a substitute for hope, trust or belief.
> 
> In religion, faith often involves accepting claims about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. While some have argued that faith is opposed to reason, proponents of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence. ...



Where some answers lie _can be_ found is in faith. With that in mind, trust can be built. In our chaotic world, the basics of trust, faith, hope, love, etc. need reinforcement.

To discover them, an unbroken value must be present. Accordingly, testimonials won't last otherwise, and application of them rely on diligence.  

If God does exist, the only way to know IMO is to watch for signs and apply what's determined, before time runs out.

If God doesn't exist, time will run out anyway, unless _somebody_ wants it known.


----------



## pacer

Peterf said:


> By 'mankind is inherently good'   do you mean that each individual is inherently good?  If so I disagree; psychopathic tendencies, along with other personality, are imo genetically determined.   A psychopath is 'inherently' bad - or so it seems to me.


We are all born innocent children.  Psychopathic behaviour is derived from some form of mental disorder.


----------



## AVG-JOE

daws101 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> imo we should take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...


In my opinion we should take it with a bucket of salt.

Skepticism about a belief does not equate to disrespect of the believer.


----------



## AVG-JOE

orogenicman said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but that doesn't answer my questions, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no answer, Brother.  One Monkeys delusion is another Monkeys God Almighty.
> 
> A neutral government enforcing the right of each and every citizen to believe in whatever bullshit floats their boat is the closest thing to an answer we can expect in a society of hard-headed Monkeys wishing for individual freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that we don't have the clinical capability to define delusions?  Because I can provide evidence that we do, in fact have that capability.
Click to expand...


Definitions, by definition, are man-made.  Monkeys can define anything that they want - that's one of the attributes of Sentience.  Doesn't make insanity somehow wrong, just categorized.  And if I know humans, it's categorized with exceptions.


Religious freedom means acceptance of each others delusions.


`​


----------



## AVG-JOE

Acceptance within the constraints of agreed upon Civil Law, that is.


----------



## pacer

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.  (Richard Dawkins)


----------



## pacer

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Still pretty piss poor, honestly.
> 
> First off, I never said true or false.  Just because a philosophical opinion can't be proven doesn't mean they're not worth considering.  Certainly there are philosophies that you prefer over other philosophies for various reasons?  Hopefully you don't base that preference on which people propose which philosophies.
> 
> Now, if one must ignore the philosophical opinions of anyone with an philosophical agenda, there's really no reason to look into the thoughts of any philosopher ever.
> 
> If by agenda you're referring to something more nefarious, a hidden agenda, that's different, to a degree.  However, your basis for that statement is that dude might've had a secret agenda to promote sex with children.  When he essentially said that feeling a child up isn't as bad as fucking one, I don't think that the message he was trying to get across was that sex with kids is awesome.  Given the statement in question, it's pretty hard to make the logical leap that his problem with Christianity is that it doesn't approve of his pedophile agenda, but if I've misinterpreted, please point out where I should've made that connection.
> 
> Next, and perhaps most importantly, I wasn't discussing whether or not the guy was "worth looking into".  The idea that I was getting at is that, WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTED WITH A THOUGHT, it seems to me that, if you're confident in your own ability to reason, you can take or leave that thought based on the merit of the thought itself, rather than slipping on your horse-blinders if you find out its from someone of whose morality you disapprove.  If you don't want to read his book because you think he's a pedophile, cool, I wouldn't either.  However, you came to this post like I did and already read the shit, so what's the point in not processing it?  Seems silly as shit.  If you're already here to argue, why not argue the point in stead of playing attack the messenger?


Well said!


----------



## koshergrl

pacer said:


> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Richard Dawkins)


 
Dawkins is certainly ethical.

I know I'm pretty much floored by how ethical he is in his commentary about *mild* pedophilia, and how sending a child to Sunday school is a worse form of child abuse than sexually abusing the same child.


----------



## koshergrl

I mean, that's certainly educated, and sympathetic, and socially apt. Don't you think?


----------



## pacer

pacer said:


> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.


Correction, it was Albert Einstein who was quoted as saying the above.


----------



## koshergrl

Ya huh, lol.


----------



## daws101

AVG-JOE said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> imo we should take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my opinion we should take it with a bucket of salt.
> 
> Skepticism about a belief does not equate to disrespect of the believer.
Click to expand...

to most believers it does ..sad but true.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

orogenicman said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does to the believer.
> 
> Can the rest of us not respect that?  Should we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope. They fuel our every movement...well many of us. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an odd claim considering the rather large number of people who don't believe in miracles and yet aren't prepared to put a bullet in their heads.
Click to expand...


I didn't think it was a claim. In general, people believe in miracles unless you live on Mars.


----------



## pacer

orogenicman said:


> That's an odd claim considering the rather large number of people who don't believe in miracles and yet aren't prepared to put a bullet in their heads.


I agree.  There are no miracles today.  Except for a handful of so-called miracles of the Bible (for those who choose to believe), most phenomena today including those described in the Bible can be explained by science.


----------



## orogenicman

QuickHitCurepon said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope. They fuel our every movement...well many of us. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an odd claim considering the rather large number of people who don't believe in miracles and yet aren't prepared to put a bullet in their heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think it was a claim. In general, people believe in miracles unless you live on Mars.
Click to expand...


In general, not everyone believes in miracles.  And those who don't are not, in general, hopeless.  See how that works?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

pacer said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction, it was Albert Einstein who was quoted as saying the above.
Click to expand...


LMFAO!  In terms of argumentative tactics, I gotta hand it to you.  This shit right here nigga. . . BEAUTIFUL

When the statement comes from Dawkins, it's bullshit because his ethics are in question.

When you clarify that it's an Einstein thought, suddenly I see no argument against it.

I'm seriously giggling my ass off right now.

Thank you, sir.  Anyone trying to identify sheep, talk to this guy!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

orogenicman said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an odd claim considering the rather large number of people who don't believe in miracles and yet aren't prepared to put a bullet in their heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think it was a claim. In general, people believe in miracles unless you live on Mars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In general, not everyone believes in miracles.  And those who don't are not, in general, hopeless.  See how that works?
Click to expand...


I don't believe anyone is hopeless, do you?

I don't see much evidence around of God either.


----------



## orogenicman

QuickHitCurepon said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think it was a claim. In general, people believe in miracles unless you live on Mars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general, not everyone believes in miracles.  And those who don't are not, in general, hopeless.  See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe anyone is hopeless, do you?
> 
> I don't see much evidence around of God either.
Click to expand...


Except for what you said:

"Miracles are the cornerstone of religion and faith. Without them people would abandon hope"


----------



## Ropey

AVG-JOE said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never could figure out why atheists are always so hell bent on convincing other people there is no God??  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, its the other way around.
> 
> You'll never open your door on a Saturday morning to a rude little granny, little kid in tow, loaded down with tracts they want you to read.
> 
> What's actually fascinating is that almost all cultures have had the need for a super being to believe in, lean on, blame and credit.
> 
> Seems like that's a very basic weakness that we humans all share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a _weakness_, Bro'....  It's a productive cost of our greatest gift:  *Sentience*.
> 
> *The thing that separates the Monkeys from the monkeys and other animals is that Monkeys understand that death is inevitable.  Animals just deal with the next moment as it comes.*
> 
> Man is an animal that dies very reluctantly its entire life, not just at the end.  Various beliefs in life-after-death scenarios and a psyche that embraces religious beliefs makes evolutionary sense to me, considering how productive humans got as they learned to organize around common beliefs.
> 
> Say what you will about religion... without it, modern society would not be possible.
> 
> Religion taught humans to organize, the greedy industrialized the concept, and 10,000 years later, here we are.
> 
> A simple read of history tells the cost of Religion.  Same can be said of the cost of Industrialization.   WYGD?
> 
> Here's something to put in your pipe and smoke on...  'Religion' made 'Government' necessary.
> ​
Click to expand...


I agree with that single point of separation. It's not the only one and it's not the main one imho. 

Reverence brother. That's the real difference. Humans bury their dead all the while revering their lives. 

monkeys throw shit. 

^ True Story


----------



## AVG-JOE

Funerary activities play right in to the whole fear of death creating a need for religion which introduced organized activity which all led to what little Sentience Monkeys currently display.

We're getting there, Brother.  Evolution works.
  On to the Stars!​


----------



## Ropey

AVG-JOE said:


> Funerary activities play right in to the whole fear of death creating a need for religion which introduced organized activity which all led to what little Sentience Monkeys currently display.
> 
> We're getting there, Brother.  Evolution works.
> *On to the Stars!*​



Very possibly there was a time when it was just to hide the body from the carrion eaters and we just adopted it as a tradition which then became a reverence due to cultural and religious indoctrination.

I get you. We did think the sun revolved around the Earth. 

Evolution has given the monkey no cause for concern and this Monkey has no concern for the cause unless it's to pause for the cause.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pacer said:


> Good book!



Professor Lennox takes your buddy to school over some of his comments in this book,you should watch the debate.


----------



## pacer

Where can I find the debate?


----------



## pacer

"Why would anybody be intimidated by mere words? I mean, neither I nor any other athiest that I know ever threatens violence. We never threaten to fly planes into skyscrapers. We never threaten suicide bombs. We are very gentle people. All we do is use words to talk about things like the cosmos, the origin of the universe, evolution, the origin of life. What's there to be frightened of? It's just an opinion."  (Richard Dawkins)


----------



## AVG-JOE




----------



## AVG-JOE

pacer said:


> Where can I find the debate?



The internet, Bro'.  The internet.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw]Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## pacer

I found it, thanx.  There is really nothing Professor Lennox can say that hasn&#8217;t already been said in one form or another.  I am now exploring other philosophies, i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.


----------



## pacer

AVG-JOE said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I find the debate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The internet, Bro'.  The internet.
Click to expand...

Thanx AVG-JOE.  I did not find the video you posted, just segments of it.  Thanx for posting it.  I will have a listen.


----------



## Derideo_Te

AVG-JOE said:


> Funerary activities play right in to the whole fear of death creating a need for religion which introduced organized activity which all led to what little Sentience Monkeys currently display.
> 
> We're getting there, Brother.  Evolution works.
> On to the Stars!​



While the spark of life is strong the fear of losing it has meaning. But for those who are in pain death means a release. Our sentience is still trying to understand both of these concepts. Don't know if we will manage that feat before we reach the stars.

But like all my fellow Monkeys a "road trip" is always more fun that thinking!


----------



## pacer

Wow!&#8230;what an excellent debate.   Thank you for introducing it.  Just finished watching it.  There&#8217;s a heck of a lot to absorb.  Both Lennox and Dawkins put forward excellent arguments.  I found Professor Lennox&#8217;s rationale for the existence of God/Jesus particularly strong.  Does anyone know where I can find a complete written transcript of this debate?


----------



## AVG-JOE

The internet?


----------



## pacer

AVG-JOE said:


> The internet?


I'm searching.  I was merely asking in case someone already found a written transcript.  Thanx.


----------



## Newby

pacer said:


> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. *Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment *and hope of reward after death.  (Richard Dawkins)



How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone?  Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept.  We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished.  So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance?  Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?

So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct?  Majority rules?  Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?


----------



## Newby

pacer said:


> "Why would anybody be intimidated by mere words? I mean, neither I nor any other athiest that I know ever threatens violence. We never threaten to fly planes into skyscrapers. We never threaten suicide bombs. We are very gentle people. All we do is use words to talk about things like the cosmos, the origin of the universe, evolution, the origin of life. What's there to be frightened of? It's just an opinion."  (Richard Dawkins)



Words are not a weapon?   Just look at the threads you yourself have started?  If you're not threatened by those who believe differently than you, then why you do you feel the need to denegrate them on a constant basis?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Newby said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. *Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment *and hope of reward after death.  (Richard Dawkins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone?  Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept.  We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished.  So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance?  Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?
> 
> *So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct?  Majority rules?  Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?*
Click to expand...


  Exactly!!


This is why Civil Law needs to accommodate ALL religions and beliefs, and why Civil Law must trump every Religious Law, whenever the two conflict.

`​


----------



## PoliticalChic

AVG-JOE said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. *Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment *and hope of reward after death.  (Richard Dawkins)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone?  Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept.  We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished.  So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance?  Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?
> 
> *So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct?  Majority rules?  Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!!
> 
> 
> This is why Civil Law needs to accommodate ALL religions and beliefs, and why Civil Law must trump every Religious Law, whenever the two conflict.
> 
> `​
Click to expand...



No doubt, Joey, you have the Common Law in mind.

 In 530 a second commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated. Fifteen centuries later, the Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the *Civil Law tradition.* The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: The will of the prince has the force of law.( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) 

 Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.

In *Anglo-American Common Law tradition, *the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, *Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. * Under Justinians code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, law incarnate.
"Justinian's Flea," Wm. Rosen





Then, of course, there is the origin of law, itself.


The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor. It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge"


----------



## PoliticalChic

pacer said:


> "God exists if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."  Richard Dawkins




Dawkins????

Really?

1.	Dawkins, among others, has embraced the multiverse, [the Landscape] idea, that there could be *an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. *

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to *infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental  physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos.* And- the entire gargantuan structure *scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*

2.	Now, get this: 
Dawkins actually writes, The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.
Berlinski


----------



## PoliticalChic

Alfalfa said:


> The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.



...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Given the nature of the statement, whether or not you trust the man is irrelevant.  He's not asking you to purchase anything or trying to convince you to let him babysit your kids, just spouting philosophical opinions.  Rather than saying his statements are true or false based on your knowledge of his sexual history, why not take an honest look at what he's saying and use your ability to reason to decide whether or not there's any validity to what he's proposed.
> 
> Good God, kids.  Turn your logic on.



Speaking of logic.....

 Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."


Logical?

Either agree with me or you are ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked?


----------



## Capstone

koshergrl said:


> Still utter tripe.



Look, it's okay to disagree so persistently with Politicalchic, but you might want to actually back up your assessment of his or her argument.

Just a friendly piece of advice.


----------



## Capstone

PoliticalChic said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.
Click to expand...


Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred *in spite* of "the inerrant Word of God". In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an _objective_ set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.

 As an example of moral relativism in the scriptures (one of many), consider the quandary of David's _wives_ and neighbor:   

(2 Samuel 12:11-12) 11Thus says the LORD: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; *and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.* 12For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' [emphasis mine]

Of course, I realize your God was upset, but I wonder of the message sent by using *the sin of adultery* (an act clearly condemned in the Ten Commandments) as a method of punishment?! Doesn't this imply that we're expected to follow a modified version of the adage: "Do as I say; not as I do."? At least as far as David's wives and neighbor were concerned, it was apparently: "Do as I say 'til I say to do otherwise."! I suppose Christians should hope and pray for _subjective_ discernment in the face of temptation. I mean, whose to say whether that 'still small voice' encouraging sinfulness in the heads of believers is that of God or Satan?!


----------



## The Irish Ram

pacer said:


> &#8220;Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.&#8221;
> 
> &#8213; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion



How about righteous living for Christ's sake.    After all, He laid down His life for us.  It's the least we can do, considering what has been done on our behalf.........  

The fact that *that * reason is left out of Dawkins question regarding reasons to live well, tells me that Dawkins suffers from a lack of understanding.  He needs to read The Book, not write one.


----------



## Alfalfa

PoliticalChic said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.
Click to expand...


Are you saying morality should be based on rewards and punishments?

Doesn't that relegate humanity to the station of Pavlov's dogs?


----------



## The Irish Ram

> Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred in spite of "the inerrant Word of God".



lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities.  I grew up with no locks on our doors.  Try that now.


----------



## koshergrl

Capstone said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred *in spite* of "the inerrant Word of God". In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an _objective_ set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.
> 
> As an example of moral relativism in the scriptures (one of many), consider the quandary of David's _wives_ and neighbor:
> 
> (2 Samuel 12:11-12) 11Thus says the LORD: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; *and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.* 12For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' [emphasis mine]
> 
> Of course, I realize your God was upset, but I wonder of the message sent by using *the sin of adultery* (an act clearly condemned in the Ten Commandments) as a method of punishment?! Doesn't this imply that we're expected to follow a modified version of the adage: "Do as I say; not as I do."? At least as far as David's wives and neighbor were concerned, it was apparently: "Do as I say 'til I say to do otherwise."! I suppose Christians should hope and pray for _subjective_ discernment in the face of temptation. I mean, whose to say whether that 'still small voice' encouraging sinfulness in the heads of believers is that of God or Satan?!
Click to expand...

 
Tripe, no matter how many times you delete it and repost it.

And reported, btw. Spamming isn't allowed.


----------



## Capstone

The Irish Ram said:


> [...] He needs to read The Book, not write one.



Which translation? 

Whichever, should he take it literally or figuratively, or would it be more proper to use various modes of exegesis for different passages?  

If the latter, how would he determine (_objectively_ speaking) when to interpret shit literally or figuratively?


----------



## Capstone

koshergrl said:


> Tripe, no matter how many times you delete it and repost it.



Someone has no sense of humor.

But my, what a _thorough_ refutation on your part, Koshergrl. 

I guess I should tuck tail and run away now, eh.


----------



## koshergrl

The evolution of the ethical sensibilities of mankind worldwide is directly attributable to the evolution of Christianity and, to a lesser degree, other religions. In the western world, hospitals, schools, the concept of liberty and justice, all the greatest endeavors and the most amazing works of art and literature have sprung into existence and taken root as a result of people striving to represent God on earth or to follow the teachings of the bible.

The great minds since the beginning of time have been primarily motivated by their faith and their desire to do great works in the name of God, and the greatest institutions and humanitarian movements all have God and the Word as their foundation.

You can blather your silly, arrogant and meaningless blather all you like, but at the end of the day, there's the crap you're trying to sell..and then there's the truth.


----------



## Capstone

The Irish Ram said:


> lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities.  I grew up with no locks on our doors.  Try that now.



Still, at least we needn't worry about being drawn and quartered on allegations of heresy.


----------



## Chuckt

Capstone said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities. I grew up with no locks on our doors. Try that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least we needn't worry about being drawn and quartered on allegations of heresy.
Click to expand...

 
 


> The cases of people sacked probably have more to do with the quality of their work then anything else. Thinking about ID should&#65279; not be prohibited. lets try formulate testable hypotheses and come up with a prediction of what we should find when we assume ID.
> Aside from normal petty politics that effect everyone there is no conspiracy in science against the threat of an ID theory.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Capstone said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred *in spite* of "the inerrant Word of God". In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an _objective_ set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.
> 
> As an example of moral relativism in the scriptures (one of many), consider the quandary of David's _wives_ and neighbor:
> 
> (2 Samuel 12:11-12) 11Thus says the LORD: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; *and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.* 12For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.' [emphasis mine]
> 
> Of course, I realize your God was upset, but I wonder of the message sent by using *the sin of adultery* (an act clearly condemned in the Ten Commandments) as a method of punishment?! Doesn't this imply that we're expected to follow a modified version of the adage: "Do as I say; not as I do."? At least as far as David's wives and neighbor were concerned, it was apparently: "Do as I say 'til I say to do otherwise."! I suppose Christians should hope and pray for _subjective_ discernment in the face of temptation. I mean, whose to say whether that 'still small voice' encouraging sinfulness in the heads of believers is that of God or Satan?!
Click to expand...




"....modern ethical sensibilities ...."

Do I assume correctly, then, that you endorse the moral relativism of the postmodern era?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Alfalfa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole of cristianity is based on a cynical and archaic system of rewards and punishments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...without which there can be no morality.....merely opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying morality should be based on rewards and punishments?
> 
> Doesn't that relegate humanity to the station of Pavlov's dogs?
Click to expand...



1. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion? Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God." 
Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers 
Why, then, the need for criminal law? 


2. If we take the good and bad at the extremes, I'll call James Madison as my first witness. He wrote the following in Federalist #51:
 If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary... A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. So, the checks and balances are needed because folks are not....'good.' At least, not angels.

a.  52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. David Limbaugh

3. Can a human being be good without reference to God? Sure.there could be good pagans.or bad religious folks.* But God is necessary for morality to survive. *Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Capstone said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities.  I grew up with no locks on our doors.  Try that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least we needn't worry about being drawn and quartered on allegations of heresy.
Click to expand...


Not true.

The modern version:

1.	The following details the fate of any scientist who dares to buck the orthodoxy.

a.	&#8220; Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue &#8230;included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."* Here was trouble.*

b.	 *&#8230;the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. *According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms &#8230;are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c.	Mr. Sternberg's &#8230; *future as a researcher is in jeopardy &#8230;He has been penalized* by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned&#8230;. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d.	Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. 

e.	 He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. *ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.*

f.	&#8230;it was indeed *subject to peer review,* the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."  the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: *"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no*. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, *'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'"* The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: *"There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."*
[Fascism in action!]

g.	*Worries about being perceived as "religious" *spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h.	The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It *did not address its arguments *but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i.	*Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. *They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j.	*Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity.* The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.&#8221;                                                              The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com





Amusing how the title of the WSJ's article smashes your post.....




An echo of what Berlinski writes in "The Devil's Delusion,"...

'So, it seems that in our time, *much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought,* and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, *like any militant church, science* places a familiar demand before all others:
 &#8220;Thou shalt have no other gods before me.&#8221;'


----------



## Capstone

koshergrl said:


> The evolution of the ethical sensibilities of mankind worldwide is directly attributable to the evolution of Christianity and, to a lesser degree, other religions. [...]



But if its basis were truly objective (in other words: not subject to the sort of  "opinions" derided by Political Chic) why should Christian morality have been driven to _evolve_ in the first place?

To illustrate my point, today there are numerous international laws concerning the ethics of war, and more specifically, the treatment of captured enemy combatants and civilians; but  this is the sort of thing we find littering the pages of Christian holy writ:



> *3* ["]Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.&#8217;&#8221;



More here, here, here, here, ETC, ETC, ETC...(there are others, but I don't have all day)

And the phenomenon is by no means limited to the ethics of war.

The fact that theologians have been forced to invent a buttload of extra-biblical modes of exegesis ...and to write volumes upon volumes of apologetic manuals, all in order to paint the god-sanctioned atrocities of the scriptures in the best possible light (with the unintended consequence of multiple denominations with opposing views of 'The Word'), only shores up the notion that the Bible is practically useless as an _objective_ source for anything.



koshergrl said:


> [. . .]In the western world, hospitals, schools, the concept of liberty and justice, all the greatest endeavors and the most amazing works of art and literature have sprung into existence and taken root as a result of people striving to represent God on earth or to follow the teachings of the bible.



The general development of all triumphs of the human spirit over faith-based oppression (often via Church-directed policies to retard ANY work or discovery that might've remotely called into question the doctrines and authorities of the _churches_--I'm not talking only about the Catholics) ...is just that: a triumph of the HUMAN spirit.



koshergrl said:


> [. . .]The great minds since the beginning of time have been primarily motivated by their  faith and their desire to do great works in the name of God, and the greatest institutions and humanitarian movements all have God and the Word as their foundation.



Of course your christ-colored glasses disallow you to see the truths expressed very conservatively here, here, and here.




koshergrl said:


> [. . .]You can blather your silly, arrogant and meaningless blather all you like, but at the end of the day, there's the crap you're trying to sell..and then there's the truth.



And _you_ can ((blaaaather)) on sheep-like in the face of historical facts 'til the cows come home; it won't change *the truth* regarding the nature of the basis for Christian ethics -- namely that it's a pile of _subjective_ bullshit.


----------



## koshergrl

Really. Tell me which of the first great halls of learning were funded and established by atheists.

Share with us how the Magna Carta is an atheist document. Please. 

Tell me how atheists freed the slaves, and lobbied for equal rights for all people, and how many atheists spent time in prison protesting the conditions and the practice of jailing entire families.

I'll wait.


----------



## Steven_R

Chuckt said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities. I grew up with no locks on our doors. Try that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least we needn't worry about being drawn and quartered on allegations of heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cases of people sacked probably have more to do with the quality of their work then anything else. Thinking about ID should&#65279; not be prohibited. lets try formulate testable hypotheses and come up with a prediction of what we should find when we assume ID.
> Aside from normal petty politics that effect everyone there is no conspiracy in science against the threat of an ID theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nobody is being denied the opportunity to do work with Intelligent Design, provided it goes through the same scientific process as everything else. The problem is it isn't going through those processes and the IDers complain when science doesn't take them seriously. How can science take ID seriously when ID doesn't take the scientific steps? The work that has been done by ID has repeatedly been disproven by science in the professional level (e.g. Behe and his Irreducible Complexity argument), but the overwhelming ID arguments don't take place in a lab, but in the court of public opinion, a place where laymen who have no idea of what the science means somehow are qualified to judge the science.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Steven_R said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least we needn't worry about being drawn and quartered on allegations of heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cases of people sacked probably have more to do with the quality of their work then anything else. Thinking about ID should&#65279; not be prohibited. lets try formulate testable hypotheses and come up with a prediction of what we should find when we assume ID.
> Aside from normal petty politics that effect everyone there is no conspiracy in science against the threat of an ID theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is being denied the opportunity to do work with Intelligent Design, provided it goes through the same scientific process as everything else. The problem is it isn't going through those processes and the IDers complain when science doesn't take them seriously. How can science take ID seriously when ID doesn't take the scientific steps? The work that has been done by ID has repeatedly been disproven by science in the professional level (e.g. Behe and his Irreducible Complexity argument), but the overwhelming ID arguments don't take place in a lab, but in the court of public opinion, a place where laymen who have no idea of what the science means somehow are qualified to judge the science.
Click to expand...




Of course, your post is untrue.....you seem to make a habit of that mode.

Note post #247....and even peer reviewed.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Really. Tell me which of the first great halls of learning were funded and established by atheists.



Share with us how the Magna Carta is an atheist document. Please.[/quote]

What does the Magna Carta have to do with this discussion?



> Tell me how atheists freed the slaves, and lobbied for equal rights for all people, and how many atheists spent time in prison protesting the conditions and the practice of jailing entire families.
> 
> I'll wait.



While you are waiting, perhaps you can compare and contrast the number of religious folk who are sitting in our jails compared to the number of atheists doing the same.

I'll wait.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqNPlwLwIP8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is being denied the opportunity to do work with Intelligent Design, provided it goes through the same scientific process as everything else. The problem is it isn't going through those processes and the IDers complain when science doesn't take them seriously. How can science take ID seriously when ID doesn't take the scientific steps? The work that has been done by ID has repeatedly been disproven by science in the professional level (e.g. Behe and his Irreducible Complexity argument), but the overwhelming ID arguments don't take place in a lab, but in the court of public opinion, a place where laymen who have no idea of what the science means somehow are qualified to judge the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your post is untrue.....you seem to make a habit of that mode.
> 
> Note post #247....and even peer reviewed.
Click to expand...


Repeatedly quoting people out of context after it has been shown repeatedly that they are taken out of context is the epitome of dishonesty.  And PC, post #247 is not peer reviewed.  It's a post on a message board, not a peer reviewed paper published in a professional publication.  By the way, Berlinsk is a retard.  By his own admission, he treats the truth like he treats his ex-wives.   You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## Steven_R

PoliticalChic said:


> The modern version:
> 
> 1.	The following details the fate of any scientist who dares to buck the orthodoxy.
> 
> a.	 Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."* Here was trouble.*
> 
> b.	 *the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. *According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.
> 
> c.	Mr. Sternberg's  *future as a researcher is in jeopardy He has been penalized* by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."



Sternberg's claim to fame was using his position as editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to jam through a pro-ID paper. His career is in tatters because he bypassed the established editorial process. In short, he took the peer out of peer-review and was fired for it. That paper was never peer-reviewed because the journal editor, Sternberg, never sent it to the referees. It had nothing to do with his religious or political beliefs and everything to do with professional misconduct. http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html

There's an online blog called Retraction Watch. Check it out. What Sternberg did is a major no-no in the scientific world. 



> d.	Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology.



Actually, no he doesn't. He holds a PhD from Cambridge in the history and philosophy of science. Stephen C. Meyer - Biography



> In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.
> 
> e.	 He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. *ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.*
> 
> f.	it was indeed *subject to peer review,* the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."  the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: *"First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no*. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, *'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'"* The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: *"There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."*
> [Fascism in action!]
> 
> g.	*Worries about being perceived as "religious" *spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."
> 
> h.	The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It *did not address its arguments *but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.
> 
> i.	*Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. *They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.
> 
> j.	*Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity.* The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.                                                              The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing how the title of the WSJ's article smashes your post.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An echo of what Berlinski writes in "The Devil's Delusion,"...
> 
> 'So, it seems that in our time, *much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought,* and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, *like any militant church, science* places a familiar demand before all others:
> Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'



First off, Meyer isn't a biologist. His expertise, such as it is, is in the philosophy of science. He is not qualified to judge the work of biologists. Even if he were, his books are chockfull of cherry picked statements and regurgitated bits and pieces of information.

Secondly, the entire point is that somehow Sternberg was fired for his religious beliefs and his ID ideas. Unfortunately, the US Office of Special Counsel thinks otherwise and dismissed Sternberg's claims. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/pdfs/2005_08_05_OSC-Sternberg-preclosure-ltr.pdf 

Note on Page 5 of that letter that both the Smithsonian Institution and the NCSE both agreed to let Sternberg continue on with his nonsense so as to not make him into a martyr.


----------



## AVG-JOE

PoliticalChic said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you make such a statement with millions arrested and incarcerated in American prisons alone?  Man absolutely has to be restrained by fear of punishment, we as a society obviously have recognized that and have established our entire society around that concept.  We even have the notion of redemption in serving your time and being allowed back into society once that's accomplished.  So why is that notion any different when applied to the concept of human life not being the only existance or the only stage of existance?  Because that's the only one you're capable of partially understanding?
> 
> *So how do you determine whose morals and ethics are correct?  Majority rules?  Are humans born with a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', with the same understanding and definitions of those two concepts?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!!
> 
> 
> This is why Civil Law needs to accommodate ALL religions and beliefs, and why Civil Law must trump every Religious Law, whenever the two conflict.
> 
> `​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, Joey, you have the Common Law in mind.
> 
> In 530 a second commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated. Fifteen centuries later, the Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the *Civil Law tradition.* The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: The will of the prince has the force of law.( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)
> 
> Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.
> 
> In *Anglo-American Common Law tradition, *the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, *Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. * Under Justinians code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, law incarnate.
> "Justinian's Flea," Wm. Rosen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, of course, there is the origin of law, itself.
> 
> 
> The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor. It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
> Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge"
Click to expand...


I've never said that the writings that coalesced in to the Torah, New Testament and Koran were worthless.  I just don't see any of them as infallible or divine. 

Wisdom is only wisdom if it is built upon.  Anything less is stagnation.


----------



## Ropey

AVG-JOE said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!!
> 
> 
> This is why Civil Law needs to accommodate ALL religions and beliefs, and why Civil Law must trump every Religious Law, whenever the two conflict.
> 
> `​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, Joey, you have the Common Law in mind.
> 
> In 530 a second commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated. Fifteen centuries later, the Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the *Civil Law tradition.* The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: &#8220;The will of the prince has the force of law.&#8221;( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)
> 
> Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.
> 
> In *Anglo-American Common Law tradition, *the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, *Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. * Under Justinians&#8217; code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, &#8220;law incarnate.&#8221;
> "Justinian's Flea," Wm. Rosen
> 
> Then, of course, there is the origin of law, itself.
> 
> 
> The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as &#8220;That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.&#8221; It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
> Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said that the writings that coalesced in to the Torah, New Testament and Koran were worthless.  I just don't see any of them as infallible or divine.
> 
> *Wisdom is only wisdom if it is built upon.  Anything less is stagnation.*
Click to expand...


I tend to disagree although one can extend the understanding of wisdom. One can summarize it and clarify it but the kernel of wisdom is unchanged.   Why?  It's beyond humanity. It's more than life. 

Wisdom is without qualification. Anything less devalues it's inherent immortality.


----------



## orogenicman

Ropey said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, Joey, you have the Common Law in mind.
> 
> In 530 a second commission led by Tribonian had the objective of revising the way lawyers were educated. Fifteen centuries later, the Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the *Civil Law tradition.* The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: &#8220;The will of the prince has the force of law.&#8221;( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem)
> 
> Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails.
> 
> In *Anglo-American Common Law tradition, *the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, *Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. * Under Justinians&#8217; code the emperor is named nomos empsychos, &#8220;law incarnate.&#8221;
> "Justinian's Flea," Wm. Rosen
> 
> Then, of course, there is the origin of law, itself.
> 
> 
> The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as &#8220;That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.&#8221; It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
> Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said that the writings that coalesced in to the Torah, New Testament and Koran were worthless.  I just don't see any of them as infallible or divine.
> 
> *Wisdom is only wisdom if it is built upon.  Anything less is stagnation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree although one can extend the understanding of wisdom. One can summarize it and clarify it but the kernel of wisdom is unchanged.   Why?  It's beyond humanity. It's more than life.
> 
> Wisdom is without qualification. Anything less devalues it's inherent immortality.
Click to expand...


The problem with the notion of wisdom being without qualification or inherently immortal is that it ignores the notion that wisdom can change as more knowledge and experience is obtained.  For instance, in the face of everything that has been achieved in the past 100 years, how wise would it be to cling to the belief that man cannot fly?


----------



## Ropey

orogenicman said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said that the writings that coalesced in to the Torah, New Testament and Koran were worthless.  I just don't see any of them as infallible or divine.
> 
> *Wisdom is only wisdom if it is built upon.  Anything less is stagnation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree although one can extend the understanding of wisdom. One can summarize it and clarify it but the kernel of wisdom is unchanged.   Why?  It's beyond humanity. It's more than life.
> 
> Wisdom is without qualification. Anything less devalues it's inherent immortality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with the notion of wisdom being without qualification or inherently immortal is that it ignores the notion that wisdom can change as more knowledge and experience is obtained.  For instance, in the face of everything that has been achieved in the past 100 years, how wise would it be to cling to the belief that man cannot fly?
Click to expand...


imo?

Truth like wisdom is unchangeable.

Only the interpretations change. The interpretations are incomplete portions of wisdom, then.


----------



## orogenicman

Ropey said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree although one can extend the understanding of wisdom. One can summarize it and clarify it but the kernel of wisdom is unchanged.   Why?  It's beyond humanity. It's more than life.
> 
> Wisdom is without qualification. Anything less devalues it's inherent immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the notion of wisdom being without qualification or inherently immortal is that it ignores the notion that wisdom can change as more knowledge and experience is obtained.  For instance, in the face of everything that has been achieved in the past 100 years, how wise would it be to cling to the belief that man cannot fly?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> Truth like wisdom is unchangeable.
> 
> Only the interpretations change. The interpretations are incomplete portions of wisdom, then.
Click to expand...


Who's truth?  Who's wisdom?  Who decides what is true and wise and what is not?


----------



## Ropey

orogenicman said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the notion of wisdom being without qualification or inherently immortal is that it ignores the notion that wisdom can change as more knowledge and experience is obtained.  For instance, in the face of everything that has been achieved in the past 100 years, how wise would it be to cling to the belief that man cannot fly?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L8UCfxmtSw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> Truth like wisdom is unchangeable.
> 
> Only the interpretations change. The interpretations are incomplete portions of wisdom, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's truth?  Who's wisdom?  Who decides what is true and wise and what is not?
Click to expand...


imo?

If it becomes a person's truth, then it becomes interpretation of the truth. The same with wisdom.  

Truth and wisdom just are and have no ownership. There's more to them than interpretations.

Some people want to own the interpretation as though they have found the wisdom. But since the interpretations of man can change, it is a failed ownership of something that has no owner.


----------



## orogenicman

Ropey said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> Truth like wisdom is unchangeable.
> 
> Only the interpretations change. The interpretations are incomplete portions of wisdom, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's truth?  Who's wisdom?  Who decides what is true and wise and what is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> If it becomes a person's truth, then it becomes interpretation of the truth. The same with wisdom.
> 
> Truth and wisdom just are and have no ownership. There's more to them than interpretations.
> 
> Some people want to own the interpretation as though they have found the wisdom. But since the interpretations of man can change, it is a failed ownership of something that has no owner.
Click to expand...


Saying that truth and wisdom "just are" is a meaningless claim.  I could just as easily say that the tooth fairy "just is", and the claim would be just as nonsensical.

Truth and wisdom, like the concept of morality are human constructs.  Aside from the laws of physics, IMHO, there are no universal truths, none who are universally wise.  Context is everything.  Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges.  Law would be redundant.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is being denied the opportunity to do work with Intelligent Design, provided it goes through the same scientific process as everything else. The problem is it isn't going through those processes and the IDers complain when science doesn't take them seriously. How can science take ID seriously when ID doesn't take the scientific steps? The work that has been done by ID has repeatedly been disproven by science in the professional level (e.g. Behe and his Irreducible Complexity argument), but the overwhelming ID arguments don't take place in a lab, but in the court of public opinion, a place where laymen who have no idea of what the science means somehow are qualified to judge the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your post is untrue.....you seem to make a habit of that mode.
> 
> Note post #247....and even peer reviewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeatedly quoting people out of context after it has been shown repeatedly that they are taken out of context is the epitome of dishonesty.  And PC, post #247 is not peer reviewed.  It's a post on a message board, not a peer reviewed paper published in a professional publication.  By the way, Berlinsk is a retard.  By his own admission, he treats the truth like he treats his ex-wives.   You didn't know this?  Huh.
Click to expand...




You're a proven liar.


Get lost.


----------



## koshergrl

Truth is not a human construct, don't be ridiculous. Truth is fact, and fact is reality. You can say the sky is made of dirt, but that is not the truth, and regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's still not truth. I get so tired of bullshit relativism..which really IS a human construct, completely meaningless, and simply a way to make it *okay* to act on whatever stupid impulse you have.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, your post is untrue.....you seem to make a habit of that mode.
> 
> Note post #247....and even peer reviewed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly quoting people out of context after it has been shown repeatedly that they are taken out of context is the epitome of dishonesty.  And PC, post #247 is not peer reviewed.  It's a post on a message board, not a peer reviewed paper published in a professional publication.  By the way, Berlinsk is a retard.  By his own admission, he treats the truth like he treats his ex-wives.   You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a proven liar.
> 
> 
> Get lost.
Click to expand...


Not so fast, Miss Brooklyn bootlicker.  Show where I've lied or admit that you made it up (i.e., lied).


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Truth is not a human construct, don't be ridiculous. Truth is fact, and fact is reality. You can say the sky is made of dirt, but that is not the truth, and regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's still not truth. I get so tired of bullshit relativism..which really IS a human construct, completely meaningless, and simply a way to make it *okay* to act on whatever stupid impulse you have.



Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true; judged and accepted by fallable human beings.  We decide what is and is not true. Some of us are better at it than others, but we all make a judgement on what that truth is.  Hence, it is a human construct.  Get tired of relativism all you want - it isn't going to go away simply because you don't accept it.


----------



## Ropey

orogenicman said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's truth?  Who's wisdom?  Who decides what is true and wise and what is not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> If it becomes a person's truth, then it becomes interpretation of the truth. The same with wisdom.
> 
> Truth and wisdom just are and have no ownership. There's more to them than interpretations.
> 
> Some people want to own the interpretation as though they have found the wisdom. But since the interpretations of man can change, it is a failed ownership of something that has no owner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying that truth and wisdom "just are" is a meaningless claim.  *I could just as easily say that the tooth fairy "just is", and the claim would be just as nonsensical.
> *
> Truth and wisdom, like the concept of morality are human constructs.  Aside from the laws of physics, IMHO, there are no universal truths, none who are universally wise.  Context is everything.  Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges.  Law would be redundant.
Click to expand...


And the interpretation of what you could easily say would be shown out by wisdom and truth. Then man enters the arena and interprets.

Better judges should have a better interpretation of the truth. Sometimes this is not the case since pride and arrogance are failings that can easily trump the truth in mundane matters. Which is everything *we *really know

They own no truth, and again this is an opinion. 

Go ahead and discount it.


----------



## orogenicman

Ropey said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> If it becomes a person's truth, then it becomes interpretation of the truth. The same with wisdom.
> 
> Truth and wisdom just are and have no ownership. There's more to them than interpretations.
> 
> Some people want to own the interpretation as though they have found the wisdom. But since the interpretations of man can change, it is a failed ownership of something that has no owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that truth and wisdom "just are" is a meaningless claim.  *I could just as easily say that the tooth fairy "just is", and the claim would be just as nonsensical.
> *
> Truth and wisdom, like the concept of morality are human constructs.  Aside from the laws of physics, IMHO, there are no universal truths, none who are universally wise.  Context is everything.  Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges.  Law would be redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the interpretation of what you could easily say would be shown out by wisdom and truth. Then man enters the arena and interprets.
> 
> Better judges should have a better interpretation of the truth. Sometimes this is not the case since pride and arrogance are failings that can easily trump the truth in mundane matters. Which is everything *we *really know
> 
> They own no truth, and again this is an opinion.
> 
> Go ahead and discount it.
Click to expand...


That does not refute my point that the claim "truth and wisdom just are" is meaningless.  My analogy stands.


----------



## Ropey

orogenicman said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that truth and wisdom "just are" is a meaningless claim.  *I could just as easily say that the tooth fairy "just is", and the claim would be just as nonsensical.
> *
> Truth and wisdom, like the concept of morality are human constructs.  Aside from the laws of physics, IMHO, there are no universal truths, none who are universally wise.  Context is everything.  Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges.  Law would be redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the interpretation of what you could easily say would be shown out by wisdom and truth. Then man enters the arena and interprets.
> 
> Better judges should have a better interpretation of the truth. Sometimes this is not the case since pride and arrogance are failings that can easily trump the truth in mundane matters. Which is everything *we *really know
> 
> They own no truth, and again this is an opinion.
> 
> Go ahead and discount it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not refute my point that the claim "truth and wisdom just are" is meaningless.  My analogy stands.
Click to expand...


They all are opinion and so they stand because I don't care to refute you.

I have what I believe already. I put it out there.  

You're looking to be refuted while discussing absolutes vs interpretations of the absolutes.

By saying that one can not prove an absolute?

Analogies are interpretations too and so if you don't have much wisdom to interact with the truth, then yeah, your point can stand, if you say so.


----------



## orogenicman

Ropey said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the interpretation of what you could easily say would be shown out by wisdom and truth. Then man enters the arena and interprets.
> 
> Better judges should have a better interpretation of the truth. Sometimes this is not the case since pride and arrogance are failings that can easily trump the truth in mundane matters. Which is everything *we *really know
> 
> They own no truth, and again this is an opinion.
> 
> Go ahead and discount it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not refute my point that the claim "truth and wisdom just are" is meaningless.  My analogy stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They all are opinion and so they stand because I don't care to refute you.
> 
> I have what I believe already. I put it out there.
> 
> You're looking to be refuted while discussing absolutes vs interpretations of the absolutes.
> 
> By saying that one can not prove an absolute?
> 
> Analogies are interpretations too and so if you don't have much wisdom to interact with the truth, then yeah, your point can stand, if you say so.
Click to expand...


What absolutes, where?  Unless you are talking about physical constants or the absolute value of numbers...


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is not a human construct, don't be ridiculous. Truth is fact, and fact is reality. You can say the sky is made of dirt, but that is not the truth, and regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's still not truth. I get so tired of bullshit relativism..which really IS a human construct, completely meaningless, and simply a way to make it *okay* to act on whatever stupid impulse you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true; judged and accepted by fallable human beings.  We decide what is and is not true. Some of us are better at it than others, but we all make a judgement on what that truth is.  Hence, it is a human construct.  Get tired of relativism all you want - it isn't going to go away simply because you don't accept it.
Click to expand...


Shut up, you moron.

Yes, truth does mean something, and it is a real thing:

"
*truth*

_noun_ \&#712;trüth\                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true"


When in doubt, use a dictionary. Those are real, too.


And that's the truth.


Truth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## koshergrl

"
2
_a _ _(1)_ *:*  the state of being the case *:* fact _(2)_ *:*  the body of real things, events, and facts *:* actuality_"

Lol
_


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is not a human construct, don't be ridiculous. Truth is fact, and fact is reality. You can say the sky is made of dirt, but that is not the truth, and regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's still not truth. I get so tired of bullshit relativism..which really IS a human construct, completely meaningless, and simply a way to make it *okay* to act on whatever stupid impulse you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true; judged and accepted by fallable human beings.  We decide what is and is not true. Some of us are better at it than others, but we all make a judgement on what that truth is.  Hence, it is a human construct.  Get tired of relativism all you want - it isn't going to go away simply because you don't accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, you moron.
> 
> Yes, truth does mean something, and it is a real thing:
> 
> "
> *truth*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;trüth\                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true"
> 
> 
> When in doubt, use a dictionary. Those are real, too.
> 
> 
> And that's the truth.
> 
> 
> Truth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


I didn't say that truth was meaningless. I said that the claim that "truth and wisdom just are" is a meaningless statement.  Perhaps you were just too lazy to read what I said.  Perhaps you don't understand the language.  Perhaps you should let us adults have our discussion while you play in the sand box.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true; judged and accepted by fallable human beings.  We decide what is and is not true. Some of us are better at it than others, but we all make a judgement on what that truth is.  Hence, it is a human construct.  Get tired of relativism all you want - it isn't going to go away simply because you don't accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you moron.
> 
> Yes, truth does mean something, and it is a real thing:
> 
> "
> *truth*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;trüth\                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true"
> 
> 
> When in doubt, use a dictionary. Those are real, too.
> 
> 
> And that's the truth.
> 
> 
> Truth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that truth was meaningless. I said that the claim that "truth and wisdom just are" is a meaningless statement.  Perhaps you were just too lazy to read what I said.  Perhaps you don't understand the language.  Perhaps you should let us adults have our discussion while you play in the sand box.
Click to expand...


Oh I'm sorry, you must have forgotten what you said:

"Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as  true; judged and accepted by fallable human beings.  We decide what is  and is not true."

I know how embarassed you must be, but don't let that stop you from droning on..and on..and on. The meaningless drivel of internet loons whose anonymity allows them to pretend they're REALLY SMART! always makes me smile. 

Thank you for being you.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Ropey said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree although one can extend the understanding of wisdom. One can summarize it and clarify it but the kernel of wisdom is unchanged.   Why?  It's beyond humanity. It's more than life.
> 
> Wisdom is without qualification. Anything less devalues it's inherent immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the notion of wisdom being without qualification or inherently immortal is that it ignores the notion that wisdom can change as more knowledge and experience is obtained.  For instance, in the face of everything that has been achieved in the past 100 years, how wise would it be to cling to the belief that man cannot fly?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> imo?
> 
> Truth like wisdom is unchangeable.
> 
> Only the interpretations change. The interpretations are incomplete portions of wisdom, then.
Click to expand...


Wisdom is what you DO with knowledge.  Wisdom is a verb.  Wisdom requires action!  Wisdom is knowledge that is used for something.


----------



## koshergrl

Wisdom isn't a VERB, you nitwit. Cripes. 

"
*wis·dom*

_noun_ \&#712;wiz-d&#601;m\                                                                                                                                                                                                                   : knowledge that is gained by having many experiences in life."


It's a body of knowledge. Your language comprehension issue rears its ugly head again....and again...and again.


Wisdom - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you moron.
> 
> Yes, truth does mean something, and it is a real thing:
> 
> "
> *truth*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;trüth\                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true"
> 
> 
> When in doubt, use a dictionary. Those are real, too.
> 
> 
> And that's the truth.
> 
> 
> Truth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that truth was meaningless. I said that the claim that "truth and wisdom just are" is a meaningless statement.  Perhaps you were just too lazy to read what I said.  Perhaps you don't understand the language.  Perhaps you should let us adults have our discussion while you play in the sand box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I'm sorry, you must have forgotten what you said:
> 
> "Truth is a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as  true; judged and accepted by fallable human beings.  We decide what is  and is not true."
> 
> I know how embarassed you must be, but don't let that stop you from droning on..and on..and on. The meaningless drivel of internet loons whose anonymity allows them to pretend they're REALLY SMART! always makes me smile.
> 
> Thank you for being you.
Click to expand...


Nowhere in my statement above, did I say that truth was meaningless.  And by the way, my definition, above - came from Merriam-Webster.  You really should get your dog out of your crotch and start paying better attention to what is being said here it you want to participate in the discussion.


----------



## koshergrl

I didn't say you said truth was meaningless. You maintain that truth is a construct of man, and you are wrong. Neither you and Joe have the slightest idea even of the meaning of the words you're bantering around. You're the most laughable sort of buffoons that exist on the internet. Basement drones who get their education from cereal boxes and the History Channel, lol. Before you get into lofty (lololol) discussions about things like "truth" and "wisdom" I suggest you look the words up. Idiots.  And please, before you launch into future discussions about ethics and integrity and such, do us all a favor and just check to see if what you think those words mean, and what they actually mean, are the same before you make laughingstocks of yourselves. Again.


----------



## koshergrl

And PS...the definition, above, is not YOUR definition, it's MY definition that I pulled from Merriam Webster, you moron. You paraphrased Merriam Webster (without crediting or linking) and used definition 2-b which is: ""a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true..."

I didn't see "by fallable (sic) human beings" because of course, it isn't there. Which is why you didn't link it.

There are truths that are accepted without *proof*...but that doesn't change the nature of truth. What is true is true is true. If you reject a universally accepted truth (say the existence of God) that doesn't mean there is no God, and truth is subjective. It just means that you reject God. In the end, "God exists" will either be true..or not. Completely independent of what you *feel* about it.


----------



## Ropey

koshergrl said:


> And PS...the definition, above, *is not YOUR definition, it's MY definition that I pulled from Merriam Webster*, you moron. You plagarized Merriam Webster (without crediting or linking) and used definition 2-b or something...not the primary definition.



That's a great summation of how wisdom _can be_ garnered from purported and interpreted truth.


----------



## pacer

koshergrl you are one of the most abusive obnoxious juvenile individuals I have ever come to know on a message board.  Your trolling and abusiveness and name-calling toward others is relentless and without consequence.


----------



## koshergrl

Let me paraphrase THAT for you:

Koshergrl spanked me and the other anti-Christian nitwits today and it gives me a sad.


----------



## pacer

P.S.  Koshergrl, you are also a notorious plagiarist.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I didn't say you said truth was meaningless.



What you said to me was "Yes, truth does mean something, and it is a real thing", which certainly does imply that I claimed otherwise.



> You maintain that truth is a construct of man, and you are wrong.



Does your dog have discussions with you about truth?  No?  What about your guppies?  No?  Well, there you go.  Or else it could be that you are so unpleasant a person that they just don't want to have anything to do with you.



> Neither you and Joe have the slightest idea even of the meaning of the words you're bantering around. You're the most laughable sort of buffoons that exist on the internet. Basement drones who get their education from cereal boxes and the History Channel, lol. Before you get into lofty (lololol) discussions about things like "truth" and "wisdom" I suggest you look the words up. Idiots.  And please, before you launch into future discussions about ethics and integrity and such, do us all a favor and just check to see if what you think those words mean, and what they actually mean, are the same before you make laughingstocks of yourselves. Again.



Take an advil, darlin, your period is starting to get to you.


----------



## koshergrl

pacer said:


> koshergrl you are one of the most abusive obnoxious juvenile individuals I have ever come to know on a message board.  Your trolling and abusiveness and name-calling toward others is relentless and without consequence.



So it's *abusive* to point out the actual meanings of the words you are abusing and mis-using. 

Got it.

Unfortunately, it goes against my nature to watch internet loons twist the language to suit their ignorance. Next time, hopefully you'll double check your definitions before you get all arrogant and such.


----------



## pacer

Oh, and one last thing koshergrl, you don't impress anyone.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't need to. I'm right. That's all that matters here. And you guys are just dweebs who think they're a LOT smarter than they actually are, as I demonstrated. In spades.


----------



## orogenicman

pacer said:


> Oh, and one last thing koshergrl, you don't impress anyone.



You know someone has issues where their avatar title says "always correct".


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I don't need to. I'm right. That's all that matters here.



I rest my case.


----------



## The Irish Ram

pacer said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like the first question was a yes/no.
> 
> Why would any omniscient/omnipresent being make understanding his words so difficult, contradictory and ambiguous?
> 
> 
> 
> You have to realize the letter was translated from Italian but you are right&#8230;the answer to the first question does not seem to address the subject of forgiveness.  *I interpret it to mean God is all merciful and therefore as long as one follows ones own good conscience, whether one is a believer or non-believer, it is not necessary to believe in God.  To listen and to follow your own conscience means you have to have a conscience (haha) and understand the difference between good and evil.*
Click to expand...



Bolding mine.
I recall (in your quest for opinions)  reminding you to consider the source.  
You chose a human to quote, from a church *not* even addressed by Christ in the end times, and then turned around and interpreted *his* interpretation to arrive at the wrong conclusion.  

I noticed that *Christ is conveniently  absent from your conclusion* and self was substituted. 
Just because you know the difference between good and evil, does that prevent you from choosing evil? What happens when you chose evil and regret it?  Does your conscience forgive you, and wipe the slate clean or are you screwed?  What's the Pope say?
And if you choose good, almost all the time, is that not your work's?  
Can work's save you?

Here is someone else's statement.  No need for interpertation:



> John 14:6.  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



He created the human you got *your* conclusion from. 
Ponder that.


----------



## koshergrl

pacer said:


> P.S.  Koshergrl, you are also a notorious plagiarist.



Oh. Ok.



I will take a chance here and say you probably don't know what "notorious" means, either.

And most likely you have a limited understanding of "plagarism" as well.



I'm beginning to think you're just a sock of AvgJoe's. He has a hard time with AP style too...can't seem to wrap his brain around the most basic tenets of the language.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to. I'm right. That's all that matters here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...


Another instance of not using the language correctly....you didn't rest your case. You surrendered, after being soundly defeated. There's a difference.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to. I'm right. That's all that matters here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another instance of not using the language correctly....you didn't rest your case. You surrendered, after being soundly defeated. There's a difference.
Click to expand...


Classic narcissist response.  Congratulations.  (You might want to look up the definition, in case you don't understand what it means).


----------



## koshergrl

Knowing the meaning of words makes me a narcissist?


----------



## The Irish Ram

pacer said:


> koshergrl you are one of the most abusive obnoxious juvenile individuals I have ever come to know on a message board.  Your trolling and abusiveness and name-calling toward others is relentless and without consequence.



Considering you arrived here this month and don't know Kosher from Adam, your judgement of her seems a little misguided and callous.  
Did your "conscience" dictate your post?  Was it meant for good or evil?  

Here's another opinion you may want to consider:



> Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.



If you don't like that opinion,  there is always this:


> John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Knowing the meaning of words makes me a narcissist?



No, dumbass.  Thinking that you've won something that isn't about winning.  It's all about YOU!  That makes you a narcissist.


----------



## orogenicman

The Irish Ram said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl you are one of the most abusive obnoxious juvenile individuals I have ever come to know on a message board.  Your trolling and abusiveness and name-calling toward others is relentless and without consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you arrived here this month and don't know Kosher from Adam, your judgement of her seems a little misguided and callous.
> Did your "conscience" dictate your post?  Was it meant for good or evil?
> 
> Here's another opinion you may want to consider:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't like that opinion,  there is always this:
> 
> 
> 
> John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The date one joins a forum is not an indication of one's ability to spot a narcissistic arsehole when one sees one.  It isn't as if that was his 'born-on' date.  Assume he is old enough to figure it out for himself.


----------



## koshergrl

Again, how does being right make me a narcissist? Are you _sure_ you know what narcissism is? Hint: It _doesn't_ mean "has a large vocabulary and uses it effectively".


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing the meaning of words makes me a narcissist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbass.  Thinking that you've won something that isn't about winning.  It's all about YOU!  That makes you a narcissist.
Click to expand...


Oh I see, you can't hold your own using words, so you're going to attack me based on what you _think_ I'm thinking ...got it. 

When you can't dazzle people with your mastery of the language, distract them with your ability to read minds!


----------



## koshergrl

Isn't that actually a symptom of narcissism?

I do believe it is. Did you get a recent diagnosis or something? That would explain your insertion of the word into every other sentence, I suppose.


----------



## AVG-JOE

koshergrl said:


> I don't need to. I'm right. That's all that matters here. And you guys are just dweebs who think they're a LOT smarter than they actually are, as I demonstrated. In spades.



Jesus fucking Christ, lighten up!  It's a conversation for cryin' out loud!


----------



## Ropey

AVG-JOE said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to. I'm right. That's all that matters here. And you guys are just dweebs who think they're a LOT smarter than they actually are, as I demonstrated. In spades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus fucking Christ, lighten up!  It's a conversation for cryin' out loud!
Click to expand...


KG's feeling a bit tender in other threads.



G-d help her.


----------



## Capstone

PoliticalChic said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol @ the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities.  I grew up with no locks on our doors.  Try that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, at least we needn't worry about being drawn and quartered on allegations of heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. [...] Amusing how the title of the WSJ's article smashes your post. ...
Click to expand...


What would have been amusing, if it weren't so sad, is the amount of stock you've apparently placed in the fabricated tragedy of David Berlinski.


----------



## Capstone

koshergrl said:


> Really. Tell me which of the first great halls of learning were funded and established by atheists.
> 
> Share with us how the Magna Carta is an atheist document. Please.
> 
> Tell me how atheists freed the slaves, and lobbied for equal rights for all people, and how many atheists spent time in prison protesting the conditions and the practice of jailing entire families.
> 
> I'll wait.



What a surprise: another hodgepodge of nonsense that not only seeks to avoid the issue of objective morality; but in so doing inadvertently affirms my claims on the matter.

Let me go ahead and concede that there have been Christians on opposite sides of the fence, morally speaking, throughout the history of the Faith. For instance, some owned slaves (with Biblical backing), while others fought for the abolition of slavery (on lesser known grounds). THAT is precisely the point. Minus an objective proscription for proper behavior, the many historical squabbles *among Christians* could have been predicted from the outset of the religion.


----------



## koshergrl

Irrelevant. If you maintain that widespread character, positive values, integrity, works of humanity and universal goodwill towards man springs up IN SPITE of God and religion, then certainly there are many instances that you can point to, across the wide expanse of history, that can be easily identified as such. Go ahead. Still waiting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly quoting people out of context after it has been shown repeatedly that they are taken out of context is the epitome of dishonesty.  And PC, post #247 is not peer reviewed.  It's a post on a message board, not a peer reviewed paper published in a professional publication.  By the way, Berlinsk is a retard.  By his own admission, he treats the truth like he treats his ex-wives.   You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a proven liar.
> 
> 
> Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so fast, Miss Brooklyn bootlicker.  Show where I've lied or admit that you made it up (i.e., lied).
Click to expand...





Me:* You've already admitted that I am correct, *and *there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth* of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
You:"* I have admitted no such thing.* Lying for Jesus is still lying." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-17.html



You, earlier: " PC, *just because we haven't found the fossils* of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.... As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, *just because we have yet to find the fossils*, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-2.html


Pretty much evidence that you are a liar....and that engaging you in discussion is pointless.



Liar.


----------



## whitehall

The philosophy forum is at the bottom of the page. Use it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> Irrelevant. If you maintain that widespread character, positive values, integrity, works of humanity and universal goodwill towards man springs up IN SPITE of God and religion, then certainly there are many instances that you can point to, across the wide expanse of history, that can be easily identified as such. Go ahead. Still waiting.



KG is assuming that there can *ONLY* be positive things because there is a God and religion. If KG's scenario were true then every single criminal would be an atheist. Instead we have reality which shows Believers committing criminal acts in the name of God and religions. 

Mankind is a social animal and society determines the values and what constitutes goodwill. God and religion are manifestations of mankind's attempts to understand himself and the universe in which he finds himself. Mankind is capable of both good and evil. Fortunately the good is predominant but that is only because it a positive evolutionary trait towards the survival of mankind.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
Click to expand...


Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a proven liar.
> 
> 
> Get lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so fast, Miss Brooklyn bootlicker.  Show where I've lied or admit that you made it up (i.e., lied).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me:* You've already admitted that I am correct, *and *there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth* of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
> You:"* I have admitted no such thing.* Lying for Jesus is still lying." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-17.html
> 
> 
> 
> You, earlier: " PC, *just because we haven't found the fossils* of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.... As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, *just because we have yet to find the fossils*, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-2.html
> 
> 
> Pretty much evidence that you are a liar....and that engaging you in discussion is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


I read this five times, and still, I don't see where I lied.  Where is the lie?  The only lie I see is where you are trying to put words in my mouth.  That's the only lie I see.  LIAR!


----------



## orogenicman

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God needs to do a better job of showing up like that and proving his existence. Once every century or so should do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.
Click to expand...


Hehehehe.  Good one.


----------



## The Irish Ram

orogenicman said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl you are one of the most abusive obnoxious juvenile individuals I have ever come to know on a message board.  Your trolling and abusiveness and name-calling toward others is relentless and without consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you arrived here this month and don't know Kosher from Adam, your judgement of her seems a little misguided and callous.
> Did your "conscience" dictate your post?  Was it meant for good or evil?
> 
> Here's another opinion you may want to consider:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like that opinion,  there is always this:
> 
> 
> 
> John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The date one joins a forum is not an indication of one's ability to spot a narcissistic arsehole when one sees one.  It isn't as if that was his 'born-on' date.  Assume he is old enough to figure it out for himself.
Click to expand...


 Right, but some familiarity is required to make an assessment like he did,  unless he draws his assumptions from other's assumptions e.g. you, and the Pope, or some one who wrote something......  
He has a tendency to assume other people's assumptions rather than doing his homework or thinking for himself.   And he ends up wanting in the balance, and lacking any credibility.
He relies on his own conscience and the results are evident.  Evil trumps good, and instead of love, he chooses condemnation.  And thinks he's on the right track.


----------



## The Irish Ram

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> God shows up all the time to people who care. Those who don't give a darn ---- get exactly what they seek --- nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hehehehe.  Good one.
Click to expand...


Nipper is right on the money.  One of Christ's fortes  was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed.  His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room.  A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof.  *He walked out *of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.

So God needs to show up for your edification? Because you require evidence?  He needs your seal of approval? He needs to prove something to you in order to be a efficient God?
In that case, where were you while He was creating the universe? 

He doesn't need you.  You need Him.  His availability is constant.  Since you don't know Him, you wouldn't recognize Him if He sat down in front of you and ate Hollie's meatloaf.   That will end up as your problem, not His. His future is secure with or with out you.  You aren't as well off.  
He's done enough for you.  What have you done for Him lately?


----------



## Steven_R

I want there to be something more than the physical universe, something more than just the certainty that I am the result of random chance and when I die it's lights out for eternity and that in time all of the atoms in my body will succumb to proton decay and the eventual heat death of the universe. I want there to be some proof that I'll be reunited with my loved ones and that some higher power exists and wants me to be loved.

But I've seen no proof of it no matter where I've looked outside of some Holy Books that don't match up with the historical, archaeological, and physical evidence.


----------



## orogenicman

The Irish Ram said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe.  Good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nipper is right on the money.  One of Christ's fortes  was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed.  His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room.  A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof.  *He walked out *of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.
> 
> So God needs to show up for your edification? Because you require evidence?  He needs your seal of approval? He needs to prove something to you in order to be a efficient God?
> In that case, where were you while He was creating the universe?
> 
> He doesn't need you.  You need Him.  His availability is constant.  Since you don't know Him, you wouldn't recognize Him if He sat down in front of you and ate Hollie's meatloaf.   That will end up as your problem, not His. His future is secure with or with out you.  You aren't as well off.
> He's done enough for you.  What have you done for Him lately?
Click to expand...


That's a rather lame excuse, in my opinion.  God doesn't need to prove to me that he exists because, well, he's god?  To that, I am reminded of what Jefferson had to say about it:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. "


----------



## orogenicman

Steven_R said:


> I want there to be something more than the physical universe, something more than just the certainty that I am the result of random chance and when I die it's lights out for eternity and that in time all of the atoms in my body will succumb to proton decay and the eventual heat death of the universe. I want there to be some proof that I'll be reunited with my loved ones and that some higher power exists and wants me to be loved.
> 
> But I've seen no proof of it no matter where I've looked outside of some Holy Books that don't match up with the historical, archaeological, and physical evidence.



But science doesn't say that you are a result of random chance.  This is an urban myth that just won't die.  Natural selection, of which we are all a result, is not random.


----------



## Steven_R

Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.


----------



## Chuckt

Steven_R said:


> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.



I can work on finding evidences for you over time.


----------



## orogenicman

Steven_R said:


> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.



Well, I am perfectly happy knowing that every atom in my body was born in a star, and that when I die, those atoms will be used by some other life form, thus continuing the great chain of life.  Knowing that makes me feel more connected to the universe than anything else ever has.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Steven_R said:


> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. *It would be more comforting if I knew I was part of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.*



Why?  What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?


----------



## Capstone

koshergrl said:


> Irrelevant. If you maintain that widespread character, positive values, integrity, works of humanity and universal goodwill towards man springs up IN SPITE of God and religion, then certainly there are many instances that you can point to, across the wide expanse of history, that can be easily identified as such. Go ahead. Still waiting.



Either you haven't been paying attention or you're too blinded by indoctrination to see the double-edged nature of your preferred religion's effects on humanity, because I've already highlighted or alluded to a number of such instances. That there were Christians on both sides of certain historical tragedies (E.G. the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch burnings, slavery, certain aspects in the religion based subjugation of women, and so on) which have long since been relegated to history's "unmarked grave of discarded lies", IN SPITE of their scriptural justifiability, large scale promotion by upper echelon clergy, and widespread practice among Christians of various eras, is a testament to the wills of the few who found the strength to rise up _from within_ the Church *in order to oppose it.*

Having said that, fully recorded or not, the advent of the Judeo-Christian tradition was probably preceded by something like 50,000 years of full behavioral modernity among homo sapiens (to say nothing of the 150,000 years between anatomical and behavioral modernity), so it must be baffling to people like you that our species somehow managed to get along with no concept of right or wrong until your God (the one TRUE God, right?) came along. 

Oh, that's right, I forgot: you probably believe the Earth is only around 7,000 years old...


----------



## koshergrl

That's a lot of words that continue to be irrelevant, and simply camouflage your inability to back up your initial assertion. So I accept  your surrender. You cannot show any evidence that man has developed any sort of value system independent of religion. Thank you for your time.


----------



## Capstone

koshergrl said:


> That's a lot of words that continue to be irrelevant, and simply camouflage your inability to back up your initial assertion. So I accept  your surrender. You cannot show any evidence that man has developed any sort of value system independent of religion. Thank you for your time.



Nice try at a strawman, but here's my "initial assertion":



Capstone said:


> *Strange then, how the evolution of modern ethical sensibilities has apparently occurred in spite of "the inerrant Word of God".* In fact, given the potential biblical justifiability of so many things considered morally reprehensible today (E.G. genocide, infanticide, rape, pillaging, slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, adultery, the subjugation of women, and so on...), it's astounding that predominantly Christian cultures EVER managed to advance beyond the ethics of the dark and middle ages. To imply that all historical paradigms of Christian morality have shared an _objective_ set of guidelines is to ignore the contradictory nature of widely promoted behaviors among Christians of different eras.



From the very start of my participation in this thread, my statements and arguments have been laser-focused on the ethics of *Christianity* (NOT on the general concepts of "God" or "religion" as they relate to human morality) for good reason. Although not affiliated with any religion in particular, I'm a theist, and I acknowledge the subtle influence of the positive aspects of _theoretical_ spirituality (less the dogma) on social norms and mores. That's not to say ANY stripe of spirituality is a *prerequisite* to human values; but I don't believe the _human spirit_ has been entirely obstructive to them either.

But if feeling as though you've defeated me provides some kind of validation for you, then by all means, knock yourself out...


----------



## koshergrl

The straw men are your repeated attempts to divert from your original statement, which you were, and continue to be, unable to support. I was actually giving you the generic term *religion* to give you more wiggle room, but meh, it doesn't matter. You're still too dense to be able to intelligently discuss the topic that you introduced. If you don't understand how to support an argument in the first place, you would save yourself and everybody else a lot of frustration if you just don't comment at all. It's a waste of time.


----------



## orogenicman

The Irish Ram said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe.  Good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nipper is right on the money.  One of Christ's fortes  was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed.  His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room.  A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof.  *He walked out *of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.
Click to expand...


I didn't respond to this specifically when I responded earlier, so I will now.

Really?  How so?   The evidence that Christ had these astounding abilities - comes from a few lines in one book, lines that were written by persons unknown decades after the man died.  That's pretty slim evidence in my view.


----------



## Steven_R

orogenicman said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am perfectly happy knowing that every atom in my body was born in a star, and that when I die, those atoms will be used by some other life form, thus continuing the great chain of life.  Knowing that makes me feel more connected to the universe than anything else ever has.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong. It is neat to know that I am stardust and when I die everything that made me physically me will continue for eons to come and there is some feeling of joy in that...

...but sometimes I wish there was more to me than a fluke of probablility and that there was some force out that that does something. Call it a longing for something I know does not exist because there is no evidence of it.


----------



## koshergrl

You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?

According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?
> 
> According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.


this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false &#8211; one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.


----------



## orogenicman

Steven_R said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. It would be more comforting if I knew I was pat of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am perfectly happy knowing that every atom in my body was born in a star, and that when I die, those atoms will be used by some other life form, thus continuing the great chain of life.  Knowing that makes me feel more connected to the universe than anything else ever has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong. It is neat to know that I am stardust and when I die everything that made me physically me will continue for eons to come and there is some feeling of joy in that...
> 
> ...but sometimes I wish there was more to me than a fluke of probablility and that there was some force out that that does something. Call it a longing for something I know does not exist because there is no evidence of it.
Click to expand...


I'm longing for a large cappuccino right now.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?
> 
> According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
Click to expand...

 

^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts  about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.

I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that,  I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.


----------



## orogenicman

Look out, folks. It's Miss Manner's evil twin.


----------



## koshergrl

You equate intelligible communication skills with...Miss Manners?

How odd.


----------



## koshergrl

Though I do suppose that those who are not able to master their own mother tongue most likely are brutish, boorish, and otherwise not fit for mixed company...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?
> 
> According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts  about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.
> 
> I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that,  I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.
Click to expand...

sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description  of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
tutored! so the fuck what.
to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You equate intelligible communication skills with...Miss Manners?
> 
> How odd.


fun fact: KG USES THIS PLOY EVERY TIME SHE'S GETTING HER ASS HANDED TO HER.
GET USED TO  SEEING IT A LOT.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Though I do suppose that those who are not able to master their own mother tongue most likely are brutish, boorish, and otherwise not fit for mixed company...


fun fact: KG USES THIS PLOY EVERY TIME SHE'S GETTING HER ASS HANDED TO HER.
GET USED TO SEEING IT A LOT.
__________________


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts  about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.
> 
> I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that,  I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description  of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
> everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
> tutored! so the fuck what.
> to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
> your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .
Click to expand...


You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts  about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.
> 
> I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that,  I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.
> 
> 
> 
> sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description  of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
> everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
> tutored! so the fuck what.
> to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
> your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!
Click to expand...

yeah.... and ?


----------



## Ropey

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts  about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.
> 
> I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that,  I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.
> 
> 
> 
> sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description  of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
> everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
> tutored! so the fuck what.
> to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
> your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Ropey said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure you have dear... the post does not ramble, it's a concise description  of the fallacy you put so much time and effort in.
> everybody has at one time or another "has written for a living", obviously you failed in that endeavor.
> tutored! so the fuck what.
> to get my masters it was required to teach undergrads.
> your story and mine are irrelevant....except yours is a dodge .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You copied/pasted it from Wiki... Bravo!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## itfitzme

pacer said:


> Pope Francis responded to editorials written in July and August by Eugenio Scalfari, an agnostic and the paper's founder, in which he was asked whether the Christian God forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.
> 
> "Scalfari said he had not expected the Pope to answer "so extensively and so affectionately, with such fraternal spirit."
> 
> *Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica:
> "An open dialogue with non-believers"*
> 
> Dear Dott. Scalfari,
> 
> I would cordially like to reply to the letter you addressed to me from the pages of "La Repubblica" on July 7th, which included a series of personal reflections that then continued to enrich the pages of the daily newspaper on August 7th.
> 
> First of all, thank you for the attention with which you have read the Encyclical "Lumen fidei". In fact it was the intention of my beloved predecessor, Benedict XVI, who conceived it and mostly wrote it, and which, with gratitude, I have inherited, to not only confirm the faith in Jesus Christ, for those who already believe, but also to spark a sincere and rigorous dialogue with those who, like you, define themselves as "for many years being a non-believer who is interested and fascinated by the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth".
> 
> Therefore, without a doubt it would seem to be positive, not only for each one of us,  but also for the society in which we live, to stop and speak about a matter as important as faith and which refers to the teachings and the figure of  Jesus.
> 
> More at link below.
> * * *
> 
> In your editorial of July 7th, you also asked me how to understand the originality of Christian Faith as it is actually based on the incarnation of the Son of God, with respect to other religions that instead pivot on the absolute transcendency of God.
> 
> I would say that the originality lies in the fact that faith allows us to participate, in Jesus, in the relationship that He has with God who is Abbà and, because of this, in the relationship that He has with all other men, including enemies, in the sign of love. In other words, the children of Jesus, as Christian faith presents us, are not revealed to mark an insuperabile separation between Jesus and all the others:  but to tell us that, in Him, we are all called to be the children of the only Father and brothers with each other. The uniqueness of Jesus is for communication not for exclusion.
> 
> Of course a consequence of this is also  -  and this is not a minor thing  -  that distinction between the religious spere which is confirmed by  "Give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", distinctly confirmed  by Jesus and upon which, the history  of the Western world was built. In fact, the Church is called to sow the yeast and salt of the Gospel, and that is the love and mercy of God which reaches all men, indicating the definitive destination of our destiny in the hereafter, while civil and political society has the difficult duty of expressing and embodying a life that is evermore human in justice, in solidarity, in law and in peace. For those who experience the Christian faith, this does not mean escaping from the world or looking for any kind of supremacy, but being at the service of mankind, of all mankind and all men, starting from the periphery of history and keeping the sense of hope alive, striving for goodness in spite of everything and always looking beyond.
> 
> At the end of your first article, you also ask me what to say to our Jewish brothers about the promise God made to them:  Has this been forgotten? And this  -  believe me  -  is a question that radically involves us as Christians because, with the help of God, starting  from the Second Vatican Council, we have discovered that the Jewish people are still, for us, the holy root from which Jesus originated. I too, in the friendship I have cultivated in all of these long years with our Jewish brothers, in Argentina, many times while praying have asked God, especially when I remember the terrible experience of the Shoah. What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terribile trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God. And for this, we will never be grateful enough to them, as the Church, but also as humanity at large. Persevering in their faith in God and in the alliance, they remind everyone, even us as Christians that we are always awaiting, the return of the Lord and that therefore we must remain open to Him and never take refuge in what we have already achieved.
> 
> As for the three questions you asked me... (more at link below)
> 
> With brotherly love,
> 
> Francesco
> 
> (Translated from Italian by Sara Cecere)
> 
> (11 SETTEMBRE 2013)
> 
> Pope Francisco writes to La Repubblica: "An open dialogue with non-believers" - Repubblica.it



It's a dumb question, there is no "god"....


----------



## daws101

Engendering god belief has some utility as a means of social and moral control. For instance, if you can convince the people there is a supernatural being who is always watching them and will punish them even for those transgressions they would otherwise get away with, that concept is useful to society as a means of keeping bad people in check. 

God is also a means of explaining the unexplained and seemingly unexplainable, endowing life with easily understood and seemingly objective purpose, and alleviating fear of mortality. 

Is a god "necessary" though? Hardly. There are other solutions to all the problems gods cure.


----------



## itfitzme

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think things don't exist until the *evidence* has been presented, and accepted, by you?
> 
> According to that logic, you are, in fact, god himself.
> 
> 
> 
> this coming from a poster whose every every breath is based on the false premise of god...
> 
> An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
> For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
> If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
> The streets are wet. (premise)
> Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
> This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
> Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
> A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
> "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
> The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^I did not read that. I choose not to read long, rambling posts  about logical fallacy written by idiots who start their long, rambling and irrelevant description with an AD HOMINEM.
> 
> I have tutored college English students, written for a living and I have actually taken real classes about the subject matter. Because of that,  I know that you are not a person who should be teaching ANYONE, anything.
Click to expand...


Well, you should read and study it.  I have two degrees, one in a scientific discipline, and a certificate in applied statistics.  I have tutored both math and science.

I can assure you what he posted is both correct and relevant.

Clearly, your studies in English have led you to the impression that whatever you can write must therefore be true, a logical fallacy.


----------



## itfitzme

daws101 said:


> Engendering god belief has some utility as a means of social and moral control. For instance, if you can convince the people there is a supernatural being who is always watching them and will punish them even for those transgressions they would otherwise get away with, that concept is useful to society as a means of keeping bad people in check.
> 
> God is also a means of explaining the unexplained and seemingly unexplainable, endowing life with easily understood and seemingly objective purpose, and alleviating fear of mortality.
> 
> Is a god "necessary" though? Hardly. There are other solutions to all the problems gods cure.



More so, God is used as a way to defer responsibility.  This has become abundantly clear.  In on regard, God is prayed to and asked to do something, deferring the responsibility of actual personal accomplishment.  In another regard, God is used in the sense of "we didn't do it, god did". As well, and what is most objectionable and dangerous, is the use of god as an absolute authority and therefor justification for inappropriate behavior.  This is, of course, another deferment of responsibility.  It is God's law, God's rule, what God wants, as if the person has some special connection to God and therefore knows what God wants.

I do think that God is necessary for some people who are otherwise sociopathic, unable to have a moral compass without it.


----------



## Ropey

AVG-JOE said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. *It would be more comforting if I knew I was part of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?
Click to expand...


Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.

Free won't.

I will do it vs I won't do it.


----------



## daws101

itfitzme said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Engendering god belief has some utility as a means of social and moral control. For instance, if you can convince the people there is a supernatural being who is always watching them and will punish them even for those transgressions they would otherwise get away with, that concept is useful to society as a means of keeping bad people in check.
> 
> God is also a means of explaining the unexplained and seemingly unexplainable, endowing life with easily understood and seemingly objective purpose, and alleviating fear of mortality.
> 
> Is a god "necessary" though? Hardly. There are other solutions to all the problems gods cure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More so, God is used as a way to defer responsibility.  This has become abundantly clear.  In on regard, God is prayed to and asked to do something, deferring the responsibility of actual personal accomplishment.  In another regard, God is used in the sense of "we didn't do it, god did". As well, and what is most objectionable and dangerous, is the use of god as an absolute authority and therefor justification for inappropriate behavior.  This is, of course, another deferment of responsibility.  It is God's law, God's rule, what God wants, as if the person has some special connection to God and therefore knows what God wants.
> 
> I do think that God is necessary for some people who are otherwise sociopathic, unable to have a moral compass without it.
Click to expand...

that would seem to be most believers.
I do wonder what would happen if it was proven conclusively there was no god....


----------



## daws101

Ropey said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not natural selection, that my parents just happened to be at that party at the same time and met, that just the right ova and sperm got together, that of all the unlikely events that preceded my birth that it just all worked out. *It would be more comforting if I knew I was part of some plan as opposed to just a probability fluke.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.
> 
> Free won't.
> 
> I will do it vs I won't do it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Smilebong

God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.


----------



## daws101

Smilebong said:


> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.


wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.


----------



## BreezeWood

daws101 said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
Click to expand...


there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.


----------



## Smilebong

daws101 said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
Click to expand...


I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.


----------



## Steven_R

Smilebong said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.
Click to expand...


Fg= (Gm1m2)/r^2  explains stars. Where is the variable for God in that?


----------



## orogenicman

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.
Click to expand...


Erm, what?  Can you elaborate how the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for the existence of god?  If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?


----------



## orogenicman

Smilebong said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.
Click to expand...


So, in your opinion, god is a nuclear furnace?


----------



## Smilebong

orogenicman said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, god is a nuclear furnace?
Click to expand...


No. God is a person. Omnipotent, Onmipresent, Omniscient.


----------



## Ropey

daws101 said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  What difference could it possibly make with all the brew-ha ha over "free will"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.
> 
> Free won't.
> 
> I will do it vs I won't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Think about it.   Black vs White. G-d vs Devil, + vs -. Strong nuclear force vs Weak nuclear force....

...Will vs Won't.


----------



## BreezeWood

orogenicman said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  Can you elaborate how the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for the existence of god? * If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?*
Click to expand...



* If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?*

what you feel seeing the rest of our solar system .... a lack of God.

.


----------



## orogenicman

BreezeWood said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  Can you elaborate how the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for the existence of god? * If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> * If that flora and fauna didn't exist, what would that be evidence of?*
> 
> what you feel seeing the rest of our solar system .... a lack of God.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So the existence of flora and fauna on Earth is evidence for your god, but the lack of it elsewhere is evidence against your god?  Could you make any less sense?


----------



## orogenicman

Smilebong said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, god is a nuclear furnace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. God is a person. Omnipotent, Onmipresent, Omniscient.
Click to expand...


Really?  Your god is a person?  If your god is omnipotent, and yet allows suffering, birth defects, wars, murder, and natural disasters, wouldn't that imply that your god is also a sociopath?

Here is what Neil deGrasse Tyson says about your "creation":


----------



## Steven_R




----------



## Ropey

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5KMjk1UrDk]Howard Stern upsets Tiny Tim about Jesus[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman

That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.


----------



## Ropey

Ropey said:


> Howard Stern upsets Tiny Tim about Jesus





orogenicman said:


> *That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell *- ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.



Tiptoe through the tulips is even better.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.



You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish. 

I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot. 

Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.

And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.


----------



## Snouter

Why discussions about "God" revert to the ridiculous middle east cults like "judaism," etc.?  Get over it.  That stuff is bullshit.  Not even close to spirituality or anything spiritual.  Purely political, racial and ideological.


----------



## koshergrl

And we have another.Do you really think your silly dismissal makes you look intelligent or superior?


----------



## Chuckt

Snouter said:


> Why discussions about "God" revert to the ridiculous middle east cults like "judaism," etc.?  Get over it.  That stuff is bullshit.  Not even close to spirituality or anything spiritual.  Purely political, racial and ideological.



What do you think spiritual is?


----------



## Newby

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> *And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread*.
Click to expand...


Very well said, KG, that's what I find so amusing, they really don't realize how their lack of knowledge shines through in the comments that they make.  If you want to oppose something and you consider yourself 'intelligent', one would think that you would endeavor to learn all that you could about what it is that you're opposing so that you could at least speak intelligently on the topic.  These fools spout what they learn through pop culture or what they read on the web or what some fool before them taught them without having any insight or knowledge about the subject whatsoever.

Let's use a post from earlier that had me thinking exactly what you just illustrated above.



itfitzme said:


> More so, God is used as a way to defer responsibility.  This has become abundantly clear.  In on regard, God is prayed to and asked to do something, deferring the responsibility of actual personal accomplishment.  In another regard, God is used in the sense of "we didn't do it, god did". As well, and what is most objectionable and dangerous, is the use of god as an absolute authority and therefor justification for inappropriate behavior.  This is, of course, another deferment of responsibility.  It is God's law, God's rule, what God wants, as if the person has some special connection to God and therefore knows what God wants.
> 
> I do think that God is necessary for some people who are otherwise sociopathic, unable to have a moral compass without it.



*God is used as a way to defer responsibility.  * 

No elaboration or example, just a simple, ignorant statement that this person obviously takes as fact, when in truth, just the opposite is true.  Anyone who has studied the Bible or been in the Christian faith would laugh at such an absurd comment. 

*This has become abundantly clear.*

Really?  Yet nothing is added to back up his argument.  If it's 'abundantly clear', I guess he doesn't feel the need to expound on that any further. 

*In on regard, God is prayed to and asked to do something, deferring the responsibility of actual personal accomplishment. *

What 'regard' is that?  Do you really believe that Christians pray asking God to do something they themselves should be responsible for and expect it to fall into their laps?  Seriously?  Again, displays your complete lack of any knowledge or understanding of Christianity.  I'd guess you've never stepped foot into a church with any kind of an open mind to learn anything.  I'd guess you've never actually read the Bible at all.  If you have and you still make comments such as that, then your eyes and your heart have been closed.

*In another regard, God is used in the sense of "we didn't do it, god did".*

Another ridiculous supposition, where do you get this stuff?  What are you basing comments such as this on exactly?  I'd love to know.  Is the implication that Christians  believe that whenever they do something 'bad', that it's God's fault?  This notion is just so 'out there' and not even close to reality, that I don't know how you've come to any such conclusion.  Again, displays an extreme lack of knowledge or understanding on the topic.

*As well, and what is most objectionable and dangerous, is the use of god as an absolute authority and therefor justification for inappropriate behavior.  This is, of course, another deferment of responsibility.*

God as a justification for inappropriate behavior?  Again, another comment without any basis in fact, or even any examples of what you are talking about. People can use God as an excuse for whatever behavior they want, doesn't make it true.  It's quite a simple concept, yet that seems to escape you.  If you had studied and understood anything about Christianity, you would realize how ignorant that statement is.  It's not even close to what is taught through the life of Christ.

*I do think that God is necessary for some people who are otherwise sociopathic, unable to have a moral compass without it*

So anyone who believes in God is sociopathic and has no moral compass?   This was the best one by far.  Being a Christian has nothing to do with having or not having a 'moral compass'.  Another ignorant statement that displays your lack of knowledge on the subject. You dumb everything down to its most simple and basic form (because that's all you understand on the subject), make observations based off of that, and then think you're somehow profound with the insults that spew forth from your mouth.

If you truly feel the need to debase and insult people of faith,  you would think that you would at least learn and understand the topic before coming in and making a fool of yourself by simply opening your mouth.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
Click to expand...


I have you on ignore, but someone else quoted you, and so I will respond, this one time, to your rant.  Do I believe I have a better grasp on reality than people who believe in a magical sky daddy?  Yes.  Is it backward to hold more credence in 21st century science and technology than in 2,000 year old nonsense written by anonymous desert tribesmen?  Not at all.



			
				koshergrl said:
			
		

> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.



That's good to know.  I'll keep that in mind next time I go horseback riding.  As for the rest of life, I'll stick with what I know.



			
				koshergrl said:
			
		

> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.



If you believe that religious belief is hard, try taking a graduate level course in the biochemistry of cancer. Even better, try writing a paper on it.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have you on ignore, but someone else quoted you, and so I will respond, this one time, to your rant.  Do I believe I have a better grasp on reality than people who believe in a magical sky daddy?  Yes.  Is it backward to hold more credence in 21st century science and technology than in 2,000 year old nonsense written by anonymous desert tribesmen?  Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's good to know.  I'll keep that in mind next time I go horseback riding.  As for the rest of life, I'll stick with what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that religious belief is hard, try taking a graduate level course in the biochemistry of cancer. Even better, try writing a paper on it.  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


  Another'educated' keyboard jockey that's going to bring about world peace with his brilliance...


----------



## Chuckt

Snouter said:


> Why discussions about "God" revert to the ridiculous middle east cults like "judaism," etc.?  Get over it.  That stuff is bullshit.  Not even close to spirituality or anything spiritual.  Purely political, racial and ideological.



Judaism is not a cult.  Judaism is a world religion.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Chuckt said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why discussions about "God" revert to the ridiculous middle east cults like "judaism," etc.?  Get over it.  That stuff is bullshit.  Not even close to spirituality or anything spiritual.  Purely political, racial and ideological.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judaism is not a cult.  Judaism is a world religion.
Click to expand...


Technically all religions fit the definition of the term cult.

Cult - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




> Full Definition of CULT
> 
> *1
> :  formal religious veneration :  worship
> 2
> :  a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also :  its body of adherents*
> 3
> :  a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also :  its body of adherents
> 4
> :  a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
> 5
> a :  great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially :  such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
> b :  the object of such devotion
> c :  a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


----------



## koshergrl

It always makes me laugh to see internet geniuses dismiss the millions and millions of people, including many who are more intelligent, better educated, with superior genetics (i.e., ability) and talents that have changed the world for the better....as lacking their own understanding of what makes the world tick. 

It's comparable to watching a person with traumatic brain injury and a speech impediment making fun of Shakespeare for talking funny...and calling him *dumb*.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have you on ignore, but someone else quoted you, and so I will respond, this one time, to your rant.  Do I believe I have a better grasp on reality than people who believe in a magical sky daddy?  Yes.  Is it backward to hold more credence in 21st century science and technology than in 2,000 year old nonsense written by anonymous desert tribesmen?  Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to know.  I'll keep that in mind next time I go horseback riding.  As for the rest of life, I'll stick with what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that religious belief is hard, try taking a graduate level course in the biochemistry of cancer. Even better, try writing a paper on it.  Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another'educated' keyboard jockey that's going to bring about world peace with his brilliance...
Click to expand...


No one here said anything about world peace, Gandhi.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD. It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us. It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have you on ignore, but someone else quoted you, and so I will respond, this one time, to your rant. Do I believe I have a better grasp on reality than people who believe in a magical sky daddy? Yes. Is it backward to hold more credence in 21st century science and technology than in 2,000 year old nonsense written by anonymous desert tribesmen? Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's good to know. I'll keep that in mind next time I go horseback riding. As for the rest of life, I'll stick with what I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that religious belief is hard, try taking a graduate level course in the biochemistry of cancer. Even better, try writing a paper on it. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

 

Yeah, as I figured, the example was too advanced for you to understand it, and I'm not surprised at all that you're ignoring me, since you look like a moron every single time you engage with me.

I'm not sure what your left field comment about the biochemistry of cancer is supposed to mean, since you failed to explain (so much for writing ability). Do you maintain that a college course about cancer proves definitively that you're smarter than every Christian who ever lived? Or does it definitively prove that there is no God? Or is that just a class you read about in the curriculum flyer that goes out to "Current Resident" from your local community college, and you've been dying to pretend that you belong to the set that takes those classes?


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> It always makes me laugh to see internet geniuses dismiss the millions and millions of people, including many who are more intelligent, better educated, with superior genetics (i.e., ability) and talents that have changed the world for the better....as lacking their own understanding of what makes the world tick.
> 
> It's comparable to watching a person with traumatic brain injury and a speech impediment making fun of Shakespeare for talking funny...and calling him *dumb*.



Well then, I highly recommend that you stop staring at yourself in the mirror.


----------



## koshergrl

Brilliant! You continue to make a cake of yourself! Perhaps you should start ignoring me again, lol. It will save you embarassment.


----------



## daws101

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.
Click to expand...

that's the oldest and lamest christian dodge there is ..but thanks for playing.


----------



## daws101

Smilebong said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> God does exist, so the OP is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see irrefutable evidence in Creation. Stars, Universe cannot exist without God.
Click to expand...

and you have objective scientific evidence to bolster that steaming pile of subjective bullshit?
just say that you don't ....it will be easier that way.


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> I'm not sure what your left field comment about the biochemistry of cancer is supposed to mean, since you failed to explain (so much for writing ability). Do you maintain that a college course about cancer proves definitively that you're smarter than every Christian who ever lived? Or does it definitively prove that there is no God? Or is that just a class you read about in the curriculum flyer that goes out to "Current Resident" from your local community college, and you've been dying to pretend that you belong to the set that takes those classes?



You're missing the point. All it takes for you to believe the Bible is to believe the Bible. Reading it isn't necessary, writing about it isn't necessary, doing any real research into primary source documents and translations isn't necessary. All it takes is for someone to say "yep, Bible's true. I can't explain it, but I just know it is."

Try that in a science class. At the very least you are going to have to read the material and go to lab. It require real work to understand what is going on.


----------



## daws101

Ropey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free will isn't the issue and there's no brew-ha over the real issue.
> 
> Free won't.
> 
> I will do it vs I won't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about it.   Black vs White. G-d vs Devil, + vs -. Strong nuclear force vs Weak nuclear force....
> 
> ...Will vs Won't.
Click to expand...

will vs won't is conditional.
under certain conditions a person may never do somethings, change those conditions even slightly and that will change.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others


----------



## turzovka

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last one really sums up theism in a nut shell - ignore reality because it's HARD.  It's a lazy system of beliefs because one doesn't have to think for oneself, we can just let some magic omnipotent sky daddy do all the thinking for us.  It's also a narcissistic system because it leads one to believe that its all about us, that the universe is here for us, when the fact is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support that ridiculous claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Of course you got it all wrong.    (no doubt on purpose)

Anyway, the shepherds were given a revelation of God, not of the Cambrian explosion.    

You understand?    We know who God is because He has made Himself known.   Once we know God then it is only the oddest of creatures who might suggest this complex, orderly and beautiful world all just happened by chance without HIS involvement.     

God is real.   The rest is easy.


----------



## daws101

turzovka said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you got it all wrong.    (no doubt on purpose)
> 
> Anyway, the shepherds were given a revelation of God, not of the Cambrian explosion.
> 
> You understand?    We know who God is because He has made Himself known.   Once we know God then it is only the oddest of creatures who might suggest this complex, orderly and beautiful world all just happened by chance without HIS involvement.
> 
> God is real.   The rest is easy.
Click to expand...

another fine example of the absolute bullshit people will believe..
your rambling non provable non sense is only proof of belief in the giant sky fairy, not evidence of his/hers/ it's actual existence.. 
no biblical prophecy or event has every been proven to have occurred..  
the bible is not evidence ..it is a compendium of stories based on other stories and edited to convey an imaginary existence...
you haven't  a clue who or what god is ,you just believe you do:
e·lieve  [bih-leev]  Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others



How dramatic!!  The problem is that no religion is trying to impose anything on you, actually seems more like the other way around.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dramatic!!  The problem is that no religion is trying to impose anything on you, actually seems more like the other way around.
Click to expand...

another non truth by the religiously indoctrinated.
religion, christianity in particular has imposed it will on nations for better than 2000 years.
I'm not surprised you don't know that..or my post was sarcastic as the person being quoted was hitler..a christian..


----------



## BreezeWood

daws101 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! there is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
> btw the bible and all other religious writings are not quantifiable so they are not solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is evidence for the existence of God - the Fauna and Flora of Earth - proving otherwise leaves only dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's the oldest and lamest christian dodge there is ..but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...



there is nothing in Christian literature that encompasses the Flora and Fauna of Earth - your obsession is no different than theirs and similarly as arrogant.

.


----------



## turzovka

daws101 said:


> another fine example of the absolute bullshit people will believe..
> your rambling non provable non sense is only proof of belief in the giant sky fairy, not evidence of his/hers/ it's actual existence..
> no biblical prophecy or event has every been proven to have occurred..
> the bible is not evidence ..it is a compendium of stories based on other stories and edited to convey an imaginary existence...
> you haven't  a clue who or what god is ,you just believe you do:
> e·lieve  [bih-leev]  Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
> verb (used without object)
> 1.
> to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.



Let's just say you become a tad irksome is why I even chimed in.   I am not prepared to make a lengthy defense, especially since you cast off everything thoughtlessly,  as it appears to me. 

But my evidence for God is not the Bible.  Ok?   I never said it was and so you need not present a strawman argument on my behalf.    It is empirical events (miracles, if you will) that you and your ilk are so quick to dismiss, even though your counter explanations are laughable,  such as mass hallucination or trickery by nuns with the weeping statues.  

Secondly, let me help you with your cocky grandstanding that we Christians have nothing but faith and no evidence --- you claiming all we do is believe in something we have no good reason to think exists.    

I, personally, DO NOT BELIEVE that God exists.   I KNOW HE DOES.   The evidence and the reason for it are overwhelming it does not require any faith on my part.   I BELIEVE that my prayers are doing good for someone.   I BELIEVE that the words in Scripture are truth.  I BELIEVE God created all creatures and not via your corny evolution theory.  I BELIEVE when I die I will go to heaven, but first to purgatory.    But I am not wishing and hoping I am right about Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  I KNOW.  I have no need for belief.       

Sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## Steven_R

What is the basis of your knowledge?

I don't mean that to be antagonistic. I just don't understand how someone can claim to know something for a fact without something to back up that knowledge. I just don't understand blind faith without something behind it.


----------



## turzovka

Steven_R said:


> What is the basis of your knowledge?
> 
> I don't mean that to be antagonistic. I just don't understand how someone can claim to know something for a fact without something to back up that knowledge. I just don't understand blind faith without something behind it.




I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.   

_Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._

I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.


----------



## koshergrl

Why do you obsess over what compels people to believe and have faith? Why does their degree of certainty have to be compelled by the same things that compel your certainty?

That's the problem with teh anti-christian bigots who seem to think it's their calling to disavow Christians world wide...and who go about that by telling them "I can't believe it, therefore you're stupid for believing it". 

I have found, without except, that these arrogant, pushy, bigoted pieces of shit universally have an extremely limited comprehension of what motivates Christians in the first place, and they have an extremely limited understanding of the bible and each Christian's individual walk...yet they insist on pretending they have all the answers.

It's laughable, and maddening. I don't go up to Quantum Physics professors and call them idiots because I skimmed their books, found them contradictory based on my own limited understanding, and then insist they have no right teaching or believing in Quantum Physics. No reasonable person would.

Which is what it comes down to...anti-Christians like to pretend they're reasonable...but they are the ones lacking logic, understanding, or the ability to apply reason.


----------



## orogenicman

turzovka said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong, and it's sad. You seriously believe you have a better grasp on reality than people who, down through the ages, have accepted Christ and done amazing, amazing things for his honor and glory. Great minds, great men, great women, who achieved greatness because of their faith, and because of a loving god. And you, with your backward, arrogant viewpoint, you honestly believe you're smarter...a more liberated thinker, a more advanced person...and you're not. You're short sighted, bigoted, arrogant, ignorant...and above all just foolish.
> 
> I'm going to share with you a parallel that you may or may not be able to understand....I have been a horse woman all my life, as was my mother and her mother before her, and a few female cousins as well. We have spent a lot of time in the saddle, and have amassed a huge knowledge of horses...that comes from working with them a lot.
> 
> Do you know how you tell the most inexperience greenhorn in the horse world? Its the person who thinks they have all the answers. The most dangerous (and the person who is most ridiculed) horse person is the person who thinks they know it all. It's the person who insists that they've got every horse figured out, and they revel in telling others how to do things. They are universally recognized as beginners, who lack knowledge, and understanding, and a well rounded education regarding animals. Because the one thing that experience teaches people who can be taught is that NOBODY has all the answers, and ANYTHING is possible. Just because you don't *get* it doesn't mean it's not possible. If you don't understand why brilliant, good people devote their lives to God, and you think it must be because they're stupid, that tells everybody around you that you have a limited understanding not only of the very essence of the Bible that you disdain...but you have a really limited understanding of mankind, and exactly zero understanding of history. A person who jeers at believers proves himself an ignoramus. Because the fact of the matter is ... most of the most spectacular examples of humanity that have ever existed have believed whole heartedly in God, and been devoted to Him. And trust me, you are not a smarter, better rounded, better educated person than the least of them. Do yourself a favor, and stop making fun of your betters. All you do is advertise your own stupidity and lack of class...and everybody will recognize that...and the result is you will continue to be dismissed out of hand.
> 
> And regarding you ridiculous statement that people choose Christianity because it's easy shows just how pitifully small is your understanding of Christianity. There's nothing, NOTHING, easy about it. But you wouldn't know that, because you obviously  know absolutely nothing about Christians, or the history of Christianity, as has been evidenced spectacularly in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you got it all wrong.    (no doubt on purpose)
> 
> Anyway, the shepherds were given a revelation of God, not of the Cambrian explosion.
> 
> You understand?    We know who God is because He has made Himself known.   Once we know God then it is only the oddest of creatures who might suggest this complex, orderly and beautiful world all just happened by chance without HIS involvement.
> 
> God is real.   The rest is easy.
Click to expand...


Sure he did.  And I've got a bridge I can sell you for a song and a dance.


----------



## orogenicman

turzovka said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your knowledge?
> 
> I don't mean that to be antagonistic. I just don't understand how someone can claim to know something for a fact without something to back up that knowledge. I just don't understand blind faith without something behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> _Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._
> 
> I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.
Click to expand...


What evidence, where?  You made the claim to have evidence, so if it is too much of a bother for you to present it, pardon us while we question your credibility.


----------



## koshergrl

You really aren't capable of learning, or of adult conversation.

Most of you anti-Christian loons aren't. You're stuck somewhere around 11 years old...certain you have the answers, angry at the world, confident in your superiority and the justification of phycially overpowering anyone who doesn't agree with you...and with zero understanding of history, religion, the nature of God...or people.


----------



## Derideo_Te

turzovka said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your knowledge?
> 
> I don't mean that to be antagonistic. I just don't understand how someone can claim to know something for a fact without something to back up that knowledge. I just don't understand blind faith without something behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> _Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._
> 
> I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.
Click to expand...


You are the first and only person I have ever encountered to claim to not only have evidence for the existence of your God but a surfeit of evidence to boot.

So please don't be shy about sharing it with the rest of us. I am always willing to consider new evidence with an open mind.


----------



## Chuckt

koshergrl said:


> Why do you obsess over what compels people to believe and have faith? Why does their degree of certainty have to be compelled by the same things that compel your certainty?



If we smile and they don't, what does it signify?  We're a reminder that we have eternal life and they don't.  

2 Corinthians 2:16   To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?


----------



## daws101

turzovka said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another fine example of the absolute bullshit people will believe..
> your rambling non provable non sense is only proof of belief in the giant sky fairy, not evidence of his/hers/ it's actual existence..
> no biblical prophecy or event has every been proven to have occurred..
> the bible is not evidence ..it is a compendium of stories based on other stories and edited to convey an imaginary existence...
> you haven't  a clue who or what god is ,you just believe you do:
> e·lieve  [bih-leev]  Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
> verb (used without object)
> 1.
> to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just say you become a tad irksome is why I even chimed in.   I am not prepared to make a lengthy defense, especially since you cast off everything thoughtlessly,  as it appears to me.
> 
> But my evidence for God is not the Bible.  Ok?   I never said it was and so you need not present a strawman argument on my behalf.    It is empirical events (miracles, if you will) that you and your ilk are so quick to dismiss, even though your counter explanations are laughable,  such as mass hallucination or trickery by nuns with the weeping statues.
> 
> Secondly, let me help you with your cocky grandstanding that we Christians have nothing but faith and no evidence --- you claiming all we do is believe in something we have no good reason to think exists.
> 
> I, personally, DO NOT BELIEVE that God exists.   I KNOW HE DOES.   The evidence and the reason for it are overwhelming it does not require any faith on my part.   I BELIEVE that my prayers are doing good for someone.   I BELIEVE that the words in Scripture are truth.  I BELIEVE God created all creatures and not via your corny evolution theory.  I BELIEVE when I die I will go to heaven, but first to purgatory.    But I am not wishing and hoping I am right about Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  I KNOW.  I have no need for belief.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

and yet another statement of faith not evidence.
your claim of knowing is the pinnacle of hubris. there is no way you could know that god exists.
as your "knowledge" is subjective at best.
I do not claim "all you do is believe something we have no good reason to think exists."-paraphrased from TA
 what I posted is an observation on believers behavior, you do exactly what I stated you did.
your "good reason" is irrelevant  as it is rationalization and justification.
Also your knowing is based on a false assumption and the argument from authority fallacy.


----------



## daws101

turzovka said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your knowledge?
> 
> I don't mean that to be antagonistic. I just don't understand how someone can claim to know something for a fact without something to back up that knowledge. I just don't understand blind faith without something behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> _Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._
> 
> I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.
Click to expand...

no actual evidence is not a preponderance of evidence.


----------



## koshergrl

The red bullshit buzzer is a part of nature?

Nature is reasonable as God controls it. What is not reasonable is pretending it works against, rather than for, God.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Way to prove my point!


you have no point, so nothing been proved!
you're still a rambling zealot psycho...and that's being kind.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it's being dishonest. I neither ramble, nor am I psychotic, nor am I any sort of zealot.

You loons just like to brand me as such because you think it makes you look sane in comparison.

The zealots, as always, are the anti-christian goons who rush to attack anyone who dares to reject their particularly bizarre religion...that is wrapped up in a compulsion to brand those who don't subscribe as "crazy" "dangerous" "criminal" and "stupid"...

Same old same old. Fascists everywhere approve of your methods.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dramatic!!  The problem is that no religion is trying to impose anything on you, actually seems more like the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> another non truth by the religiously indoctrinated.
> religion, christianity in particular has imposed it will on nations for better than 2000 years.
> I'm not surprised you don't know that..or my post was sarcastic as the person being quoted was hitler..a christian..
Click to expand...


Chritianity *HAS* imposed it's will?    Not *IS* imposing its will??   No, people, *human beings*, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.

No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed *his will *to the point where millions died.  The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means.   You're clueless.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dramatic!!  The problem is that no religion is trying to impose anything on you, actually seems more like the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> another non truth by the religiously indoctrinated.
> religion, christianity in particular has imposed it will on nations for better than 2000 years.
> I'm not surprised you don't know that..or my post was sarcastic as the person being quoted was hitler..a christian..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chritianity *HAS* imposed it's will?    Not *IS* imposing its will??   No, people, *human beings*, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.
> 
> No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed *his will *to the point where millions died.  The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means.   You're clueless.
Click to expand...

again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted  or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
when we move back to southern California  my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease  (BOM & the bible).
you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another non truth by the religiously indoctrinated.
> religion, christianity in particular has imposed it will on nations for better than 2000 years.
> I'm not surprised you don't know that..or my post was sarcastic as the person being quoted was hitler..a christian..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chritianity *HAS* imposed it's will?  Not *IS* imposing its will?? No, people, *human beings*, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.
> 
> No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed *his will *to the point where millions died. The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means. You're clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
> when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
> when we move back to southern California my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
> there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease (BOM & the bible).
> you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
> the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..
Click to expand...

 
If that bizarre and rambling diatribe made sense I would dispute it.

Since it doesn't, I will just allow it to stand on its own.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chritianity *HAS* imposed it's will?  Not *IS* imposing its will?? No, people, *human beings*, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.
> 
> No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed *his will *to the point where millions died. The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means. You're clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
> when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
> when we move back to southern California my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
> there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease (BOM & the bible).
> you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
> the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that bizarre and rambling diatribe made sense I would dispute it.
> 
> Since it doesn't, I will just allow it to stand on its own.
Click to expand...

 ok I'll bite, what's bizarre and rambling about it...your critique should be good for a laugh.


----------



## daws101

just as I expected....


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
> when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
> when we move back to southern California my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
> there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease (BOM & the bible).
> you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
> the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..[/quote]
> 
> If that bizarre and rambling diatribe made sense I would dispute it.
> 
> Since it doesn't, I will just allow it to stand on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> ok I'll bite, what's bizarre and rambling about it...your critique should be good for a laugh.
Click to expand...

 

There ya go. I highlighted all the ungrammatical, unsupported and irrelelvant garbage that in no way supports whatever point you thought you were making (which I haven't named because hey, you didn't name or make it yourself). Whethere or not you were exposed to dogma means absolutely nothing in this conversation, and certainly has no bearing on any of my comments. I never declared you had be *unexposed to dogma*. Whatever sect dominated your household, and your brief foray into Mormonism is relevant to exactly nothing that I've commented on. I don't care, and it means nothing in this particular convo. I'm tickled that at some point in the past you could rattle off scripture, that's really exciting, but again...proves zero and has zero to do with this discussion. When I was young I could do a walkover backbend. Interesting, but has no bearing on any discussion I'm participating in today, unless that discussion is specifically about my flexibility at the age of 10. And the last two sentences (given the errors in grammar and syntax) have no meaning at all. If you think you have in any way highlighted bigotry on my part with any of that ridiculous yammering you are sadly mistaken, and have provided us with yet another example of your deplorable lack of English/writing skill.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok I'll bite, what's bizarre and rambling about it...your critique should be good for a laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go. I highlighted all the ungrammatical, unsupported and irrelelvant garbage that in no way supports whatever point you thought you were making (which I haven't named because hey, you didn't name or make it yourself). Whethere or not you were exposed to dogma means absolutely nothing in this conversation, and certainly has no bearing on any of my comments. I never declared you had be *unexposed to dogma*. Whatever sect dominated your household, and your brief foray into Mormonism is relevant to exactly nothing that I've commented on. I don't care, and it means nothing in this particular convo. I'm tickled that at some point in the past you could rattle off scripture, that's really exciting, but again...proves zero and has zero to do with this discussion. When I was young I could do a walkover backbend. Interesting, but has no bearing on any discussion I'm participating in today, unless that discussion is specifically about my flexibility at the age of 10. And the last two sentences (given the errors in grammar and syntax) have no meaning at all. If you think you have in any way highlighted bigotry on my part with any of that ridiculous yammering you are sadly mistaken, and have provided us with yet another example of your deplorable lack of English/writing skill.
Click to expand...

yep! more rationalizing and false assumption.
still no proof of god or that atheists lack the ability to know what it is to be christian...
all in all, typical KG diarrhea .


----------



## koshergrl

Learn to quote.

And who said they had proof of God's existence? Again, totally irrelevant claptrap meant to make you look *reel smart*!

Though every post you subject us to is evidence of your lack of understanding of the subject matter. Keep it up!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Learn to quote.
> 
> And who said they had proof of God's existence? Again, totally irrelevant claptrap meant to make you look *reel smart*!
> 
> Though every post you subject us to is evidence of your lack of understanding of the subject matter. Keep it up!


funny coming from you as using the quote function seems to be a unsolvable mystery to you .
anyway..
as to the subject matter.. believers claim that god exists with no supporting quantifiable evidence.
"we" claim there is no evidence proving or disproving god. 
notice I did not say you (KG) your entire contribution to this thread has been 1.a meaningless analogy about how horse breeding and christian dogma are related.
the rest, ass always have been false assumptions, paranoid ranting , attempts at character assassination and tattle tailing.
in essence you've added nothing of note.


----------



## koshergrl

You can't write for shit, you don't make sense, you appear incapable of sticking to the subject matter, and have no idea what constitutes a real conversation. 

When you feel like focusing and actually talking about the subject, maybe I can point out what an idiot you are...again.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You can't write for shit, you don't make sense, you appear incapable of sticking to the subject matter, and have no idea what constitutes a real conversation.
> 
> When you feel like focusing and actually talking about the subject, maybe I can point out what an idiot you are...again.


the rest, ass always have been false assumptions, paranoid ranting , attempts at character assassination and tattle tailing.
in essence you've added nothing of note.


----------



## koshergrl

You should submit that for publication. Really, it's THAT good, lololo....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You should submit that for publication. Really, it's THAT good, lololo....


one too many antipsychotics with your wine?


----------



## orogenicman

Someone should bring up Hitler so this thread can finally die.  Oh wait...


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another non truth by the religiously indoctrinated.
> religion, christianity in particular has imposed it will on nations for better than 2000 years.
> I'm not surprised you don't know that..or my post was sarcastic as the person being quoted was hitler..a christian..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chritianity *HAS* imposed it's will?    Not *IS* imposing its will??   No, people, *human beings*, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.
> 
> No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed *his will *to the point where millions died.  The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means.   You're clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted  or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
> when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
> when we move back to southern California  my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
> there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease  (BOM & the bible).
> you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
> the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..
Click to expand...


If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion.  Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will.  Anyone with common sense can understand that religion is used as a scapegoat by many, including you, to tack the blame on for everything that goes wrong in society. It's also used by those who do evil to gain power, control, and influence over people.  To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant. All you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart.  Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.


----------



## pacer

Well, that was a good workout.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis of your knowledge?
> 
> I don't mean that to be antagonistic. I just don't understand how someone can claim to know something for a fact without something to back up that knowledge. I just don't understand blind faith without something behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> _Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._
> 
> I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no actual evidence is not a preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...


Carl Sagan was only 62 years old when he died. So what exactly did his scientific knowledge of evolution and rejection of God gain him?


----------



## Steven_R

LittleNipper said:


> Carl Sagan was only 62 years old when he died. So what exactly did his scientific knowledge of evolution



A great understanding and appreciation for the actual mechanics of the universe.



> and rejection of God gain him?



He found no evidence for the existence of God. Why would Sagan worship any God he did not believe existed?


----------



## orogenicman

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> _Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._
> 
> I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> no actual evidence is not a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carl Sagan was only 62 years old when he died. So what exactly did his scientific knowledge of evolution and rejection of God gain him?
Click to expand...


The universe, actually.  His face and name is headed out of the solar system and into the midst of the stars on the Voyager Spacecraft.  You know what they say about candles burning half as long burning twice as bright.  Do you have anything comparable?


----------



## oldfart

Newby said:


> If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion.



You are setting up a common argument, but one that is almost always inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.  Religions are not separable from their practitioners.  By raising this argument, you cannot any point make the argument that Christians, or any other group associated with the religion you are trying to promote do good things or are good people.  By your argument, it is irrelevant.  It is not the religion which is good, it is the people.  You cannot claim the good acts for a deity and blame the bad acts on the followers.  Do you wish to reconsider this position?  



Newby said:


> Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will.



Have your ever heard of the term "cults"?  Does "Jonestown" ring a bell?  Religions, including Christianity have a history of holding people against their will and even killing them in the name of God.  Or do you just hold fast to that argument that religions have nothing to do with the actions of those who practice them?  




Newby said:


> Anyone with common sense can understand that religion is used as a scapegoat by many, including you, to tack the blame on for everything that goes wrong in society. It's also used by those who do evil to gain power, control, and influence over people.



Yes religion is often misused.  At its heart, Western religion is a system of social control based on fear.  If you believe in accountability, it is the responsibility of each religious organization to discipline itself to minimize these abuses.  Who it is reasonable to hold accountable is a question of fact, and it is irresponsible to scapegoat a group for actions they have no control over.  It is also irresponsible to dismiss abuses with the kind of blanket denials you are making.  



Newby said:


> To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant.



"claimed to be Christians"?  You are now the judge of who is a Christian?  If someone behaves badly, Jim Jones for instance, you just decide that he is not a "real Christian" and therefore you don't have to deal with the ethical problems they create?  It must be nice to have such convenient Christian ethics where the religion is never responsible for addressing abuses within its ranks.  



Newby said:


> you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart.  Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.



Oh come on!  I have not read such a load of self-serving sanctimonious drivel in years!  You now know what is in everyone's heart, and suddenly religion gets a free pass.  I hope you believe in a merciful god instead of a just one.  Honestly, the arguments you raise get students expelled from seminaries every year, they are the marks of someone who is not temperamentally suited to a religious calling.  Your arguments are simply disgusting and an insult to any faith tradition worthy of the status.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chritianity *HAS* imposed it's will?    Not *IS* imposing its will??   No, people, *human beings*, have used christianity, along with thousands of other scapegoats over the centuries to impose their will on those around them.
> 
> No one is forcing you to believe in anything, your quoted comment was bullshit, and it was bullshit when Hitler said it, not to mention the height of hypocrisy since he imposed *his will *to the point where millions died.  The fact that you BELIEVE his claim of being a christian just illustrates your ignorance, once again, on what being a christian actually means.   You're clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> again more bullshit...I, like most everybody who is not converted  or born into another religious tradition was exposed to christian dogma.
> when I was very small my dads sect dominated the household (southern baptists)it was Georgia after all.
> when we move back to southern California  my mother decided she and all of us should be mormons.
> there was a time when I could rattle off scripture with ease  (BOM & the bible).
> you are only highlighting your your bigotry when you yammer that falsest of declarations that atheists are ignorant of what christianity requires.
> the difference between believers and nonbelievers is gullibility..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion.  Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will.  Anyone with common sense can understand that religion is used as a scapegoat by many, including you, to tack the blame on for everything that goes wrong in society. It's also used by those who do evil to gain power, control, and influence over people.  To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant. All you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart.  Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.
Click to expand...

URL=http://s1353.photobucket.com/user/brian_dawson1/media/shit/Waaambulance_zps3a43ef50.jpg.html]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/URL]


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the Judeo-Christian G-d exists and is the One and Only G-d based on a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> _Defintion__:  Superiority in weight of all evidence presented that is more convincing  than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor._
> 
> I have on other boards presented said evidence (15 - 20 or more multiple items or reasons) on numerous occasions.   I am in no position to take up the lengthy (yet ostensibly unsatisfying) task again at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> no actual evidence is not a preponderance of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carl Sagan was only 62 years old when he died. So what exactly did his scientific knowledge of evolution and rejection of God gain him?
Click to expand...

lol!
he gained knowledge..but again you're making assumption!


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://youtu.be/xOrgLj9lOwk]Monty Python-Holy Hand Grenade - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Newby

oldfart said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> If religion was 'forced' on you as a child, blame your parents, not religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are setting up a common argument, but one that is almost always inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.  Religions are not separable from their practitioners.  By raising this argument, you cannot any point make the argument that Christians, or any other group associated with the religion you are trying to promote do good things or are good people.  By your argument, it is irrelevant.  It is not the religion which is good, it is the people.  You cannot claim the good acts for a deity and blame the bad acts on the followers.  Do you wish to reconsider this position?
Click to expand...


No, I don't wish to reconsider my opinoin because I do not use scapegoats to explain away behavior, or as a crutch to try to make a point.  Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners.  Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?  I've never personally made the statement that people outside of relgion couldn't be 'good people', there are a lot of 'good' people who do 'good' things that aren't christians or follow any other religious doctrine.  I haven't ever claimed good acts for 'a deity' either, so putting words into my mouth doesn't made for a very good rebuttal.  Your argument here just illustrates how you do not understand the Christian religion.



> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is forced on you, you just sound like a fool when you continue to claim that christianity is forced on people against their will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have your ever heard of the term "cults"?  Does "Jonestown" ring a bell?  Religions, including Christianity have a history of holding people against their will and even killing them in the name of God.  Or do you just hold fast to that argument that religions have nothing to do with the actions of those who practice them?
> 
> Yes religion is often misused.  At its heart, Western religion is a system of social control based on fear.  If you believe in accountability, it is the responsibility of each religious organization to discipline itself to minimize these abuses.  Who it is reasonable to hold accountable is a question of fact, and it is irresponsible to scapegoat a group for actions they have no control over.  It is also irresponsible to dismiss abuses with the kind of blanket denials you are making.
Click to expand...



Not sure what your point is in referring to a 'cult'?  People join 'cults', religious or otherwise, and base their beliefs of their own free will.  Otherwise, it's called enslavement, and enslavement has been abolished for over 150 years last I checked.  'Religions and Christianity have a history of enslavement and murder'... No, people have a history of enslavement and murder and will use whatever is conveniently available to control the masses.  Religions are not evil, perhaps* people * who practice them, use them for ill gain, or establish them for use of evil, are the ones who are evil.

That's how you apparently view religion, as a 'system of social control, based on fear', and as I clearly pointed out in my prior post, it most certainly has been used that way by many people throughout history.  Unfortunately, people do not define Christianity as they wish, only Christ defined it.  If a person or a group is truly following the path of Christ, fear is not used, force is not  used, and discipline goes without question.  



> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> To take examples of people who claimed to be christians that were responsible for evil deeds and hold that up as a representative is disingenuous and/or ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "claimed to be Christians"?  You are now the judge of who is a Christian?  If someone behaves badly, Jim Jones for instance, you just decide that he is not a "real Christian" and therefore you don't have to deal with the ethical problems they create?  It must be nice to have such convenient Christian ethics where the religion is never responsible for addressing abuses within its ranks.
Click to expand...


I'm not judging anyone.  God gave me intelligence and common sense to use to discern between good and evil.  Evil is not associated with God, anyone who does evil deeds is not a follower of God.  If you want to take their word for it that they are, and then condemn God for what they did, their evil acts done of their own free will, then that's certainly your perogative.  And I don't have to deal with any 'unethical problems' that another christian might create, they have to deal with that on their own, and if they truly have a relationship with God, then they have to deal with that as well.  Being a follower of Christ is not a team sport, it's an individual endeavor, which most of you who bash christianity just don't seem to get.



> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to do is look at the actions to see what is in the heart.  Every person on this planet is responsbile for their own actions and chioces and what they do with their lives, quit blaming 'religion' or whatever other scapegoat you manage to come up with to try to simplify the ills of humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on!  I have not read such a load of self-serving sanctimonious drivel in years!  You now know what is in everyone's heart, and suddenly religion gets a free pass.  I hope you believe in a merciful god instead of a just one.  Honestly, the arguments you raise get students expelled from seminaries every year, they are the marks of someone who is not temperamentally suited to a religious calling.  Your arguments are simply disgusting and an insult to any faith tradition worthy of the status.
Click to expand...


A person's actions define who and what they are, are you suggesting otherwise? 'Religion' doesn't get a 'free pass', that's where you go wrong in  your thinking.  Every individual will have to answer for their actions, it's not going to matter what 'religion' you belonged too, or what church you went too, what's going to matter is that you showed your faith and your love in Christ through the deeds that you did.  There is a lot of argument about 'faith' and 'deeds', and which saves you, but they're inseparable.  If you have faith, then the deeds follow without effort, deeds without the faith are great, but are meaningless without the faith in the end.  

You can insult my arguments all you like, and insinuate that my 'temperment is not suited to a religiious calling', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, but it just shows a lack of maturity and a lack of confidence in your own arguement to lower yourself to such a level.


----------



## orogenicman

> Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?



What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!
Click to expand...


You're totally off the subject in regards to context...


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners. Can you give one logical reason why they cannot be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're totally off the subject in regards to context...
Click to expand...


Excuse me?  I responded to what you said.  So if I am off topic, so are you.  Congratulations.


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're totally off the subject in regards to context...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I responded to what you said.  So if I am off topic, so are you.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...

context, he don't need no stinkin' context!


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a ridiculous claim. Without the practitioners, the religions would not exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're totally off the subject in regards to context...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I responded to what you said.  So if I am off topic, so are you.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...


The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously.  How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.


----------



## koshergrl

It's the very definition of bigotry, and ignorance. Not only do they have a poor understanding of the religion, they have a poor understanding of the bible, and they completely misconstrue the motivation and the development that people of God experience. Most anti-Christians think that because they sneer at the bible and have  no interest in seeking truth in it, or applying it to their life, or increasing and improving their relationship with god....that all people who claim to be walking that path are LIARS, and simply following along with a religion because they're afraid of hellfire. It isn't that at all. It's about being GOOD for the sake of being Good, and for the sake of pleasing God, whom we LOVE. Most people don't do good things for their spouses because they're afraid of them. They don't strive to excel at their jobs or at parenthood because they're afraid of being fired, or being  hated...they do it because they want to do the right thing, because they want to be an example to others, because they want to earn the trust and love of their children and the people they love and admire. And for some reason, anti-Christians just can't get it through their heads that it's the same with religion, and faith. We don't study the bible and work on our inner and outer selves because we're afraid. We do it because we admire God and want to follow him. We want others to follow him too...because we know the joy it brings to every day life, because we understand the improvements it believes it all aspects of living, because we value the love we find in and through our Savior, and because we want everybody to join in that. It's about experiencing and sharing joy. And for some reason, they think that shows weakness on our part...and for some reason, they think it's an EASY thing to do.

Trust me, it isn't.


----------



## koshergrl

The longer I work at being a better Christian, the more thought I put into it and the more time I spend in the word studying it, the more I want to improve myself, to become a more perfect vessel. That is not fear. It's love, and knowledge that the experience of joy brings (the word brings joy. That's all there is to it. If you read it with an open heart and a desire to improve yourself and grow closer to God, it's nothing but pure joy). I can see the difference between my life now and the life I lead before I took it to heart and really began to work on my walk, and to consider the deeper concepts of the bible...self sacrifice, inner strength,  and above all the commitment to contanstly move FORWARD in my walk, and to APPLY the lessons learned within the word..on a day by day basis. It has taken a long time, but I see benefit and improvement daily...and where i see it most is in the character growth and happiness in my FAMILY. It is a miraculous thing, it is not of man (I've been around man enough to distinguish the difference...I was not raised in a Christian household). The things I have experienced and witnessed are not of man, except through the grace and intervention of God. I'm not a stupid or mystical woman, but I will give credit where credit is due. And credit is due to God. And it breaks my heart that people think they are doing a good thing when they try to destroy that.


----------



## Steven_R

That's a pretty wide brush you're painting with. Just because I'm an agnostic, doesn't mean I can't get something out of the Bible. It's chockfull of wonderful life lessons, but I see no proof of a God to back it up. It's just a good book, akin to Aesop's Fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales.


----------



## koshergrl

I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're totally off the subject in regards to context...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I responded to what you said.  So if I am off topic, so are you.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously.  How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.
Click to expand...


The comment that I responded to was this:

"Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners".  It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion.  That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above.  Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact.  Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think?  Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I responded to what you said.  So if I am off topic, so are you.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously.  How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comment that I responded to was this:
> 
> "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners".  It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion.  That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above.  Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact.  Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think?  Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.
Click to expand...


It might help to read what it was in response too.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously.  How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum.  If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comment that I responded to was this:
> 
> "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners".  It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion.  That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above.  Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact.  Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think?  Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might help to read what it was in response too.
Click to expand...


If you didn't mean to say that "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners", then why did you say it?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.


what point? again you yammer on about what it is to be christian and the suffering you volunteered for.yes you did and do say ,if only by inference that if someone is not a christian they know nothing about it.
this is  self serving braggadocio and pretentiousness at it finest, besides being a steaming pile.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? I responded to what you said. So if I am off topic, so are you. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so without the cloak of you religion you're just an asshole as opposed to with your religion you're a christian asshole?
Click to expand...

 
Look, another completely irrelevant post, with absolutely no connection to the subject matter.

Reported for trolling and for posting subject matter that in no way shape or form references the conversation.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> what point? again you yammer on about what it is to be christian and the suffering you volunteered for.yes you did and do say ,if only by inference that if someone is not a christian they know nothing about it.
> this is self serving braggadocio and pretentiousness at it finest, besides being a steaming pile.
Click to expand...

 


If only you know what you were talking about, maybe you could make yourself understood, and actually be a part of an adult conversation.

Until then, sorry, irrelevant, poorly constructed, and completely vapid post that has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall.
> 
> 
> 
> so without the cloak of you religion you're just an asshole as opposed to with your religion you're a christian asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, another completely irrelevant post, with absolutely no connection to the subject matter.
> 
> Reported for trolling and for posting subject matter that in no way shape or form references the conversation.
Click to expand...

wrong as always..my comment is far more relevant to this thread then all of yours put together..
 the fact is you just love to tattle, the thread's context and how comments connect with one another is not your call to make..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you couldn't get anything out of the bible. See, there you go again, completely missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> what point? again you yammer on about what it is to be christian and the suffering you volunteered for.yes you did and do say ,if only by inference that if someone is not a christian they know nothing about it.
> this is self serving braggadocio and pretentiousness at it finest, besides being a steaming pile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you know what you were talking about, maybe you could make yourself understood, and actually be a part of an adult conversation.
> 
> Until then, sorry, irrelevant, poorly constructed, and completely vapid post that has nothing to do with anything going on in this thread.
Click to expand...

damn this dodge is getting old!
my posts are readable and informative .
not my fault that you trip over yourself to be a wilfully ignorant psycho .


----------



## koshergrl

I'm not dodging anything. Your posts have nothing in them. You don't reference anything, you don't explain anything, you don't support any of what passes for "claims" in your conversation.

There's no substance, and what little there is is completely unrelated to what's being discussed. You don't win a conversation by just continually throwing new, unrelated and unsubstantiated claims into the mix. All that will get you is a shrug and a blank stare before people move away to find someone who can actually follow a conversation and interact intelligently about it.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so without the cloak of you religion you're just an asshole as opposed to with your religion you're a christian asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, another completely irrelevant post, with absolutely no connection to the subject matter.
> 
> Reported for trolling and for posting subject matter that in no way shape or form references the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong as always..my comment is far more relevant to this thread then all of yours put together..
> the fact is you just love to tattle, the thread's context and how comments connect with one another is not your call to make..
Click to expand...

 
If by "tattle" you mean I am able and willing to report posts that break the rules by being irrelevant and referencing nothing in the current conversation, then yeah, I like to tattle. I've watched the religion forum be trolled by piece of shit trolls like you since it's inception...people who have absolutely nothing of value to say...who mumble incoherently and unspecific drivel about nothing, and who only make any sense at all when they are allowing their bigotry and hatred free rein. 

"so without the cloak of you religion you're just an asshole as opposed to with your religion you're a christian asshole?" as the sum total of your post is completely without value in this discussion. It's just hateful spewing, that relates to no topic being discussed in the thread. It's just you insulting someone for being christian, which is of course the sole purpose of your presence in this thread in the first place. To spread hate and bigotry.

Yeah, I'll point it out. Glad to do it. Glad you noticed.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I'm not dodging anything. Your posts have nothing in them. You don't reference anything, you don't explain anything, you don't support any of what passes for "claims" in your conversation.
> 
> There's no substance, and what little there is is completely unrelated to what's being discussed. You don't win a conversation by just continually throwing new, unrelated and unsubstantiated claims into the mix. All that will get you is a shrug and a blank stare before people move away to find someone who can actually follow a conversation and interact intelligently about it.


that's the story you tell yourself...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, another completely irrelevant post, with absolutely no connection to the subject matter.
> 
> Reported for trolling and for posting subject matter that in no way shape or form references the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong as always..my comment is far more relevant to this thread then all of yours put together..
> the fact is you just love to tattle, the thread's context and how comments connect with one another is not your call to make..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by "tattle" you mean I am able and willing to report posts that break the rules by being irrelevant and referencing nothing in the current conversation, then yeah, I like to tattle. I've watched the religion forum be trolled by piece of shit trolls like you since it's inception...people who have absolutely nothing of value to say...who mumble incoherently and unspecific drivel about nothing, and who only make any sense at all when they are allowing their bigotry and hatred free rein.
> 
> "so without the cloak of you religion you're just an asshole as opposed to with your religion you're a christian asshole?" as the sum total of your post is completely without value in this discussion. It's just hateful spewing, that relates to no topic being discussed in the thread. It's just you insulting someone for being christian, which is of course the sole purpose of your presence in this thread in the first place. To spread hate and bigotry.
> 
> Yeah, I'll point it out. Glad to do it. Glad you noticed.
Click to expand...

wrong again, that answer was  a relevant and spot on refutation of this nonsense.."The original comment was that a person could not be separated from his/her religion, it said nothing about every practitioner of a certain religion being permanently 'separated' from the religion. A person can be viewed without the context of their religion, you're not understanding the point that was being made obviously. How about trying to look at people as individuals instead of as a group, altho I know that's a difficult concept for most of those on the left side of the political spectrum. If I had to guess, I'd say that's where you most likely fall."-newby

only you would spin it into something else, just like you've spun false accusations  about trolling the religious threads.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm pretty sure you just completely flip flopped in that post...but your comments are so vague and your references non existent, so really, it's hard to say for sure except...

meh, once again...absolutely nothing of value contained in your post.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The comment that I responded to was this:
> 
> "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners".  It did not imply whether or not a person can be viewed separately from his/her religion.  That was not an issue that even came up in your comment, above.  Your statement, above, not only implied that a religion can be separable from its practitioners, which is a different statement altogether from what you are now claiming, it was stated it as a matter of fact.  Obfuscating to save face is rather immature, don't you think?  Either back up your statement or admit it wasn't what you meant to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might help to read what it was in response too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't mean to say that "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners", then why did you say it?
Click to expand...


If you can't comprehend context then why do you bother engaging in discussion, you're wasting everyone's time.

And if you want to argue that specific point, there are many religions that no longer have practitioners, but they're still religions and can be studied as such.  So if your argument is that a religion can't exist without current practitioners, then you're wrong on that as well.  But, I understand why you can only discuss or address something that you've taken out of context, twist the discussion from its original intent, and not discuss any other part of my comments. You have nothing.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I'm pretty sure you just completely flip flopped in that post...but your comments are so vague and your references non existent, so really, it's hard to say for sure except...
> 
> meh, once again...absolutely nothing of value contained in your post.


same dodge different expression of willful ignorance.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might help to read what it was in response too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't mean to say that "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners", then why did you say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't comprehend context then why do you bother engaging in discussion, you're wasting everyone's time.
> 
> And if you want to argue that specific point, there are many religions that no longer have practitioners, but they're still religions and can be studied as such.  So if your argument is that a religion can't exist without current practitioners, then you're wrong on that as well.  But, I understand why you can only discuss or address something that you've taken out of context, twist the discussion from its original intent, and not discuss any other part of my comments. You have nothing.
Click to expand...


Yada, yada, yada.  You didn't answer my question.


----------



## koshergrl

Still waiting for O man to say something that means something and can thus elicit a response. 

As it was, he continues to post meaningless nothingness. I dare someone to find a single point in any of his points, aside from ad hominems. A point with a definitive message. One that references something that's real, can be confirmed, supported...and actually has something to do with what everybody (heck...anybody) else is discussing. Good luck.


----------



## koshergrl

If this thread were a composition class, you'd get a big fat "F".


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't mean to say that "Religions absolutely are separable from their practitioners", then why did you say it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't comprehend context then why do you bother engaging in discussion, you're wasting everyone's time.
> 
> And if you want to argue that specific point, there are many religions that no longer have practitioners, but they're still religions and can be studied as such.  So if your argument is that a religion can't exist without current practitioners, then you're wrong on that as well.  But, I understand why you can only discuss or address something that you've taken out of context, twist the discussion from its original intent, and not discuss any other part of my comments. You have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  You didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

you didn't really expect him too?


----------



## orogenicman

daws101 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't comprehend context then why do you bother engaging in discussion, you're wasting everyone's time.
> 
> And if you want to argue that specific point, there are many religions that no longer have practitioners, but they're still religions and can be studied as such.  So if your argument is that a religion can't exist without current practitioners, then you're wrong on that as well.  But, I understand why you can only discuss or address something that you've taken out of context, twist the discussion from its original intent, and not discuss any other part of my comments. You have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you didn't really expect him too?
Click to expand...


Not really, but I did afford him every opportunity.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  You didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't really expect him too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, but I did afford him every opportunity.
Click to expand...


It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Still waiting for O man to say something that means something and can thus elicit a response.
> 
> As it was, he continues to post meaningless nothingness. I dare someone to find a single point in any of his points, aside from ad hominems. A point with a definitive message. One that references something that's real, can be confirmed, supported...and actually has something to do with what everybody (heck...anybody) else is discussing. Good luck.


 so your post here is not a response?
then what is it?
everything O has posted is real ...to anyone else the message would be clear.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't really expect him too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, but I did afford him every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.
Click to expand...


Erm, I've been discussing the topic since page one.  You did read the OP, right?  RIGHT???


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you didn't really expect him too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, but I did afford him every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.
Click to expand...

so you're a female and ? the topic is just what the OP said it was ....


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, but I did afford him every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, I've been discussing the topic since page one.  You did read the OP, right?  RIGHT???
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, but I did afford him every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, I've been discussing the topic since page one.  You did read the OP, right?  RIGHT???
Click to expand...


Really?

What is the topic, then, and what specific points have you made?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, I've been discussing the topic since page one.  You did read the OP, right?  RIGHT???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is the topic, then, and what specific points have you made?
Click to expand...


----------



## Newby

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'him', genius... When you're ready to discuss the topic, I'm guessing hell will have frozen over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, I've been discussing the topic since page one.  You did read the OP, right?  RIGHT???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is the topic, then, and *what specific points have you made*?
Click to expand...


That they're ignorant assholes??


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

The Irish Ram said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't give a darn and god still showed up last night during dinner. He had two servings of meat loaf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe.  Good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nipper is right on the money.  One of Christ's fortes  was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed.  His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room.  A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof.  *He walked out *of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.
> 
> So God needs to show up for your edification? Because you require evidence?  He needs your seal of approval? He needs to prove something to you in order to be a efficient God?
> In that case, where were you while He was creating the universe?
> 
> He doesn't need you.  You need Him.  His availability is constant.  Since you don't know Him, you wouldn't recognize Him if He sat down in front of you and ate Hollie's meatloaf.   That will end up as your problem, not His. His future is secure with or with out you.  You aren't as well off.
> He's done enough for you.  What have you done for Him lately?
Click to expand...


I don't know that your God has done -anything- for me.  I don't even know that he exists.

I did attempt honestly to find faith in Christ for many years.  If Nipper is correct, and I did care, and I made an honest effort to find that faith by following the tenets of the bible and praying regularly, then why didn't the lord make himself known?  Sorry, but my experience shows me that Nipper's wrong.

I'm definitely not demanding that the creator of the universe, if there is one, make himself known to me.  I don't think anybody here is, but I won't go so far as to assume I speak for the other nonbelievers.  I will, however, demand that if some god wants to be acknowledged and worshipped, I'm gonna have to see that said god exists before I go dedicating my life to him.  That's just how I roll.  Since I can't be certain of any afterlife, all that I -know- I have is this time, right now, and I'm not gonna waste it on, "Maybe -this- set of beliefs should rule my existence".


----------



## Newby

Not2BSubjugated said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe.  Good one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nipper is right on the money.  One of Christ's fortes  was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed.  His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room.  A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof.  *He walked out *of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.
> 
> So God needs to show up for your edification? Because you require evidence?  He needs your seal of approval? He needs to prove something to you in order to be a efficient God?
> In that case, where were you while He was creating the universe?
> 
> He doesn't need you.  You need Him.  His availability is constant.  Since you don't know Him, you wouldn't recognize Him if He sat down in front of you and ate Hollie's meatloaf.   That will end up as your problem, not His. His future is secure with or with out you.  You aren't as well off.
> He's done enough for you.  What have you done for Him lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that your God has done -anything- for me.  I don't even know that he exists.
> 
> I did attempt honestly to find faith in Christ for many years.  If Nipper is correct, and I did care, and I made an honest effort to find that faith by following the tenets of the bible and praying regularly, then why didn't the lord make himself known?  Sorry, but my experience shows me that Nipper's wrong.
> 
> I'm definitely not demanding that the creator of the universe, if there is one, make himself known to me.  I don't think anybody here is, but I won't go so far as to assume I speak for the other nonbelievers.  I will, however, demand that if some god wants to be acknowledged and worshipped, I'm gonna have to see that said god exists before I go dedicating my life to him.  That's just how I roll.  Since I can't be certain of any afterlife, all that I -know- I have is this time, right now, and I'm not gonna waste it on, "Maybe -this- set of beliefs should rule my existence".
Click to expand...


And that's your perogative, you can rely on your own experiences and make your own decisions. In then end, it will be between you and God, no one else will be involved.  I just don't see why there's a need to then turn around and try to go out of your way to bash and belittle others that feel or believe differently than you do.  I don't know your specific history, but that fits the description of a lot of people around here unfortunately.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nipper is right on the money.  One of Christ's fortes  was healing physical infirmities. Christ went to dinner at a home of one of the Pharisees. The house was packed.  His gift of healing was available to everyone in that room.  A cripple was lowered down into the room from the roof.  *He walked out *of the house, the only one to benefit. The others got exactly what the sought, nothing.
> 
> So God needs to show up for your edification? Because you require evidence?  He needs your seal of approval? He needs to prove something to you in order to be a efficient God?
> In that case, where were you while He was creating the universe?
> 
> He doesn't need you.  You need Him.  His availability is constant.  Since you don't know Him, you wouldn't recognize Him if He sat down in front of you and ate Hollie's meatloaf.   That will end up as your problem, not His. His future is secure with or with out you.  You aren't as well off.
> He's done enough for you.  What have you done for Him lately?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that your God has done -anything- for me.  I don't even know that he exists.
> 
> I did attempt honestly to find faith in Christ for many years.  If Nipper is correct, and I did care, and I made an honest effort to find that faith by following the tenets of the bible and praying regularly, then why didn't the lord make himself known?  Sorry, but my experience shows me that Nipper's wrong.
> 
> I'm definitely not demanding that the creator of the universe, if there is one, make himself known to me.  I don't think anybody here is, but I won't go so far as to assume I speak for the other nonbelievers.  I will, however, demand that if some god wants to be acknowledged and worshipped, I'm gonna have to see that said god exists before I go dedicating my life to him.  That's just how I roll.  Since I can't be certain of any afterlife, all that I -know- I have is this time, right now, and I'm not gonna waste it on, "Maybe -this- set of beliefs should rule my existence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's your perogative, you can rely on your own experiences and make your own decisions. In then end, it will be between you and God, no one else will be involved.  I just don't see why there's a need to then turn around and try to go out of your way to bash and belittle others that feel or believe differently than you do.  I don't know your specific history, but that fits the description of a lot of people around here unfortunately.
Click to expand...


Spare us the "Christians are persecuted" mantra.  Nobody is buying it.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that your God has done -anything- for me.  I don't even know that he exists.
> 
> I did attempt honestly to find faith in Christ for many years.  If Nipper is correct, and I did care, and I made an honest effort to find that faith by following the tenets of the bible and praying regularly, then why didn't the lord make himself known?  Sorry, but my experience shows me that Nipper's wrong.
> 
> I'm definitely not demanding that the creator of the universe, if there is one, make himself known to me.  I don't think anybody here is, but I won't go so far as to assume I speak for the other nonbelievers.  I will, however, demand that if some god wants to be acknowledged and worshipped, I'm gonna have to see that said god exists before I go dedicating my life to him.  That's just how I roll.  Since I can't be certain of any afterlife, all that I -know- I have is this time, right now, and I'm not gonna waste it on, "Maybe -this- set of beliefs should rule my existence".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's your perogative, you can rely on your own experiences and make your own decisions. In then end, it will be between you and God, no one else will be involved.  I just don't see why there's a need to then turn around and try to go out of your way to bash and belittle others that feel or believe differently than you do.  I don't know your specific history, but that fits the description of a lot of people around here unfortunately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spare us the "Christians are persecuted" mantra.  Nobody is buying it.
Click to expand...


You have my sympathies, no one should go thru life filled with such hate.. seek help


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that your God has done -anything- for me.  I don't even know that he exists.
> 
> I did attempt honestly to find faith in Christ for many years.  If Nipper is correct, and I did care, and I made an honest effort to find that faith by following the tenets of the bible and praying regularly, then why didn't the lord make himself known?  Sorry, but my experience shows me that Nipper's wrong.
> 
> I'm definitely not demanding that the creator of the universe, if there is one, make himself known to me.  I don't think anybody here is, but I won't go so far as to assume I speak for the other nonbelievers.  I will, however, demand that if some god wants to be acknowledged and worshipped, I'm gonna have to see that said god exists before I go dedicating my life to him.  That's just how I roll.  Since I can't be certain of any afterlife, all that I -know- I have is this time, right now, and I'm not gonna waste it on, "Maybe -this- set of beliefs should rule my existence".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's your perogative, you can rely on your own experiences and make your own decisions. In then end, it will be between you and God, no one else will be involved.  I just don't see why there's a need to then turn around and try to go out of your way to bash and belittle others that feel or believe differently than you do.  I don't know your specific history, but that fits the description of a lot of people around here unfortunately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spare us the "Christians are persecuted" mantra.  Nobody is buying it.
Click to expand...

could not have said it better!


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's your perogative, you can rely on your own experiences and make your own decisions. In then end, it will be between you and God, no one else will be involved.  I just don't see why there's a need to then turn around and try to go out of your way to bash and belittle others that feel or believe differently than you do.  I don't know your specific history, but that fits the description of a lot of people around here unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare us the "Christians are persecuted" mantra.  Nobody is buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my sympathies, no one should go thru life filled with such hate.. seek help
Click to expand...

aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare us the "Christians are persecuted" mantra.  Nobody is buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have my sympathies, no one should go thru life filled with such hate.. seek help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?
Click to expand...


Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's your perogative, you can rely on your own experiences and make your own decisions. In then end, it will be between you and God, no one else will be involved.  I just don't see why there's a need to then turn around and try to go out of your way to bash and belittle others that feel or believe differently than you do.  I don't know your specific history, but that fits the description of a lot of people around here unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare us the "Christians are persecuted" mantra.  Nobody is buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have my sympathies, no one should go thru life filled with such hate.. seek help
Click to expand...


Gee, another persecution delusion.  Get over yourself.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have my sympathies, no one should go thru life filled with such hate.. seek help
> 
> 
> 
> aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..
Click to expand...


Do you call everyone you pity an asshole?  With friends like you, who needs enemas?


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have my sympathies, no one should go thru life filled with such hate.. seek help
> 
> 
> 
> aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..
Click to expand...

why do I know you're talking shit?
I know the bible ,the BOM and what christianity requires..
how does that make me ignorant?
answer: IT DOESN'T
 simply put: I was not taken in  by the fairy tale..


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you call everyone you pity an asshole?  With friends like you, who needs enemas?
Click to expand...


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do I know you're talking shit?
> I know the bible ,the BOM and what christianity requires..
> how does that make me ignorant?
> answer: IT DOESN'T
> simply put: I was not taken in  by the fairy tale..
Click to expand...


I don't give a damn about what you believe or don't believe, but you apparently care very  much about what everyone else believes because you can't seem to shut your big mouth about it. So who has the problem here?  Who keeps starting or participating in threads going on about what they don't believe like anyone gives a shit?   And the day either you or your little friend even come close to 'persecuting' me will be a cold day in hell.  Have a nice one!!


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> aren't you the one who just said "they are ignorant assholes"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you call everyone you pity an asshole?  With friends like you, who needs enemas?
Click to expand...


We're friends?


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why yes I did... because you are... but that doesn't mean I hate you... I just feel pity for you..
> 
> 
> 
> why do I know you're talking shit?
> I know the bible ,the BOM and what christianity requires..
> how does that make me ignorant?
> answer: IT DOESN'T
> simply put: I was not taken in  by the fairy tale..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn about what you believe or don't believe, but you apparently care very  much about what everyone else believes because you can't seem to shut your big mouth about it. So who has the problem here?  Who keeps starting or participating in threads going on about what they don't believe like anyone gives a shit?   And the day either you or your little friend even come close to 'persecuting' me will be a cold day in hell.  Have a nice one!!
Click to expand...





empty threats !


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do I know you're talking shit?
> I know the bible ,the BOM and what christianity requires..
> how does that make me ignorant?
> answer: IT DOESN'T
> simply put: I was not taken in  by the fairy tale..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn about what you believe or don't believe, but you apparently care very  much about what everyone else believes because you can't seem to shut your big mouth about it. So who has the problem here?  Who keeps starting or participating in threads going on about what they don't believe like anyone gives a shit?   And the day either you or your little friend even come close to 'persecuting' me will be a cold day in hell.  Have a nice one!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empty threats !
Click to expand...


Empty head...


----------



## koshergrl

It does not surprise me that someone like daws, who is demonstrably ignorant of the bible, what it contains, and what it means to be a Christian, is also clueless about what constitutes a *threat*.

Pssst...advising you that will never be capable of, or afforded the opportunity of, persecution of a particular person is not a threat.

The purpose behind the comment isn't that anyone is gong to hurt you in any way, shape, or form....the purpose is to point out that you #1, probably don't know what "persecute" means, and #2, will never be afforded the opportunity to do so, based on your lack of intellect, ability, and general ineptitude.


----------



## Newby

koshergrl said:


> It does not surprise me that someone like daws, who is demonstrably ignorant of the bible, what it contains, and what it means to be a Christian, is also clueless about what constitutes a *threat*.
> 
> Pssst...advising you that will never be capable of, or afforded the opportunity of, persecution of a particular person is not a threat.
> 
> The purpose behind the comment isn't that anyone is gong to hurt you in any way, shape, or form....*the purpose is to point out that you #1, probably don't know what "persecute" means, and #2, will never be afforded the opportunity to do so, based on your lack of intellect, ability, and general ineptitude*.



Exactly...


----------



## pacer

Newby said:


> And the day either you or your little friend even come close to 'persecuting' me will be a cold day in hell.  Have a nice one!!


Tough guy!


----------



## Newby

pacer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the day either you or your little friend even come close to 'persecuting' me will be a cold day in hell.  Have a nice one!!
> 
> 
> 
> Tough guy!
Click to expand...


Not at all... the misnomer here is them thinking that they are capable of persecuting anyone, I've never claimed to be 'persecuted'. So the dipshit even bringing it up to begin with apparently has a God complex since he thinks he has the power to persecute people of faith. You have to have power over someone to persecute them, these idiots have no power over anyone.   A legend in his own mind.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> It does not surprise me that someone like daws, who is demonstrably ignorant of the bible, what it contains, and what it means to be a Christian, is also clueless about what constitutes a *threat*.
> 
> Pssst...advising you that will never be capable of, or afforded the opportunity of, persecution of a particular person is not a threat.
> 
> The purpose behind the comment isn't that anyone is gong to hurt you in any way, shape, or form....the purpose is to point out that you #1, probably don't know what "persecute" means, and #2, will never be afforded the opportunity to do so, based on your lack of intellect, ability, and general ineptitude.


same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the day either you or your little friend even come close to 'persecuting' me will be a cold day in hell.  Have a nice one!!
> 
> 
> 
> Tough guy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all... the misnomer here is them thinking that they are capable of persecuting anyone, I've never claimed to be 'persecuted'. So the dipshit even bringing it up to begin with apparently has a God complex since he thinks he has the power to persecute people of faith. You have to have power over someone to persecute them, these idiots have no power over anyone.   A legend in his own mind.
Click to expand...

the only mention of persecution other than your paranoid raving about it was post# 470.."Gee, another persecution delusion. Get over yourself."-o
the rest is on you..nobody is persecuting you ..that's just a favorite fantasy of thumpers...


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tough guy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all... the misnomer here is them thinking that they are capable of persecuting anyone, I've never claimed to be 'persecuted'. So the dipshit even bringing it up to begin with apparently has a God complex since he thinks he has the power to persecute people of faith. You have to have power over someone to persecute them, these idiots have no power over anyone.   A legend in his own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only mention of persecution other than your paranoid raving about it was post# 470.."Gee, another persecution delusion. Get over yourself."-o
> the rest is on you..nobody is persecuting you ..that's just a favorite fantasy of thumpers...
Click to expand...


Yep, it was your partner in crime that brought up, not me nor any other person of faith participating in the thread.

Altho, if you look at the definition of the word:

per·se·cu·tion
/&#716;p&#601;rs&#601;&#712;kyo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
noun
noun: persecution;&#8195;plural noun: persecutions1. *hostility and ill-treatment*, esp. *because of *race or political or *religious beliefs*.
"her family fled religious persecution"


You and your buddy sure do fit the bill, unless in your warped mind, you somehow think you're being nice to people of faith by calling them idiots?


----------



## pacer

_Generally speaking_, (not necessarily anyone on this board) I find most Christian fundamentalists hide behind the persecution complex whenever they cannot convince others of their viewpoint or are backed into a corner for lack of answers.  Instead of earning respect, they demand it.

***

Per-se-cu-tion com-plex:  Christian fundamentalists...feel persecuted or "oppressed" whenever they find someone that doesn't share their particular worldview...  (rationalwiki)


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> _Generally speaking_, (not necessarily anyone on this board) I find most Christian fundamentalists hide behind the persecution complex whenever they cannot convince others of their viewpoint or are backed into a corner for lack of answers.  Instead of earning respect, they demand it.
> 
> ***
> 
> Per-se-cu-tion com-plex:  Christian fundamentalists...feel persecuted or "oppressed" whenever they find someone that doesn't share their particular worldview...  (rationalwiki)



Pacer,

I knew a Wiccan who thought persecution of witches were bad.
Then he became a Christian and said the persecution didn't compare to what he had to endure as a Christian.

People can't take things out on God so they go after us.

Did you read about the arson in the news today?  It is there almost every day:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...8.0.107.338.3j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.yo8VTSJlMqs

It isn't a just a feeling or a complex.  It is reality.

Chuck


----------



## Chuckt

> Although more than 79 percent of people in the United States identify themselves as Christians, theres a growing body of evidence that the media and the government, including the military, are doing their best to turn Americans against Christianity.
> 
> TV comedians and shows like The Simpsons regularly mock Christians, and Saturday Night Live even aired a comedy skit recently that depicted Jesus attacking Romans with a machine gun and slicing a mans head in half. Can you imagine what would have happened if the skit had showed Mohammed instead of Jesus? Remember the bloody riots in September 2012 over a YouTube video about Mohammed? Yet no one objects when the media, and even our own government, disrespect Christian religious figures, as well as anyone who upholds Christian principles.



Religious Persecution in the U.S.? Christians are Fair Game


----------



## Chuckt

Annual number of persecuted Christians to be between 100 and 200 million



> The media, the State Department, and the American public have all stubbornly ignored the uptick in the persecution of Christians around the globe, especially in Muslim cultures. The Pew Research Center concluded a couple of years ago that Christians are now persecuted in more nations than members of any other faith tradition. One sectarian watchdog organization estimates the annual number of persecuted Christians to be between *100 and 200 million*.



Time for American Christians to Do Something About Persecution | Kerry Walters


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> Pacer,
> 
> I knew a Wiccan who thought persecution of witches were bad.
> Then he became a Christian and said the persecution didn't compare to what he had to endure as a Christian.
> 
> People can't take things out on God so they go after us.
> 
> Did you read about the arson in the news today?  It is there almost every day:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...8.0.107.338.3j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.yo8VTSJlMqs
> 
> It isn't a just a feeling or a complex.  It is reality.
> 
> Chuck


Yes, Chuckt, I do not deny that Christians may be legitimately persecuted.  I was talking small potatoes...the stuff that goes on, on message boards.


----------



## Chuckt

pacer said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pacer,
> 
> I knew a Wiccan who thought persecution of witches were bad.
> Then he became a Christian and said the persecution didn't compare to what he had to endure as a Christian.
> 
> People can't take things out on God so they go after us.
> 
> Did you read about the arson in the news today?  It is there almost every day:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...8.0.107.338.3j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.yo8VTSJlMqs
> 
> It isn't a just a feeling or a complex.  It is reality.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Chuckt, I do not deny that Christians may be legitimately persecuted.  I was talking small potatoes...the stuff that goes on, on message boards.
Click to expand...


Yes, Pacer.  But why would message boards be much different than real life?


----------



## Newby

pacer said:


> _Generally speaking_, (not necessarily anyone on this board) I find most Christian fundamentalists hide behind the persecution complex whenever they cannot convince others of their viewpoint or are backed into a corner for lack of answers.  Instead of earning respect, they demand it.
> 
> ***
> 
> Per-se-cu-tion com-plex:  Christian fundamentalists...feel persecuted or "oppressed" whenever they find someone that doesn't share their particular worldview...  (rationalwiki)



What separates a 'christian' and a 'christian fundamentalist'?

And on this board, you will find more threads started by atheists calling out people who believe differently, calling them stupid, mocking them, etc...  Not the other way around.  What they don't get is that they are no better than the christian who starts a thread telling all the atheists they are doomed... Flip sides of the same coin.


----------



## pacer

Chuckt said:


> Yes, Pacer.  But why would message boards be much different than real life?


Chuckt, some people get very passionate about their views and debates can get rather heated, at times.  But I do not see any systematic harassment of anyone on this board that could be considered 'persecution'.


----------



## koshergrl

Newby said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Generally speaking_, (not necessarily anyone on this board) I find most Christian fundamentalists hide behind the persecution complex whenever they cannot convince others of their viewpoint or are backed into a corner for lack of answers. Instead of earning respect, they demand it.
> 
> ***
> 
> Per-se-cu-tion com-plex: Christian fundamentalists...feel persecuted or "oppressed" whenever they find someone that doesn't share their particular worldview... (rationalwiki)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What separates a 'christian' and a 'christian fundamentalist'?
> 
> And on this board, you will find more threads started by atheists calling out people who believe differently, calling them stupid, mocking them, etc... Not the other way around. What they don't get is that they are no better than the christian who starts a thread telling all the atheists they are doomed... Flip sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

 
People like pacer do not even understand what the term "fundamentalist" really means. It is a derogatory term they use to discredit and marginalize any Christian who refuses to kowtow to progressivism or practice their religion ONLY in the dark, unlit recesses of private homes...(though not with other believers...that would be *fundy* of them).

It's a term they use that is more comparable to the word "******" perhaps than any other term currently being tossed about by progressives. Abortion = *choice*, tyranny is called *cultural differences*, murder is called *assisted suicide*....I have questioned many of the worst abusers of the word "fundy" to explain exactly what it is, and it NEVER fails to illuminate not only their utter ignorance of Christianity, but also their deep seated hatred and bigotry towards anyone that does not completely agree with their world view.

Try it on one of them the next time they use the term. It's like they follow a script. And they don't even know it...which is sad. And scary.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all... the misnomer here is them thinking that they are capable of persecuting anyone, I've never claimed to be 'persecuted'. So the dipshit even bringing it up to begin with apparently has a God complex since he thinks he has the power to persecute people of faith. You have to have power over someone to persecute them, these idiots have no power over anyone.   A legend in his own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> the only mention of persecution other than your paranoid raving about it was post# 470.."Gee, another persecution delusion. Get over yourself."-o
> the rest is on you..nobody is persecuting you ..that's just a favorite fantasy of thumpers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, it was your partner in crime that brought up, not me nor any other person of faith participating in the thread.
> 
> Altho, if you look at the definition of the word:
> 
> per·se·cu·tion
> /&#716;p&#601;rs&#601;&#712;kyo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
> noun
> noun: persecution;&#8195;plural noun: persecutions1. *hostility and ill-treatment*, esp. *because of *race or political or *religious beliefs*.
> "her family fled religious persecution"
> 
> 
> You and your buddy sure do fit the bill, unless in your warped mind, you somehow think you're being nice to people of faith by calling them idiots?
Click to expand...

being nice has nothing to to do with it.
calling you idiots is being kind..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Generally speaking_, (not necessarily anyone on this board) I find most Christian fundamentalists hide behind the persecution complex whenever they cannot convince others of their viewpoint or are backed into a corner for lack of answers. Instead of earning respect, they demand it.
> 
> ***
> 
> Per-se-cu-tion com-plex: Christian fundamentalists...feel persecuted or "oppressed" whenever they find someone that doesn't share their particular worldview... (rationalwiki)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What separates a 'christian' and a 'christian fundamentalist'?
> 
> And on this board, you will find more threads started by atheists calling out people who believe differently, calling them stupid, mocking them, etc... Not the other way around. What they don't get is that they are no better than the christian who starts a thread telling all the atheists they are doomed... Flip sides of the same coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like pacer do not even understand what the term "fundamentalist" really means. It is a derogatory term they use to discredit and marginalize any Christian who refuses to kowtow to progressivism or practice their religion ONLY in the dark, unlit recesses of private homes...(though not with other believers...that would be *fundy* of them).
> 
> It's a term they use that is more comparable to the word "******" perhaps than any other term currently being tossed about by progressives. Abortion = *choice*, tyranny is called *cultural differences*, murder is called *assisted suicide*....I have questioned many of the worst abusers of the word "fundy" to explain exactly what it is, and it NEVER fails to illuminate not only their utter ignorance of Christianity, but also their deep seated hatred and bigotry towards anyone that does not completely agree with their world view.
> 
> Try it on one of them the next time they use the term. It's like they follow a script. And they don't even know it...which is sad. And scary.
Click to expand...

the preceding was steaming pile of fringe right paranoia,  personal hatred and a ruse so the poster could write the word ****** to falsely compare her twisted pov to slavery.
a fine example of a persecution complex.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only mention of persecution other than your paranoid raving about it was post# 470.."Gee, another persecution delusion. Get over yourself."-o
> the rest is on you..nobody is persecuting you ..that's just a favorite fantasy of thumpers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it was your partner in crime that brought up, not me nor any other person of faith participating in the thread.
> 
> Altho, if you look at the definition of the word:
> 
> per·se·cu·tion
> /&#716;p&#601;rs&#601;&#712;kyo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
> noun
> noun: persecution;&#8195;plural noun: persecutions1. *hostility and ill-treatment*, esp. *because of *race or political or *religious beliefs*.
> "her family fled religious persecution"
> 
> 
> You and your buddy sure do fit the bill, unless in your warped mind, you somehow think you're being nice to people of faith by calling them idiots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being nice has nothing to to do with it.
> *calling you idiots is being kind*..
Click to expand...


I think it's more an indication of a deep rooted inferiority complex, but whatever makes you feel better dude.  If you have to insult people to validate yourself, that's a pretty sad statement about who and what you are.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it was your partner in crime that brought up, not me nor any other person of faith participating in the thread.
> 
> Altho, if you look at the definition of the word:
> 
> per·se·cu·tion
> /&#716;p&#601;rs&#601;&#712;kyo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
> noun
> noun: persecution;&#8195;plural noun: persecutions1. *hostility and ill-treatment*, esp. *because of *race or political or *religious beliefs*.
> "her family fled religious persecution"
> 
> 
> You and your buddy sure do fit the bill, unless in your warped mind, you somehow think you're being nice to people of faith by calling them idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> being nice has nothing to to do with it.
> *calling you idiots is being kind*..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's more an indication of a deep rooted inferiority complex, but whatever makes you feel better dude.  If you have to insult people to validate yourself, that's a pretty sad statement about who and what you are.
Click to expand...

thanks again for proving my point.
what you think is false and bias.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> What separates a 'christian' and a 'christian fundamentalist'?
> 
> And on this board, you will find more threads started by atheists calling out people who believe differently, calling them stupid, mocking them, etc... Not the other way around. What they don't get is that they are no better than the christian who starts a thread telling all the atheists they are doomed... Flip sides of the same coin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like pacer do not even understand what the term "fundamentalist" really means. It is a derogatory term they use to discredit and marginalize any Christian who refuses to kowtow to progressivism or practice their religion ONLY in the dark, unlit recesses of private homes...(though not with other believers...that would be *fundy* of them).
> 
> It's a term they use that is more comparable to the word "******" perhaps than any other term currently being tossed about by progressives. Abortion = *choice*, tyranny is called *cultural differences*, murder is called *assisted suicide*....I have questioned many of the worst abusers of the word "fundy" to explain exactly what it is, and it NEVER fails to illuminate not only their utter ignorance of Christianity, but also their deep seated hatred and bigotry towards anyone that does not completely agree with their world view.
> 
> Try it on one of them the next time they use the term. It's like they follow a script. And they don't even know it...which is sad. And scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the preceding was steaming pile of fringe right paranoia, personal hatred and a ruse so the poster could write the word ****** to falsely compare her twisted pov to slavery.
> a fine example of a persecution complex.
Click to expand...

 
Lol..like I said..ask one of you loons to define "fundamentalist" and see exactly how ignorant you really are.

Define "fundy" genius. You keep dodging that by pouring out more bigoted anti-Christian vitriol..which in turn, proves my point. Thank you.


----------



## koshergrl

What's funny is you guys are ganging on Newby, who is one of the kindest and most sincere posters on the board.

But hey, there comes a time when it's just right to come out and call a fundy a fricking ******, huh? Call a spade a spade. Cuz it doesn't matter what they do or believe, if they're Christian then they need to be strung up, hobbled, whatever you do to inferior beings.

Right? Amiright or amiright?

I'm right. 

Explain what "fundy" means..and then point out the "fundies" that you are aware of who post on this site. Provide examples and links that support the label.

Have fun. I anticipate more hate speech and garbled sputtering.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like pacer do not even understand what the term "fundamentalist" really means. It is a derogatory term they use to discredit and marginalize any Christian who refuses to kowtow to progressivism or practice their religion ONLY in the dark, unlit recesses of private homes...(though not with other believers...that would be *fundy* of them).
> 
> It's a term they use that is more comparable to the word "******" perhaps than any other term currently being tossed about by progressives. Abortion = *choice*, tyranny is called *cultural differences*, murder is called *assisted suicide*....I have questioned many of the worst abusers of the word "fundy" to explain exactly what it is, and it NEVER fails to illuminate not only their utter ignorance of Christianity, but also their deep seated hatred and bigotry towards anyone that does not completely agree with their world view.
> 
> Try it on one of them the next time they use the term. It's like they follow a script. And they don't even know it...which is sad. And scary.
> 
> 
> 
> the preceding was steaming pile of fringe right paranoia, personal hatred and a ruse so the poster could write the word ****** to falsely compare her twisted pov to slavery.
> a fine example of a persecution complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol..like I said..ask one of you loons to define "fundamentalist" and see exactly how ignorant you really are.
> 
> Define "fundy" genius. You keep dodging that by pouring out more bigoted anti-Christian vitriol..which in turn, proves my point. Thank you.
Click to expand...

un·da·men·tal·ism  [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
fresh from the dictionary .
but I'm sure you'll have another twisted take on it .
again you have no point   
 fundies
People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions." 

Carries a negative connotation, because of the association with extremist views.
"When it comes to hating religion and the way it separates the people of our world I don't discriminate--I hate fundies just as much."

both are objective descriptions, what they leave out is the inflexible self imposed ignorance and affected superiority of its practitioners..
in other words what ever pain you encounter you've brought on yourselves.
in your case ,my guess is you've always been a self involved snot.  
nothing you've posted is evidence of your claim that "we" are ignorant of what Christianity requires.
btw, you have none of those qualities.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> What's funny is you guys are ganging on Newby, who is one of the kindest and most sincere posters on the board.
> 
> But hey, there comes a time when it's just right to come out and call a fundy a fricking ******, huh? Call a spade a spade. Cuz it doesn't matter what they do or believe, if they're Christian then they need to be strung up, hobbled, whatever you do to inferior beings.
> 
> Right? Amiright or amiright?
> 
> I'm right.
> 
> Explain what "fundy" means..and then point out the "fundies" that you are aware of who post on this site. Provide examples and links that support the label.
> 
> Have fun. I anticipate more hate speech and garbled sputtering.


another meaningless post so you could say the word ******.
the fundies on this board need no selecting out it's obvious who they are . but just for laughs here's a few...
there's you, Avatar,the word,ultimate reality,Youwerecreated,little nipper,jeremiah,chuckt,newby.
no need to supply links .it's on you to prove you allegation.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the preceding was steaming pile of fringe right paranoia, personal hatred and a ruse so the poster could write the word ****** to falsely compare her twisted pov to slavery.
> a fine example of a persecution complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..like I said..ask one of you loons to define "fundamentalist" and see exactly how ignorant you really are.
> 
> Define "fundy" genius. You keep dodging that by pouring out more bigoted anti-Christian vitriol..which in turn, proves my point. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> un·da·men·tal·ism  [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that *stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.*2.
> the beliefs held by those in this movement.
> 3.
> strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
> fresh from the dictionary .
> but I'm sure you'll have another twisted take on it .
> again you have no point
> fundies
> People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions."
> 
> Carries a negative connotation, because of the association with extremist views.
> "When it comes to hating religion and the way it separates the people of our world I don't discriminate--I hate fundies just as much."
> 
> both are objective descriptions, what they leave out is the inflexible self imposed ignorance and affected superiority of its practitioners..
> in other words what ever pain you encounter you've brought on yourselves.
> in your case ,my guess is you've always been a self involved snot.
> nothing you've posted is evidence of your claim that "we" are ignorant of what Christianity requires.
> btw, you have none of those qualities.
Click to expand...


That's all part of the Christian faith, tell me which Christians don't hold those beliefs?  Are all Christians fundamentalists then?  So which part of that definition do the non-fundamentalist Christians not believe?


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not surprise me that someone like daws, who is demonstrably ignorant of the bible, what it contains, and what it means to be a Christian, is also clueless about what constitutes a *threat*.
> 
> Pssst...advising you that will never be capable of, or afforded the opportunity of, persecution of a particular person is not a threat.
> 
> The purpose behind the comment isn't that anyone is gong to hurt you in any way, shape, or form....the purpose is to point out that you #1, probably don't know what "persecute" means, and #2, will never be afforded the opportunity to do so, based on your lack of intellect, ability, and general ineptitude.
> 
> 
> 
> same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....
Click to expand...

What claims? The claims that you are demonstrably ignorant of the bible, and you don't know what constitutes a threat?

I did support those claims. Or rather, you did it for me. Moron. Faux intellect is pretending to know things you really don't know. And you are the one who does that...not me. Naturally. 

All I did was ask you to define fundy. And you couldn't even do that. I hope you learned something from the definition provided...but I doubt you did. You're not the learning type.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you guys are ganging on Newby, who is one of the kindest and most sincere posters on the board.
> 
> But hey, there comes a time when it's just right to come out and call a fundy a fricking ******, huh? Call a spade a spade. Cuz it doesn't matter what they do or believe, if they're Christian then they need to be strung up, hobbled, whatever you do to inferior beings.
> 
> Right? Amiright or amiright?
> 
> I'm right.
> 
> Explain what "fundy" means..and then point out the "fundies" that you are aware of who post on this site. Provide examples and links that support the label.
> 
> Have fun. I anticipate more hate speech and garbled sputtering.
> 
> 
> 
> another meaningless post so you could say the word ******.
> the fundies on this board need no selecting out it's obvious who they are . but just for laughs here's a few...
> there's you, Avatar,the word,ultimate reality,Youwerecreated,little nipper,jeremiah,chuckt,newby.
> no need to supply links .it's on you to prove you allegation.
Click to expand...



?

What allegation? That you are an incoherent boob?

Sorry, that ship's done left the dock. You are an incoherent boob, and every word you type just provides more evidence.

Your sole purpose in these threads is to engage in hate speech and bigotry. Enjoy, you're recognized for the putz you are.


----------



## oldfart

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun·da·men·tal·ism  [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.  ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that *stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.*
> 
> People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions."
> 
> Carries a negative connotation, because of the association with extremist views.
> "When it comes to hating religion and the way it separates the people of our world I don't discriminate--I hate fundies just as much."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all part of the Christian faith, tell me which Christians don't hold those beliefs?  Are all Christians fundamentalists then?  So which part of that definition do the non-fundamentalist Christians not believe?
Click to expand...


The last time I looked fundamentalists and mainstream denominations both agreed on their differences.  The mainstream denominations include most Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, American Baptists, Unitarians, Lutherans, and perhaps half of the Presbyterians.  None of them believe in Biblical inerrancy, Creationism, or reject the teaching of the later church councils as fundamentalists do.  

Which raises the question in my mind, have you led such an insular life that you are unaware of the attributes of non-fundamentalist Christianity?  You question is breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the Christian faith outside the 10% or so who adhere to fundamentalism.


----------



## Newby

oldfart said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun·da·men·tal·ism  [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.  ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that *stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.*
> 
> People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions."
> 
> Carries a negative connotation, because of the association with extremist views.
> "When it comes to hating religion and the way it separates the people of our world I don't discriminate--I hate fundies just as much."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all part of the Christian faith, tell me which Christians don't hold those beliefs?  Are all Christians fundamentalists then?  So which part of that definition do the non-fundamentalist Christians not believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last time I looked fundamentalists and mainstream denominations both agreed on their differences.  The mainstream denominations include most Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, American Baptists, Unitarians, Lutherans, and perhaps half of the Presbyterians.  None of them believe in Biblical inerrancy, Creationism, or reject the teaching of the later church councils as fundamentalists do.
> 
> Which raises the question in my mind, have you led such an insular life that you are unaware of the attributes of non-fundamentalist Christianity?  You question is breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the Christian faith outside the 10% or so who adhere to fundamentalism.
Click to expand...


*The last time I looked fundamentalists and mainstream denominations both agreed on their differences*

Okay, let's break out his statement or the 'definition' that he grabbed from wiki or somewhere of what their 'differences' supposedly are...


*infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record*

So you're saying that Catholics and Lutherans (of which I've belonged to both) believe that the Bible is infallible?   In what way do they feel it's infallible exactly??  Can you please be specific?  Which parts do they dismiss and which do they hold as holy?  They don't condone God's commandments or Christ's teachings as the morals that should be used throughout one's life?


*holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as 
the creation of the world,* 

Again, your ascertion is that Catholics, Lutherans, etc... don't believe the creation story, they don't credit God with the creation?  What are their beliefs exactly then?

*the virgin birth, *

Catholics don't believe in the virgin birth?  Seriously?

*physical resurrection*, 

Without such there would be no such thing as Christianity to begin with.  

*atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ,* 

They don't believe that Christ died for their sins?

*and the Second Coming*

They don't believe in the return of Christ?

So, what you're implying is that they've basically thrown the Bible out as so much garbage?  You agree that the Christian denominations that you listed above, 90% of Christians do not believe what was listed above?  Seriously?


----------



## Newby

Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers



> What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
> 
> Concerning cosmological evolution, *the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.* Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must *"confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing*" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
> 
> The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However*, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan*, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
> 
> Concerning cosmological evolution, *the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.* Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must *"confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing*" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
> 
> The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However*, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan*, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Click to expand...

[ame=http://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk]Every Sperm is Sacred - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/PDBjsFAyiwA]The Meaning of Life (4/11) Movie CLIP - Protestants and French Ticklers (1983) HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you guys are ganging on Newby, who is one of the kindest and most sincere posters on the board.
> 
> But hey, there comes a time when it's just right to come out and call a fundy a fricking ******, huh? Call a spade a spade. Cuz it doesn't matter what they do or believe, if they're Christian then they need to be strung up, hobbled, whatever you do to inferior beings.
> 
> Right? Amiright or amiright?
> 
> I'm right.
> 
> Explain what "fundy" means..and then point out the "fundies" that you are aware of who post on this site. Provide examples and links that support the label.
> 
> Have fun. I anticipate more hate speech and garbled sputtering.
> 
> 
> 
> another meaningless post so you could say the word ******.
> the fundies on this board need no selecting out it's obvious who they are . but just for laughs here's a few...
> there's you, Avatar,the word,ultimate reality,Youwerecreated,little nipper,jeremiah,chuckt,newby.
> no need to supply links .it's on you to prove you allegation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> What allegation? That you are an incoherent boob?
> 
> Sorry, that ship's done left the dock. You are an incoherent boob, and every word you type just provides more evidence.
> 
> Your sole purpose in these threads is to engage in hate speech and bigotry. Enjoy, you're recognized for the putz you are.
Click to expand...

as always same dodge!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not surprise me that someone like daws, who is demonstrably ignorant of the bible, what it contains, and what it means to be a Christian, is also clueless about what constitutes a *threat*.
> 
> Pssst...advising you that will never be capable of, or afforded the opportunity of, persecution of a particular person is not a threat.
> 
> The purpose behind the comment isn't that anyone is gong to hurt you in any way, shape, or form....the purpose is to point out that you #1, probably don't know what "persecute" means, and #2, will never be afforded the opportunity to do so, based on your lack of intellect, ability, and general ineptitude.
> 
> 
> 
> same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What claims? The claims that you are demonstrably ignorant of the bible, and you don't know what constitutes a threat?
> 
> I did support those claims. Or rather, you did it for me. Moron. Faux intellect is pretending to know things you really don't know. And you are the one who does that...not me. Naturally.
> 
> All I did was ask you to define fundy. And you couldn't even do that. I hope you learned something from the definition provided...but I doubt you did. You're not the learning type.
Click to expand...

same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....


----------



## Chuckt

oldfart said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun·da·men·tal·ism  [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.  ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that *stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.*
> 
> People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions."
> 
> Carries a negative connotation, because of the association with extremist views.
> "When it comes to hating religion and the way it separates the people of our world I don't discriminate--I hate fundies just as much."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all part of the Christian faith, tell me which Christians don't hold those beliefs?  Are all Christians fundamentalists then?  So which part of that definition do the non-fundamentalist Christians not believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last time I looked fundamentalists and mainstream denominations both agreed on their differences.  The mainstream denominations include most Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, American Baptists, Unitarians, Lutherans, and perhaps half of the Presbyterians.  None of them believe in Biblical inerrancy, Creationism, or reject the teaching of the later church councils as fundamentalists do.
> 
> Which raises the question in my mind, have you led such an insular life that you are unaware of the attributes of non-fundamentalist Christianity?  You question is breathtaking in its lack of awareness of the Christian faith outside the 10% or so who adhere to fundamentalism.
Click to expand...


I would like that documented.  It is in their creeds.
Some people are faltering and it is evident in the Barna group poll but they are in percentages.

The Catholic Church no swears by the truth of the Bible

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

This article is actually from the Times online in the UK but it is now a pay site.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....
> 
> 
> 
> What claims? The claims that you are demonstrably ignorant of the bible, and you don't know what constitutes a threat?
> 
> I did support those claims. Or rather, you did it for me. Moron. Faux intellect is pretending to know things you really don't know. And you are the one who does that...not me. Naturally.
> 
> All I did was ask you to define fundy. And you couldn't even do that. I hope you learned something from the definition provided...but I doubt you did. You're not the learning type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....
Click to expand...


You don't believe in God! And it seems to me that you are a good example what most people would be like if things actually were as you imagine them to be...


----------



## Nox

If god didnt exist , I would be a Jewish (judaist )


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What claims? The claims that you are demonstrably ignorant of the bible, and you don't know what constitutes a threat?
> 
> I did support those claims. Or rather, you did it for me. Moron. Faux intellect is pretending to know things you really don't know. And you are the one who does that...not me. Naturally.
> 
> All I did was ask you to define fundy. And you couldn't even do that. I hope you learned something from the definition provided...but I doubt you did. You're not the learning type.
> 
> 
> 
> same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't believe in God! And it seems to me that you are a good example what most people would be like if things actually were as you imagine them to be...
Click to expand...


the imaginary world is yours not mine...
since you have no fucking idea of who I am..I'LL take that as a complement.
people how actually know me  find me intelligent, funny ,strong, sociable and when I was younger fairly good looking. 
I'm also tenacious, have no time for pretence and i'm  extremely direct.


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> same false assumptions, same dodge ,same faux intellect, same hubris ... same no evidence to back up claims....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in God! And it seems to me that you are a good example what most people would be like if things actually were as you imagine them to be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the imaginary world is yours not mine...
> since you have no fucking idea of who I am..I'LL take that as a complement.
> people how actually know me  find me intelligent, funny ,strong, sociable and when I was younger fairly good looking.
> I'm also tenacious, have no time for pretence and i'm  extremely direct.
Click to expand...


I feel very sorry for you. At least I am able to express myself without resorting to demeaning words and insults. And frankly, you are no better than I am, even if you were Obama himself. PS > You will never be young on this side of eternity ever again, so that counts for nothing. As you can see, I'm direct also.


----------



## koshergrl

Has he provided the definition of "fundy" yet?

Other than a term of derision to be used to identify any practicing Christian, that is.

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the  expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in  which the communication is likely to provoke violence.  It is an  incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in  terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual  orientation, and the like.  Hate speech can be any form of expression  regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other  discrete minorities or to women."

Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in God! And it seems to me that you are a good example what most people would be like if things actually were as you imagine them to be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the imaginary world is yours not mine...
> since you have no fucking idea of who I am..I'LL take that as a complement.
> people how actually know me  find me intelligent, funny ,strong, sociable and when I was younger fairly good looking.
> I'm also tenacious, have no time for pretence and i'm  extremely direct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel very sorry for you. At least I am able to express myself without resorting to demeaning words and insults. And frankly, you are no better than I am, even if you were Obama himself. PS > You will never be young on this side of eternity ever again, so that counts for nothing. As you can see, I'm direct also.
Click to expand...

no need to feel sorry for me ,besides you saying you are is disingenuous :dis·in·gen·u·ous [ dìssin jénnyoo &#601;ss ]   
withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information
not genuinely sincere: giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity
Synonyms: dishonestly, insincerely, untruthfully, deceitfully, hypocritically, misleadingly, duplicitous·in·gen·u·ous [ dìssin jénnyoo &#601;ss ]   
withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information
not genuinely sincere: giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity
Synonyms: dishonestly, insincerely, untruthfully, deceitfully, hypocritically, misleadingly, duplicitously tousley.
never said or implied I was better than you..seems you don't understand what direct means.
if I had thought that I would have said that.  
on the other hand , you must have some issues with self esteem having to bring it up..
btw that's just as demeaning and insulting as any more direct speech like this:" you're an ass kisser.  
as to this": You will never be young on this side of eternity ever again, so that counts for nothing."-LN
the same goes for you no matter what or how hard you believe..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Has he provided the definition of "fundy" yet?
> 
> Other than a term of derision to be used to identify any practicing Christian, that is.
> 
> "Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the  expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in  which the communication is likely to provoke violence.  It is an  incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in  terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual  orientation, and the like.  Hate speech can be any form of expression  regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other  discrete minorities or to women."
> 
> Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition


this is the second I've defined it for you:fundies
People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions." 

Carries a negative connontation, because of the association with extremist views.
"When it comes to hating religion and the way it separates the people of our world I don't discriminate--I hate fundies just as much."

2. Fundy
A fundamental Christian, usually protestant, who obsesses over the Bible and had no real knowledge of anything.
Yesterday a fundy told me santa was satan, they just mixed up the letters. 
Urban Dictionary: Fundy



fun·da·men·tal·ism  [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.


both definitions are correct... 

Fundamentalist | Define Fundamentalist at Dictionary.com

ass always you'll deny they are.


----------



## koshergrl

You apply it across the board to anyone who disagrees with you politically, and is Christian, so it is hate speech as it is used by you, specifically.

Which makes it illegal.


----------



## koshergrl

I like it when bigoted hate speech propagandists for the left vacillate between calling Christians "Fundies" and "Mentally ill".

We had another poster who did that too. Eventually he nutted out and he's gone now.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You apply it across the board to anyone who disagrees with you politically, and is Christian, so it is hate speech as it is used by you, specifically.
> 
> Which makes it illegal.


wrong ...you and a few other crackpots are the one who cannot separate your political pov from your religious ones..
and no it's not hate speech ,again you've intentionally misinterpreted it to seem that way.
your first amendment rights have been in no way infringed.


----------



## koshergrl

What religion am I? Please point to a post of mine that states my religious preferences, and highlight what about it that makes me fundy.

Thank you, hate speech pig.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I like it when bigoted hate speech propagandists for the left vacillate between calling Christians "Fundies" and "Mentally ill".
> 
> We had another poster who did that too. Eventually he nutted out and he's gone now.


course he did!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> What religion am I? Please point to a post of mine that states my religious preferences, and highlight what about it that makes me fundy.
> 
> Thank you, hate speech pig.


ok..try every post you made in the creationist thread..just for starters..

seems you need constant reminding: Fundy
A fundamental Christian, usually protestant, who obsesses over the Bible and had no real knowledge of anything.
Yesterday a fundy told me santa was satan, they just mixed up the letters.


----------



## koshergrl

So what religion am I?
And where are the posts that identify me as a fundamentalist, or show that I can't separate religion from politics?


----------



## koshergrl

Go ahead, quote and link. That's how we do it in the big boy forums.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> So what religion am I?
> And where are the posts that identify me as a fundamentalist, or show that I can't separate religion from politics?


do your own work ..that's another dodge that's worn thin..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Go ahead, quote and link. That's how we do it in the big boy forums.


that's another dodge that's worn thin..


----------



## daws101

I'll START YOU OFF WITH ONE FROM THIS THREAD IT'S A FINE EXAMPLE OF YOUR INABILITY TO SEPARATE YOUR RELIGIOUS DOGMA FROM YOUR POLITICS 
EXCERPT FROM POST#496 OF THIS THREAD:  People like pacer do not even understand what the term "fundamentalist" really means. It is a derogatory term they use to discredit and marginalize any Christian who refuses to kowtow to progressivism or practice their religion ONLY in the dark, unlit recesses of private homes...(though not with other believers...that would be *fundy* of them).

It's a term they use that is more comparable to the word "******" perhaps than any other term currently being tossed about by progressives. Abortion = *choice*, tyranny is called *cultural differences*, murder is called *assisted suicide*....I have questioned many of the worst abusers of the word "fundy" to explain exactly what it is, and it NEVER fails to illuminate not only their utter ignorance of Christianity, but also their deep seated hatred and bigotry towards anyone that does not completely agree with their world view.


----------



## koshergrl

Uh, no, that does not indicate my "fundamentalism" or indicate that I can't separate politics from religion.

That's just a post you don't like because I nailed you guys with what you are.

Try again. Quote and link. Remember, you're going to show that I'm a fundamentalist, you're going to figure out which religion I am, and you're going to link the post that shows that, and also shows that I can't keep religion and politics separate.

You may use more than one link.

You won't, because those things only have occurred in your fuzzy noggin, but knock yourself out. I'll wait again.

Do you know how to post a link? Because it doesn't look like you do....


----------



## koshergrl

Now I sort of feel sorry for you.

I could help you...

But I'm not going to, lol. It's good to learn new skills. Have fun.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> uh, no, that does not indicate my "fundamentalism" or indicate that i can't separate politics from religion.
> 
> That's just a post you don't like because i nailed you guys with what you are.
> 
> Try again. Quote and link. Remember, you're going to show that i'm a fundamentalist, you're going to figure out which religion i am, and you're going to link the post that shows that, and also shows that i can't keep religion and politics separate.
> 
> You may use more than one link.
> 
> You won't, because those things only have occurred in your fuzzy noggin, but knock yourself out. I'll wait again.
> 
> Do you know how to post a link? Because it doesn't look like you do....


uh yes ...that's more  more than enough to prove my point. 
Nothing more is need from me.
Do your own rationalizing...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Now I sort of feel sorry for you.
> 
> I could help you...
> 
> But I'm not going to, lol. It's good to learn new skills. Have fun.


----------



## koshergrl

Wow, you give up so easily.

I thought you might at least take a stab. Guess not.

Hate speech propagandist. I hate it when I'm right about stuff like that. I feel like I need a shower now.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Wow, you give up so easily.
> 
> I thought you might at least take a stab. Guess not.
> 
> Hate speech propagandist. I hate it when I'm right about stuff like that. I feel like I need a shower now.


THERE's THAT AGGRANDISING you do so well when you're wrong.thats most likely why you do it all the time. 
did take a stab and it was through the heart....


----------



## koshergrl

You betcha, skippy.

You use the term "fundy" to disparage any Christian who doesn't agree with your extremist views. You can't show that the people you use the term to disparage actually are fundamentalists, and you aren't able to provide a single quote or link that shows any of the things you claimed. All you did was quote my statement that said you used the term "fundy" as hate speech.

And I was right. You weren't able to show that I'm a fundy, and you have no idea what religion I am. Nor can you show a single post that proves your ridiculous statement that I can't distinguish politics from religion.

It looks like you are the one who can't separate the two, and it looks like you are the bigot. 

Which is of course what I said from the beginning. And proved. In spades. Thanks for playing. I'll be here all week.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religion am I? Please point to a post of mine that states my religious preferences, and highlight what about it that makes me fundy.
> 
> Thank you, hate speech pig.
> 
> 
> 
> ok..try every post you made in the creationist thread..just for starters..
> 
> seems you need constant reminding: Fundy
> A fundamental Christian, usually protestant, *who obsesses over the Bible and had no real knowledge of anything.*Yesterday a fundy told me santa was satan, they just mixed up the letters.
Click to expand...


You just described yourself... classic...


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what religion am I?
> And where are the posts that identify me as a fundamentalist, or show that I can't separate religion from politics?
> 
> 
> 
> do your own work ..that's another dodge that's worn thin..
Click to expand...


Um dude, the irony is heavy here... you just demonstrated a perfect dodge, while accusing someone else of a dodge... can't make this stuff up..


----------



## Newby

KarlaM said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do your own work ..that's another dodge that's worn thin..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um dude, the irony is heavy here... you just demonstrated a perfect dodge, while accusing someone else of a dodge... can't make this stuff up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.
Click to expand...


What's t he logic behind that?


----------



## orogenicman

KarlaM said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do your own work ..that's another dodge that's worn thin..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um dude, the irony is heavy here... you just demonstrated a perfect dodge, while accusing someone else of a dodge... can't make this stuff up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.
Click to expand...


Erm, it isn't full of pointless, childish arguments?  That's news, indeed.


----------



## koshergrl

Ooooh...so you maintain that there can be no God if there is pointless argument on this board.

That's genius. You should run with that. Try it out on other adults who have actually gotten out a bit in the world, had some success, gotten a bit of education... and see how it flies, lol.


----------



## oldfart

Newby said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um dude, the irony is heavy here... you just demonstrated a perfect dodge, while accusing someone else of a dodge... can't make this stuff up..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's t he logic behind that?
Click to expand...


It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism.  Also an example of irony.  Work it out.


----------



## koshergrl

oldfart said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's t he logic behind that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism. Also an example of irony. Work it out.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah. We get it. But thanks for being a dick anyway, that's always appreciated.


----------



## Newby

oldfart said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's t he logic behind that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism.  Also an example of irony.  Work it out.
Click to expand...


*If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.*

Really?  In order for a conclusion to be inferred, some reasonable logic would seem neccesary.


----------



## Newby

KarlaM said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's t he logic behind that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism.  Also an example of irony.  Work it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This board is full of pointless and childish arguments, therefore god does not exist, unless of course, if you're argument would then be: god makes people who are childish with pointless arguments. But that wouldn't make any sense now would it? *God would make intelligent beings, not slobbering doofusses who have no point to make.* Or so you'd think.
Click to expand...


God did make intelligent beings, that doesn't mean that they use it.  It's a stupid assumption in any case.


----------



## koshergrl

Newby said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism.  Also an example of irony.  Work it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This board is full of pointless and childish arguments, therefore god does not exist, unless of course, if you're argument would then be: god makes people who are childish with pointless arguments. But that wouldn't make any sense now would it? *God would make intelligent beings, not slobbering doofusses who have no point to make.* Or so you'd think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did make intelligent beings, that doesn't mean that they use it.  It's a stupid assumption in any case.
Click to expand...

 Yes, God did make intelligent beings..and he also made the unintelligent ones (not naming names *cough*karlam*oldfart*cough*cough*) and we all serve a purpose and fit into his great plan.

Which is nice. It makes it easier to deal with doofuses.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You betcha, skippy.
> 
> You use the term "fundy" to disparage any Christian who doesn't agree with your extremist views. You can't show that the people you use the term to disparage actually are fundamentalists, and you aren't able to provide a single quote or link that shows any of the things you claimed. All you did was quote my statement that said you used the term "fundy" as hate speech.
> 
> And I was right. You weren't able to show that I'm a fundy, and you have no idea what religion I am. Nor can you show a single post that proves your ridiculous statement that I can't distinguish politics from religion.
> 
> It looks like you are the one who can't separate the two, and it looks like you are the bigot.
> 
> Which is of course what I said from the beginning. And proved. In spades. Thanks for playing. I'll be here all week.


 there is no need for me to prove or provide anything else anything.
your twisted fundamentalist pov is ubiquitous in everything you post.
it doesn't matter what sect of christianity you say you belong to, as all sects have their fundies , you are most likely the funniest of the fundies in you coven 
that on it own is proof of theocratic obsession.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What religion am I? Please point to a post of mine that states my religious preferences, and highlight what about it that makes me fundy.
> 
> Thank you, hate speech pig.
> 
> 
> 
> ok..try every post you made in the creationist thread..just for starters..
> 
> seems you need constant reminding: Fundy
> A fundamental Christian, usually protestant, *who obsesses over the Bible and had no real knowledge of anything.*Yesterday a fundy told me santa was satan, they just mixed up the letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just described yourself... classic...
Click to expand...

glad you think so...more proof of your self involvement.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's t he logic behind that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism.  Also an example of irony.  Work it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.*
> 
> Really?  In order for a conclusion to be inferred, some reasonable logic would seem neccesary.
Click to expand...

false! you folks make judgments and conclusions based on nothing but emotion constantly ...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This board is full of pointless and childish arguments, therefore god does not exist, unless of course, if you're argument would then be: god makes people who are childish with pointless arguments. But that wouldn't make any sense now would it? *God would make intelligent beings, not slobbering doofusses who have no point to make.* Or so you'd think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did make intelligent beings, that doesn't mean that they use it.  It's a stupid assumption in any case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, God did make intelligent beings..and he also made the unintelligent ones (not naming names *cough*karlam*oldfart*cough*cough*) and we all serve a purpose and fit into his great plan.
> 
> Which is nice. It makes it easier to deal with doofuses.
Click to expand...

that mighty christian of you !..mighty christian!


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, it is. It shows that I value all humanity, even the retards and the mental gimps..like you.

You are one of God's creatures, and he loves you. He would love you more and would show it if you weren't such a reject, but none of us are perfect, save One.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Yes, it is. It shows that I value all humanity, even the retards and the mental gimps..like you.
> 
> You are one of God's creatures, and he loves you. He would love you more and would show it if you weren't such a reject, but none of us are perfect, save One.


----------



## koshergrl

Haven't you gotten in trouble for flooding with that garbage before? When you go from thread to thread and post the same lame poster over and over and over?

I seem to recall...well read the rules. It's a no-no. And try to remember...facebook and usmb are two different things. People post that garbage on fb because they don't feel like saying anything themselves but they just want people to know they're still around....but the understanding when you enter into debate is that you actually have something to say..yourself. And that you can support those things you say...with real stuff. Not pathetic little posters that everybody has seen a million times already.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Haven't you gotten in trouble for flooding with that garbage before? When you go from thread to thread and post the same lame poster over and over and over?
> 
> I seem to recall...well read the rules. It's a no-no. And try to remember...facebook and usmb are two different things. People post that garbage on fb because they don't feel like saying anything themselves but they just want people to know they're still around....but the understanding when you enter into debate is that you actually have something to say..yourself. And that you can support those things you say...with real stuff. Not pathetic little posters that everybody has seen a million times already.


as alway you are wrong and over dramatizing events.
I was warned not to spam (meaning not to use the same image more than once.)
the rest of your post is your typical ranting on meaninglessly.

if I really wanted to offend you I'd have posted this....


----------



## koshergrl

I don't care.

I've seen that poster about a million times before too.

Meh.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I don't care.
> 
> I've seen that poster about a million times before too.
> 
> Meh.


and ?


----------



## koshergrl

And?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> And?


originality escapes you.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok..try every post you made in the creationist thread..just for starters..
> 
> seems you need constant reminding: Fundy
> A fundamental Christian, usually protestant, *who obsesses over the Bible and had no real knowledge of anything.*Yesterday a fundy told me santa was satan, they just mixed up the letters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just described yourself... classic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> glad you think so...more proof of your self involvement.
Click to expand...


Huh, I thought it was pretty damn funny...  you obviously have no sense of humor.. poor thing..


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the first line of a famous false Aristotelian syllogism.  Also an example of irony.  Work it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If god didn't exist, this board would be full of pointless and childish arguments.*
> 
> Really?  In order for a conclusion to be inferred, some reasonable logic would seem neccesary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! you folks make judgments and conclusions based on nothing but emotion constantly ...
Click to expand...


Are you trying to tell us all that you don't make judgments based on your emotions? 

And  how do you know that I make judgments based on my emotions anyway?  Are you a magic mind reader???


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will. 

Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.


----------



## mamooth

If God does or doesn't exist, it makes no difference to how I live my life. I don't require a carrot and stick or threats of hellfire to act like a decent human being.


----------



## koshergrl

No, but you do need God.

Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> No, but you do need God.
> 
> Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.



Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just described yourself... classic...
> 
> 
> 
> glad you think so...more proof of your self involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh, I thought it was pretty damn funny...  you obviously have no sense of humor.. poor thing..
Click to expand...

that is false, you folks are a constant source of amusement...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> No, but you do need God.
> 
> Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.


what was that about hate speech again?
you cannot back up that statement with facts...
thanks for proving my point.


----------



## daws101

Steven_R said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you do need God.
> 
> Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.
Click to expand...

major bump!


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you do need God.
> 
> Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.
Click to expand...

 
I didn't say you had to worship god to be a decent person. I said without God, you are nothing more than a depraved animal.

There's a difference. I'm sorry that your 8th grade education, your complete ignorance of the bible, and your burning bigotry prevents you from understanding what you read. Try harder.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you do need God.
> 
> Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you had to worship god to be a decent person. I said without God, you are nothing more than a depraved animal.
> 
> There's a difference. I'm sorry that your 8th grade education, your complete ignorance of the bible, and your burning bigotry prevents you from understanding what you read. Try harder.
Click to expand...

bahahahahahahaha! ok explain how you can be a decent person and be a depraved animal at the same time..?
another problem ...the other animals on this planet cannot become or  are naturally depraved..that a wholly human condition, so like your other little gems of nonknowledge it a false premise.

 The term "total depravity," as understood in colloquial English, obscures the theological issues involved. Reformed and Lutheran theologians have never considered humans to be absent of goodness or unable to do good outwardly as a result of the fall. People retain the imago Dei, though it has been distorted.[17]
Total depravity is the fallen state of human beings as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God[citation needed] because they originate from a selfish human desire and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, in Reformed theology, if God is to save anyone God must predestine, call, or elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to[citation needed], and is indeed incapable of choosing God.[18]
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people have lost part of their humanity or are ontologically deteriorated, because Adam and Eve were created with the ability to not sin, and people retain that essential nature, even though the properties of their humanity is corrupted.[19] It also does not mean that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through humanity.[20]
The total reach of sin taught with the doctrine of total depravity highlights people's dire need for God. No part of the person is not in need of grace, and all people are in need of grace, no matter how outwardly pious.[21] Feminist theologian Serene Jones sees the concept of total depravity as helpful because, according to Calvin, sin assaults the person from the outside in and occupies the whole self, allowing women to see how deeply oppression has harmed them and become part of their self-understanding.[22 

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl

Thank you for proving my point.

In huge black spades.


----------



## midcan5

It does not matter whether God exists or not, God last I checked does not send signals that everyone could read. You know like those new digital billboards, 'Hello earth, God here, please try to be good and help each other.' Even so clear a message would go through the filter of the human reading it. For instance, help for some would be removable from the food stamps program, make em strong, one may help by chopping off their head for being gay, another may rant and rave that unless government de-fund Obamacare contraception would be widespread among women. Twenty lashes or stocks anyone. Consider how many religions there are, another message from God, 'Are you people crazy handling snakes, praying and jumping around? Or is that just so you can be on TV?' God would have to look at the world and wonder whether this first draft was a mistake? Global warming may help create Phase two. But would phase two be any better? Religions who say they speak for God have always found ways to punish humans and cause friction among them. Witness this thread. The really really tough question is, does reason exist? You'd have to say no. So God doesn't really matter, a small materialistic correction required here. If you have an enormous cathedral like stadium church or a TV show with lots of contributors, then yes, God does exist. God exists as a wonderful prop, a great selling point, just believe and you too shall be saved. How easy is that. Meanwhile let them eat cake.


----------



## Newby

koshergrl said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> In huge black spades.



It totally went over his head.. not surprising tho.


----------



## Newby

KarlaM said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.
> 
> Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
> The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
Click to expand...


So what _you_ can't see, just doesn't exist?


----------



## Steven_R

The difference is there is something to support the existence of Dark Matter, namely that galaxies are holding themselves together when the physics says they should be flinging themselves apart. There is a physical process that is not understood, but evidence _something _is afoot. 

There is no objective evidence for God.


----------



## Steven_R

Newby said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.
> 
> Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
> The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what _you_ can't see, just doesn't exist?
Click to expand...


What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.

I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.


----------



## Newby

KarlaM said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
> The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what _you_ can't see, just doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like dark matter, what you can't see/prove is just a theory. Could be there, but then again, maybe not. I need proof before elevating a theory to a fact. Doesn't everyone?
Click to expand...


Up until 100 years ago we couldn't see germs, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?  Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?


----------



## Newby

Steven_R said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
> The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what _you_ can't see, just doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.
> 
> I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.
Click to expand...


I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what _you_ can't see, just doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.
> 
> I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?
Click to expand...



That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made.  "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.
> 
> I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made.  "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.
Click to expand...


Evidence of God is right in front of your face, every day, you observe it and study it and then dismiss the fact that you have no idea how it came to be, or how all of the 'systems' to support it were created or dervied.  Ego is a terrible thing at times.


----------



## Newby

KarlaM said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like dark matter, what you can't see/prove is just a theory. Could be there, but then again, maybe not. I need proof before elevating a theory to a fact. Doesn't everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Up until 100 years ago we couldn't see germs, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?  Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steven's response was spot on. And he's right, there is science that points to something holding things together.
Click to expand...


Choosing to ignore my questions I see... not surprising.


----------



## Steven_R

> Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?


No.



> Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?


Sidestepping the inevitable "God of the Gaps" argument that is coming, I doubt we'll ever know everything there is to know about everything, but we're learning more and more about the universe every single day. Every one of the questions we do answer brings us that much closer to understanding just how the universe functions and then opens up whole new avenues of questions we never even considered. I suspect that as long as human beings are human beings, we'll be turning over stones to find answers and new questions. It's wonderful.


----------



## Newby

Steven_R said:


> Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sidestepping the inevitable "God of the Gaps" argument that is coming, I doubt we'll ever know everything there is to know about everything, but we're learning more and more about the universe every single day. Every one of the questions we do answer brings us that much closer to understanding just how the universe functions and then opens up whole new avenues of questions we never even considered. I suspect that as long as human beings are human beings, we'll be turning over stones to find answers and new questions. It's wonderful.
Click to expand...


Your whole argument is based on the premise that the human mind is the end all/be all of knowledge and comprehension when it's not even close.  Because man has studied and not found what you would consider 'proof', then that's enough for you.  It's not enough for me, it leaves the potential for many possibilities open.  So to dismiss it because you cannot understand it or 'prove' it is naive.


----------



## midcan5

"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty -- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'!                                                                           I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll leave off if you like."

"Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.

"One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men -- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then -- who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys -- all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound. 'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken -- taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs.... 'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!...                                                                           I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well -- what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

"To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

"Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!"



"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence, then, evil." Epicurus

Ivan's question is here. The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky: Chapter 35

http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/313686-if-god-did-not-exist-39.html#post7964436


----------



## daws101

guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present  is erroneous subjective conjecture..


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use *the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible*.
> the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present  is erroneous subjective conjecture..



It really wasn't that hard. cause you don't know anything.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use *the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible*.
> the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present  is erroneous subjective conjecture..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really wasn't that hard. cause you don't know anything.
Click to expand...

you just made my point for me.....thanks.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
> the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..


 
Shocking...you didn't provide a single concrete example.

Imagine that!



Your imagination is strong, grasshopper. Now focus on the now...what is real....focus....focus...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> guys! newby and kosher girl will deny everything and and use the beaten to death ploy you are ignorant about the bible.
> the only argument they have is belief, anything else they present is erroneous subjective conjecture..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking...you didn't provide a single concrete example.
> 
> Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> Your imagination is strong, grasshopper. Now focus on the now...what is real....focus....focus...
Click to expand...

guess you don't understand the meaning of ubiquitous  

u·biq·ui·tous [ yoo bíkwit&#601;ss ]   
existing everywhere: present everywhere at once, or seeming to be
Synonyms: omnipresent, universal, pervasive, global, abundant, permeating..
it's like asking me to provide proof of daylight.
It's also your dodge of last resort.


----------



## koshergrl

Lolol...

Guess you don't know the definition of:

"Pothead - English origin
Doped up blatherer who believes he's really smart. Usually wears a hat and sunglasses, and reeks of patchouli."


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made.  "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of God is right in front of your face, every day, you observe it and study it and then dismiss the fact that you have no idea how it came to be, or how all of the 'systems' to support it were created or dervied.  Ego is a terrible thing at times.
Click to expand...


No, in fact, I don't know that the evidence is right in front of my face.  What I see are the laws of nature.  If you are going to argue from the god of the gaps, you won't get very far, I, afraid.  As for how it came to be (I assume you are referring to the universe), the unexplained is not inexplicable.  Many people are overconfident enough to think that if they cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable and therefore a true mystery of the paranormal. An amateur archeologist declares that because he cannot figure out how the pyramids were built, they must have been constructed by space aliens. Even those who are more reasonable at least think that if the experts cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable. Feats such as the bending of spoons, firewalking, or mental telepathy are often thought to be of a paranormal or mystical natures because most people cannot explain them. When they are explained, most people respond, "Yes, of course" or "That's obvious once you see it." Firewalking is a case in point. People speculate endlessly about supernatural powers over pain and heat, or mysterious brain chemicals that block pain and prevent burning. The simple explanation is that the capacity of light and fluffy coals to contain heat is very low, and the conductivity of heat from the light and fluffy coals to your feet is very poor. As long as you don't stand around on the coals, you will not get burned. (Think of a cake in a 450° oven. The air, the cake, and the pan are all at 450°F, but only the metal pan will burn your hand. Air has a very low heat capacity and also low conductivity, so you can put your hand in the oven long enough to touch the cake and pan. The heat capacity of the cake is a lot higher than air, but since it has low conductivity you can briefly touch it without getting burned. The metal pan has a heat capacity similar to the cake, but high conductivity too. If you touch it, you will get burned.) This is why magicians (and religious fanatics) do not tell their secrets. Most of their tricks are, in principle, relatively simple (although many are extremely difficult to execute) and knowing the secret takes the magic out of the trick.


----------



## koshergrl

Nature obeys God.

So much for the laws of nature.


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sidestepping the inevitable "God of the Gaps" argument that is coming, I doubt we'll ever know everything there is to know about everything, but we're learning more and more about the universe every single day. Every one of the questions we do answer brings us that much closer to understanding just how the universe functions and then opens up whole new avenues of questions we never even considered. I suspect that as long as human beings are human beings, we'll be turning over stones to find answers and new questions. It's wonderful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your whole argument is based on the premise that the human mind is the end all/be all of knowledge and comprehension when it's not even close.  Because man has studied and not found what you would consider 'proof', then that's enough for you.  It's not enough for me, it leaves the potential for many possibilities open.  So to dismiss it because you cannot understand it or 'prove' it is naive.
Click to expand...


I suppose this is where we are supposed to apologize for being smarter than our pets.  Well, that's not going to happen.  The quest for knowledge is ongoing, never ending.  But just because our knowledge necessarily is limited doesn't mean that we know nothing. Certainly we do know a lot about a lot of things.  We may estimate that we know only 5% of the universe, but the 5% we do know, we have a lot of confidence in what we know.  We understand the chemical nature of the Earth, for instance, and can plot a periodic table of the elements of which it is composed.  From this table, we derive the composition of all other objects in the universe, of life on this planet, search for cures to diseases, and can use it to search for life elsewhere.  We couldn't do any of this just 200 years ago.  So while we have a lot to learn, do not underestimate the power of what we already know.  We stand on the shoulders of intellectual giants.  Our children and their will stand on the shoulders giants as well.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Nature obeys God.
> 
> So much for the laws of nature.



So much for your circular reasoning.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh, it works just as well (better, even, since it explains everything) than the vague "Laws of Nature" wussiness. What are the laws of nature?

Just the law that says it is what it is. Talk about circular.


----------



## Steven_R

Science doesn't try to answer "why"; it just seeks to answer "how". The laws that govern the universe are what they are.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, they are what they are, as conceived by God, who made them.


----------



## Steven_R

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Oh, it works just as well (better, even, since it explains everything) than the vague "Laws of Nature" wussiness. What are the laws of nature?
> 
> Just the law that says it is what it is. Talk about circular.



Sorry.  "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Lolol...
> 
> Guess you don't know the definition of:
> 
> "Pothead - English origin
> Doped up blatherer who believes he's really smart. Usually wears a hat and sunglasses, and reeks of patchouli."


----------

