*What Is Death To An Ahteist*?

[Youwerecreated]

Tribes of prehistoric people routinely killed any strangers that wandered into their proximity whether or not those strangers were trying to rape their women.

One hunting party would kill the people of another hunting party if they could not because they hated them but because it increased their chance to procure food for their tribe.

Violence born of necessity is not hate.

Then why didn't the indians attack the pilgrims of the mayflower if what you say is true ?

The truth is they only felt fear of something that never happened.

Maybe they should have. The fact that they didn't eventually led to their downfall. They did not fare well in their bid to survive as a people.

Really,we are still here ,and we didn't have the weapons to compete.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just a thought.
The universe is a vast place.
Who can imagine the other stuff and creatures that are out there?
If this was all invented and constructed by some super-being, and he's somehow managing it all, why would he give a toss about a few tiny animals on this one small planet?

Because life is unique in the universe. The bible also said that heoves his creations and he created us in his image.

What does that first sentence even mean?

OOPS , i was on my smart phone.

Because life is unique in the universe.

The bible also say's that he loves his creations and we were created in his image.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then why didn't the indians attack the pilgrims of the mayflower if what you say is true ?

The truth is they only felt fear of something that never happened.

Maybe they should have. The fact that they didn't eventually led to their downfall. They did not fare well in their bid to survive as a people.

Really,we are still here ,and we didn't have the weapons to compete.

But in what condition as a people. You have to admit the position of Indians is not a good one. Your culture is all but gone and those that are successful have done so by integrating with whites.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Maybe they should have. The fact that they didn't eventually led to their downfall. They did not fare well in their bid to survive as a people.

Really,we are still here ,and we didn't have the weapons to compete.

But in what condition as a people. You have to admit the position of Indians is not a good one. Your culture is all but gone and those that are successful have done so by integrating with whites.

I feel i am an American with equal rights.

But thats not a bad thing is it ?

That is what makes this country so great the diversity.

There was a whole lot of ignorance early on in this country.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. This is getting off topic.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JScott]

Sorry bout that,


1. This is getting off topic.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

It went off topic about 25 pages ago.

 

[uscitizen]

Tribes of prehistoric people routinely killed any strangers that wandered into their proximity whether or not those strangers were trying to rape their women.

One hunting party would kill the people of another hunting party if they could not because they hated them but because it increased their chance to procure food for their tribe.

Violence born of necessity is not hate.

Then why didn't the indians attack the pilgrims of the mayflower if what you say is true ?

The truth is they only felt fear of something that never happened.

Indians did attack the pilgrims. They also attacked Jamestown, the first American settlement.

Early illegal immigrant control.
Too bad for them they failed at it.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Death and to be dead must be hell for the mindset of an atheist, there can be no doubt, being dead, and the act of dying must be a living, *pre-hell*.
2. How can a human live with knowing that when they die, its *over*, *the end*, *turn out the lights the parties over*, no justice.
3. Thats sad indeed.
4. And they teach this to their children too.
5. Can you imagine Johnny comes home from school, and asks atheist dad, "Hey dad what happens after we die?", dad says, "Well son, when you die, just like any animal, your life ends, you basically go back to the reality of *pre-birth*, and there is no hell, and no heaven, like them lying bastard Christians will tell you, they just do that to get your money son, don't fall for it, when your dead son and gone, if I had my way I would just throw your dead body in the alley, but thats illegal".
6. Yeah that is reality for an atheist, and it should make you want to throw up.
7. To an atheist a grave yard is wasted space, would be better to use the land for something else to them.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[idb]

Sorry bout that,


1. Death and to be dead must be hell for the mindset of an atheist, there can be no doubt, being dead, and the act of dying must be a living, *pre-hell*.
2. How can a human live with knowing that when they die, its *over*, *the end*, *turn out the lights the parties over*, no justice.
3. Thats sad indeed.
4. And they teach this to their children too.
5. Can you imagine Johnny comes home from school, and asks atheist dad, "Hey dad what happens after we die?", dad says, "Well son, when you die, just like any animal, your life ends, you basically go back to the reality of *pre-birth*, and there is no hell, and no heaven, like them lying bastard Christians will tell you, they just do that to get your money son, don't fall for it, when your dead son and gone, if I had my way I would just throw your dead body in the alley, but thats illegal".
6. Yeah that is reality for an atheist, and it should make you want to throw up.
7. To an atheist a grave yard is wasted space, would be better to use the land for something else to them.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. It's clearly quite the opposite for an atheist, they are content that death is the end and they don't need a fantasy to make the scariness go away.
2. It isn't an issue, it's just the reality of existence, no storybook needed.
3. Sad that they can accept reality you mean?
4. The devils!!!
5. Hmmm...have you heard that conversation? Maybe yours would be "Well son, these big fairies come down and pick you up and take you away to a happy place where you live with Santa Claus and everything is happy forever and all the people are happy forever and there's as much ice cream as you want to eat forever."
6. Too much ice cream'll do that...or knowing that you're going to spend eternity with Chesswarsnow and his mates.
7. I never saw that in the handbook.

Cheers SirJames

 

[MarcATL]

Sorry bout that,


1. Death and to be dead must be hell for the mindset of an atheist, there can be no doubt, being dead, and the act of dying must be a living, *pre-hell*.
2. How can a human live with knowing that when they die, its *over*, *the end*, *turn out the lights the parties over*, no justice.
3. Thats sad indeed.
4. And they teach this to their children too.
5. Can you imagine Johnny comes home from school, and asks atheist dad, "Hey dad what happens after we die?", dad says, "Well son, when you die, just like any animal, your life ends, you basically go back to the reality of *pre-birth*, and there is no hell, and no heaven, like them lying bastard Christians will tell you, they just do that to get your money son, don't fall for it, when your dead son and gone, if I had my way I would just throw your dead body in the alley, but thats illegal".
6. Yeah that is reality for an atheist, and it should make you want to throw up.
7. To an atheist a grave yard is wasted space, would be better to use the land for something else to them.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

It doesn't have to be so dramatic.

It just seems to me that a Godless existence is rather sad, unpredictable, uncertain, unassuring and rather meaningless... after all, we're all just here by chance....anything goes.

 

[idb]

Sorry bout that,


1. Death and to be dead must be hell for the mindset of an atheist, there can be no doubt, being dead, and the act of dying must be a living, *pre-hell*.
2. How can a human live with knowing that when they die, its *over*, *the end*, *turn out the lights the parties over*, no justice.
3. Thats sad indeed.
4. And they teach this to their children too.
5. Can you imagine Johnny comes home from school, and asks atheist dad, "Hey dad what happens after we die?", dad says, "Well son, when you die, just like any animal, your life ends, you basically go back to the reality of *pre-birth*, and there is no hell, and no heaven, like them lying bastard Christians will tell you, they just do that to get your money son, don't fall for it, when your dead son and gone, if I had my way I would just throw your dead body in the alley, but thats illegal".
6. Yeah that is reality for an atheist, and it should make you want to throw up.
7. To an atheist a grave yard is wasted space, would be better to use the land for something else to them.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

It doesn't have to be so dramatic.

It just seems to me that a Godless existence is rather sad, unpredictable, uncertain, unassuring and rather meaningless... after all, we're all just here by chance....anything goes.

I can see how you might derive reassurance from a supreme being but how does having a God make it meaningful?
I must admit I don't like too much predictability.

 

[Montrovant]

Really , a few questions for you,just a simple honesty test.

1. Is a t.v. a product of design or a product of chance ?

2. Is a home a product of design or chance ?

3.Is a car a product of design or chance ?

4. Is a computer a product of design or chance ?

Each and everyone of these items are complex products of design , they could not of happened by chance.

Now lets consider far more complex items.

1. The human brain a product of design or chance ?

2. Any eye a product of design or chance ?

3. The heart a product of design or chance ?

4. A cell a product of design or chance ?

5 . The earth having the sun and moon for light by design or chance ?

6. The earth containing the right amount of gravity a product of design or chance ?

7. Humans exhaling carbon dioxide what plants need to breathe and plants breathing off oxygen what humans need to breathe a porduct of design or chance ?

8. Four seasons for the earth a product of design or chance ?

9. The earth continues to spin on it's axis without any help that can be seen a product of design or chance ?

10. What would happen if the earth stopped rotating on it's axis ?

Answer


Earth is rotating at a speed of about 1100 miles per hour. If our planet suddenly stopped rotating, the atmosphere would still be in motion at that speed. The atmosphere would be moving so fast it would literally sweep the land masses clear of anything not anchored to bedrock, this would mean rocks, soil, trees, buildings, people and animals. All would be swept up into the atmosphere.

If the Earth's rotation slowed down gradually over millions of years, and this is the most likely scenario, it would be a very different story. If the Earth slowed down to one rotation every year, called synchronous rotation, every area on Earth would be in either sunlight or darkness for one year. This would be similar to what the Moon goes through where for two weeks the front side of the Moon is illuminated by the Sun followed by the front side being in darkness for two weeks.

But what if the Earth stopped rotating completely? In that case, one half the Earth would be in daylight for half the year while the other side would be in darkness. The second half of the year it would be reversed. Temperature variations would be far more extreme then they are now. The temperature gradient would affect the wind circulation also. Air would move from the equator to the poles rather then in wind systems parallel to the equator as they are now.

Even stranger would be the change in the Sun's position in the sky. In the above scenario, Sun would just have a seasonal motion up and down the sky towards the south due to the orbit of the Earth and its axial tilt. You would see the elevation of the Sun increase or decrease in the sky just as we now see the elevation of the Sun change from a single point on the Earth due to the Earth's daily rotation.

As an example, say we live at 30 degrees North latitude. In the Summer, at a longitude where the Sun was exactly overhead, it would slide gradually to the horizon as Fall approached, but since the Sun has moved 90 degrees in its orbit, it would now be due west. As Winter approached, you would now be located on the dark side of the Earth. You would have to move to a longitude 180 degrees around the Earth to see the Sun 1/2 way up the sky because in the Winter, the Sun is 50 degrees south of its summer location in the sky.

There would be other effects of the Earth's rotation slowing also. The magnetic field of the Earth is generated by a dynamo effect that involves its rotation. If the Earth stopped rotating, the magnetic field would no longer be regenerated and it would decay away to some low, residual value due to the very small component which is 'fossilized' in its iron-rich rocks. There would be no more 'northern lights' and the Van Allen radiation belts would probably vanish, as would our protection from cosmic rays and other high-energy particles. Losing this protection would cause serious health issues.

Be glad for our Earthly rotation, without it we would be much worse off !

Product of design or chance ?

You can not compare man made items to biologic items.

Says who ? Someone who rejects the idea that someone is out there greater then man and he gave man the ability to design and create as well. But truly you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence provided shows design.

Your premise seems to be that complexity equals design and I disagree. While there is certainly much complexity in the universe as we know it, that says nothing to me one way or another about a creator. It most certainly does not provide evidence that the creator you believe in exists, or that there was only one creator, or that said creator(s) were not also created in turn.

The reason comparing mechanical to biological complexity doesn't work is that the mechanical items do not reproduce, pass on traits through genes, mutate, etc.

As far as the odds of the right conditions arising for life on this planet, the universe, just what we are able to see at all, is incredibly vast. Vast on a scale that is hard to truly grasp. With the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the possibly extremely long amount of time involved, the odds argument loses much of it's luster.

There may be a creator. There may not. With how much we still don't know of the world we reside on, let alone the entire universe around us, how confident should anyone be they know the answers? And given the huge amount we as a species still do not know, and further, that each individual does not know, why would anyone expect someone else to believe their confidence in having the answers is justified?

Finally, lack of knowledge is not evidence of god.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can not compare man made items to biologic items.

Says who ? Someone who rejects the idea that someone is out there greater then man and he gave man the ability to design and create as well. But truly you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence provided shows design.

Your premise seems to be that complexity equals design and I disagree. While there is certainly much complexity in the universe as we know it, that says nothing to me one way or another about a creator. It most certainly does not provide evidence that the creator you believe in exists, or that there was only one creator, or that said creator(s) were not also created in turn.

The reason comparing mechanical to biological complexity doesn't work is that the mechanical items do not reproduce, pass on traits through genes, mutate, etc.

As far as the odds of the right conditions arising for life on this planet, the universe, just what we are able to see at all, is incredibly vast. Vast on a scale that is hard to truly grasp. With the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the possibly extremely long amount of time involved, the odds argument loses much of it's luster.

There may be a creator. There may not. With how much we still don't know of the world we reside on, let alone the entire universe around us, how confident should anyone be they know the answers? And given the huge amount we as a species still do not know, and further, that each individual does not know, why would anyone expect someone else to believe their confidence in having the answers is justified?

Finally, lack of knowledge is not evidence of god.

Not just complexity equals design,how bout necessity and purpose.

Can you really believe that a natural process would consider necessity and purpose in creating ?

Can you reason out the possibility that a natural process could use all the same substances to form a cell over and over and over again ? while considering the purpose and necessity for each substance used ?

Sorry this is clear evidence of design in my opinion.

 

[Montrovant]

Says who ? Someone who rejects the idea that someone is out there greater then man and he gave man the ability to design and create as well. But truly you can't bring yourself to admit the evidence provided shows design.

Your premise seems to be that complexity equals design and I disagree. While there is certainly much complexity in the universe as we know it, that says nothing to me one way or another about a creator. It most certainly does not provide evidence that the creator you believe in exists, or that there was only one creator, or that said creator(s) were not also created in turn.

The reason comparing mechanical to biological complexity doesn't work is that the mechanical items do not reproduce, pass on traits through genes, mutate, etc.

As far as the odds of the right conditions arising for life on this planet, the universe, just what we are able to see at all, is incredibly vast. Vast on a scale that is hard to truly grasp. With the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the possibly extremely long amount of time involved, the odds argument loses much of it's luster.

There may be a creator. There may not. With how much we still don't know of the world we reside on, let alone the entire universe around us, how confident should anyone be they know the answers? And given the huge amount we as a species still do not know, and further, that each individual does not know, why would anyone expect someone else to believe their confidence in having the answers is justified?

Finally, lack of knowledge is not evidence of god.

Not just complexity equals design,how bout necessity and purpose.

Can you really believe that a natural process would consider necessity and purpose in creating ?

Can you reason out the possibility that a natural process could use all the same substances to form a cell over and over and over again ? while considering the purpose and necessity for each substance used ?

Sorry this is clear evidence of design in my opinion.

I'm not completely sure what you are asking, but I'll try to answer. The natural process that worked was continued and replicated for that very reason, it worked. No intelligence is necessary for that to be true; the things that work better are able to continue while those that do not die out. So a natural process which did not use the same substances to form a cell over and over wouldn't last very long. Who am I to say that such a thing hasn't happened either here or on an entirely different world? Perhaps life began to arise on some distant world but the natural processes didn't use the same substance to form a cell over and over and so the life was unable to successfully reproduce and died out almost before it began. For all I know that has happened numerous times.

Again, when asked how life could have risen on this planet I answer I do not know. You answer god. I still say lack of knowledge =/= god.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your premise seems to be that complexity equals design and I disagree. While there is certainly much complexity in the universe as we know it, that says nothing to me one way or another about a creator. It most certainly does not provide evidence that the creator you believe in exists, or that there was only one creator, or that said creator(s) were not also created in turn.

The reason comparing mechanical to biological complexity doesn't work is that the mechanical items do not reproduce, pass on traits through genes, mutate, etc.

As far as the odds of the right conditions arising for life on this planet, the universe, just what we are able to see at all, is incredibly vast. Vast on a scale that is hard to truly grasp. With the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the possibly extremely long amount of time involved, the odds argument loses much of it's luster.

There may be a creator. There may not. With how much we still don't know of the world we reside on, let alone the entire universe around us, how confident should anyone be they know the answers? And given the huge amount we as a species still do not know, and further, that each individual does not know, why would anyone expect someone else to believe their confidence in having the answers is justified?

Finally, lack of knowledge is not evidence of god.

Not just complexity equals design,how bout necessity and purpose.

Can you really believe that a natural process would consider necessity and purpose in creating ?

Can you reason out the possibility that a natural process could use all the same substances to form a cell over and over and over again ? while considering the purpose and necessity for each substance used ?

Sorry this is clear evidence of design in my opinion.

I'm not completely sure what you are asking, but I'll try to answer. The natural process that worked was continued and replicated for that very reason, it worked. No intelligence is necessary for that to be true; the things that work better are able to continue while those that do not die out. So a natural process which did not use the same substances to form a cell over and over wouldn't last very long. Who am I to say that such a thing hasn't happened either here or on an entirely different world? Perhaps life began to arise on some distant world but the natural processes didn't use the same substance to form a cell over and over and so the life was unable to successfully reproduce and died out almost before it began. For all I know that has happened numerous times.

Again, when asked how life could have risen on this planet I answer I do not know. You answer god. I still say lack of knowledge =/= god.

It's not just the question concerning a cell.

Blood for the body,white and red blood cells.

A heart to pump the blood throughout the body.

The Brain ,the computer that runs the body.

Eyes dilating because of the amount of light or to focus.

The many organs needed for the body to function.

I don't see a natural process at work i see a creator at work that is beyond our comprehension.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your premise seems to be that complexity equals design and I disagree. While there is certainly much complexity in the universe as we know it, that says nothing to me one way or another about a creator. It most certainly does not provide evidence that the creator you believe in exists, or that there was only one creator, or that said creator(s) were not also created in turn.

The reason comparing mechanical to biological complexity doesn't work is that the mechanical items do not reproduce, pass on traits through genes, mutate, etc.

As far as the odds of the right conditions arising for life on this planet, the universe, just what we are able to see at all, is incredibly vast. Vast on a scale that is hard to truly grasp. With the enormous number of stars and planets out there, and the possibly extremely long amount of time involved, the odds argument loses much of it's luster.

There may be a creator. There may not. With how much we still don't know of the world we reside on, let alone the entire universe around us, how confident should anyone be they know the answers? And given the huge amount we as a species still do not know, and further, that each individual does not know, why would anyone expect someone else to believe their confidence in having the answers is justified?

Finally, lack of knowledge is not evidence of god.

Not just complexity equals design,how bout necessity and purpose.

Can you really believe that a natural process would consider necessity and purpose in creating ?

Can you reason out the possibility that a natural process could use all the same substances to form a cell over and over and over again ? while considering the purpose and necessity for each substance used ?

Sorry this is clear evidence of design in my opinion.

I'm not completely sure what you are asking, but I'll try to answer. The natural process that worked was continued and replicated for that very reason, it worked. No intelligence is necessary for that to be true; the things that work better are able to continue while those that do not die out. So a natural process which did not use the same substances to form a cell over and over wouldn't last very long. Who am I to say that such a thing hasn't happened either here or on an entirely different world? Perhaps life began to arise on some distant world but the natural processes didn't use the same substance to form a cell over and over and so the life was unable to successfully reproduce and died out almost before it began. For all I know that has happened numerous times.

Again, when asked how life could have risen on this planet I answer I do not know. You answer god. I still say lack of knowledge =/= god.

One more thing it takes some sort of action to put everything in motion who or what is the cause of the action ?

 

[uscitizen]

Not just complexity equals design,how bout necessity and purpose.

Can you really believe that a natural process would consider necessity and purpose in creating ?

Can you reason out the possibility that a natural process could use all the same substances to form a cell over and over and over again ? while considering the purpose and necessity for each substance used ?

Sorry this is clear evidence of design in my opinion.

I'm not completely sure what you are asking, but I'll try to answer. The natural process that worked was continued and replicated for that very reason, it worked. No intelligence is necessary for that to be true; the things that work better are able to continue while those that do not die out. So a natural process which did not use the same substances to form a cell over and over wouldn't last very long. Who am I to say that such a thing hasn't happened either here or on an entirely different world? Perhaps life began to arise on some distant world but the natural processes didn't use the same substance to form a cell over and over and so the life was unable to successfully reproduce and died out almost before it began. For all I know that has happened numerous times.

Again, when asked how life could have risen on this planet I answer I do not know. You answer god. I still say lack of knowledge =/= god.

It's not just the question concerning a cell.

Blood for the body,white and red blood cells.

A heart to pump the blood throughout the body.

The Brain ,the computer that runs the body.

Eyes dilating because of the amount of light or to focus.

The many organs needed for the body to function.

I don't see a natural process at work i see a creator at work that is beyond our comprehension.

Yep we are the result of an alien college kids failed science project.

Keep in mind that our current tech woudl have been beyond our comprehension a few hundred years ago.

 

[k2skier]

What is death to an atheist? Taking advantage of the guillable...WOW!

Home Page

Notice of Rate Increase: Due to the increased activity associated with the May 21, 2011 Rapture prophesy we have increased our service rates for all new contracts submitted as of 1/13/11.

You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is death to an atheist? Taking advantage of the guillable...WOW!

Home Page

Notice of Rate Increase: Due to the increased activity associated with the May 21, 2011 Rapture prophesy we have increased our service rates for all new contracts submitted as of 1/13/11.

You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.

A very small portion of Christianity believes in the rapture,but nice try playing the guilt card.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not completely sure what you are asking, but I'll try to answer. The natural process that worked was continued and replicated for that very reason, it worked. No intelligence is necessary for that to be true; the things that work better are able to continue while those that do not die out. So a natural process which did not use the same substances to form a cell over and over wouldn't last very long. Who am I to say that such a thing hasn't happened either here or on an entirely different world? Perhaps life began to arise on some distant world but the natural processes didn't use the same substance to form a cell over and over and so the life was unable to successfully reproduce and died out almost before it began. For all I know that has happened numerous times.

Again, when asked how life could have risen on this planet I answer I do not know. You answer god. I still say lack of knowledge =/= god.

It's not just the question concerning a cell.

Blood for the body,white and red blood cells.

A heart to pump the blood throughout the body.

The Brain ,the computer that runs the body.

Eyes dilating because of the amount of light or to focus.

The many organs needed for the body to function.

I don't see a natural process at work i see a creator at work that is beyond our comprehension.

Yep we are the result of an alien college kids failed science project.

Keep in mind that our current tech woudl have been beyond our comprehension a few hundred years ago.

Well so far science has not been able to show life can spontaneously begin on it's own.