# Why I believe in a Creator (God)



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Before becoming a Christian, I was into the whole Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution argument, and constantly mocked religious folks for believing in a "magic man in the sky".

I just want to share with you my two main reasons why I believe a creator exists. And trust me me, I have more reasons than I can count for believing in one. But for the sake of time and because most of you probably don't love reading *THAT* much, I'll give you my two top reasons. (Also note there are far better arguments for a creator but I wanted to share mine.)

#1 http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/4000.htm

#2 I believe in the Bible and everything it says, and nowhere﻿ does it state about life on other planets. Furthermore, if you study interstellar travel, it's physically impossible to send other humans to another star system. Intergalactic travel is impossible altogether, including robots. Even with robots, i'm going to go out on a limb and say it's impossible to send a robot to another star system.

Reason being is, the closest star system to us (5 light years) would take thousands upon thousands of years to reach with a robot, and by the time it reached the star system, it would﻿ take 5 years to receive a message or signal from it, then another 5 years to send one back. The probability of that star having a planet with life on it is so minuscule anyway that it's not practical. If (big "if" here) we somehow found out how to travel at light speed, there are still many obstacles to overcome. First, you need the energy to propel an object at light speed. Scientists have already estimated that the energy level required for such a feat would be the amount of energy the world consumes in 1 day for only a couple of seconds of light speed. Do the math. 1 day of energy consumed on earth times how many seconds there are in 2.5 years. Now let's assume we overcome this obstacle. Now you better﻿ hope your spacecraft can travel for 5 years without coming into contact with space debris. One tiny piece of rock is enough to completely obliterate your spacecraft traveling at light speed.

Now after﻿ being extremely lucky, you finally reach Our closest star system Alpha Centauri. Guess what? You now have to slow the thing down so it can safely land on a celestial object. Even more energy is required for this, not to mention the time it'll take to receive and send signals to the spacecraft.

Basically, it's *impossible*.

God designed it this way because (in my opinion) he knew that man will one day attempt to find life in other star systems but I think he wanted man to come to the realization that we are absolutely nothing compared to him. He is the creator of this massive thing we call our Universe. The proof is right there in front of﻿ you. We will NEVER be able to explore other solar systems, we can hardly explore our own.

This is the true testament of God's power. I don't mean to come off as a religious nutjob, but I used to be an atheist and believed that life had to be on other planets. But the bottom line is we don't know and won't know for sure until we get to heaven and ask God himself. Personally I don't think there are. God created Adam because he was lonely, and﻿ then created Eve because Adam was lonely. It doesn't talk about the creation of any living things anywhere else so I don't believe there is.


Conclusion - I find it *extremely* arrogant to say there isn't a God or Creator. It takes more faith in my opinion to believe there isn't a God than an adult believing in Santa Claus (ironically, most atheists say the reason they *don't* believe in God is the *SAME* reason they don't believe in Santa Claus.) 

*We're living in very dark times folks, now is the time to get serious about where you will spend eternity.*

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/


----------



## Punk29 (Nov 19, 2011)

Well, i don't need any proofs, i know that there is a God, just like everybody, they are just afraid to admit it.


----------



## Kiz (Dec 2, 2006)

this is gonna be good


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

Wow OP, I'm glad there's another believer here. I was at my local chapter of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I couldn't believe how few people showed up for the sermon. Dark times indeed.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

The existence of god can never be proven or disproved, just like every other "fact" in life. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs though, and no one will ever be wrong, because no one else will ever be right.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

Hope God looks like Morgan Freeman








DAT VOICE.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

God sure is laughing at us now because we can't get out. We're like his little ants that he put in a jar and left outside, no matter how hard we try to get out of the jar and go exploring to other vast lands, we just can't do it and will all die.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

So there is not life outside of us because we can't get to where it could be? And because of this God exists? I believe in God yet don't find any logic in this argument. 

And you can be Christian without believing everything in the bible. Jesus didn't write the bible, God didn't wrtie it, people wrote it. People that were trying to get more people to convert to Christianity, they can make shit up.


----------



## Walls (Apr 14, 2004)

There is a God, I agree:


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)




----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

There is a lot of stuff that I dont agree with you on. I noticed that you use the word impossible a lot, but yet you somehow believe in a magical being that created the whole universe and can do whatever he wants. Does that seem really possible to you?

Second of all, years ago did people ever think that they would be able to fly. Then we invented airplanes and helicopters and other things that will help us fly. 

just a hundred years ago, did anybody think that we would ever go to the moon? Nobody ever thought that, but humans somehow did it. The human mind is amazing and I really wish I could see what we will acomplish in a few hundred years.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Punk29 said:


> Well, i don't need any proofs, i know that there is a God, just like everybody, they are just afraid to admit it.


Where is your proof that he exists?

Oh, right, some fucking fairytale you read.


It's easier to 'prove' he isn't real than it is to prove he is real. There is no evidence that he ever existed. People just read a book and assumed it was true.

Naive.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Okay, Evolution is wrong. I don't think it is because let's roll with it and say evolution and abiogenesis are wrong. 

They're wrong. Completely, indisputably wrong.

How does that prove god?


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

DAT GOD


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I'm Anti-Religion but I believe in a God as well. I just wonder who created our God. Who made Who?





*


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

LadyCroft said:


> *I'm Anti-Religion but I believe in a God as well. I just wonder who created our God. Who made Who?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I sometimes wonder this as well. If God created everything, then who created God? How could he always be there? Also, the big bang makes me wonder as well. they say that there was just this small ball of energy that exploded and created our entire universe, but how did this ball of energy get there in the first place?


----------



## Commander Sheppard (Jan 1, 2012)

*Insert edgy atheist statement*

Not religious myself but have no problem with people who practice it.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

disproving something doesn't form a proof for something else. If you don't believe in evolution and the like, then fine. Don't try and claim that it proves the existance of a higher being. Its asinine and there is no logic or reasoning behind it.


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

The one and only true God and Supreme Leader.


----------



## Walls (Apr 14, 2004)

Catalanotto said:


> Where is your proof that he exists?
> 
> Oh, right, some fucking fairytale you read.
> 
> ...


Pretty much this. In my opinion, people who live their lives by the Bible are nothing more than sheep.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Catalanotto said:


> Where is your proof that he exists?
> 
> Oh, right, some fucking fairytale you read.
> 
> ...


No evidence? Man you are really ignorant. 

Evidence is everywhere man. Maybe you need help defining the word "evidence".

A creator can and has been proven, the problem is that you militant atheists wouldn't even consider the existence of a God even if the sky turned red and the words "God is Real" appeared out of nowhere.

It doesn't matter how much proof there is, you atheists are under a satanic influence that blind you to the truth.

Miracles happen every day. I read about it all the time. People dying of cancer and other illnesses that are supposed to kill them with no chance of survival have spontaneously disappeared with no medical explanation. The reason doctors won't talk about alot of this stuff is because they put their reputation as a doctor on the line, fearing most people would think they are incompetent.

There is just so much evidence out there. Study the complexity of the human body. Evolution? Don't make me laugh. Study DNA. It's a language. A language doesn't just arise randomly.

Abiogenesis violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states processes left to themselves become more disorganized and chaotic, not more complex.

Disagree with me that Christianity is the true religion, ok. But argue that there isn't a creator? Come on. The biggest lie Satan ever told was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> No evidence? Man you are really ignorant.
> 
> Evidence is everywhere man. Maybe you need help defining the word "evidence".
> 
> ...



Lmao at YOU calling ME ignorant.


Your only 'proof' is a fucking BOOK and you associating atheists and Satan makes you look even dumber. Just because someone gets sick and then suddenly isn't sick doesn't mean there is some fucking guy in the sky.


Look in the mirror, there is nothing more ignorant than the refection staring back at you.


----------



## Commander Sheppard (Jan 1, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> No evidence? Man you are really ignorant.
> 
> Evidence is everywhere man. Maybe you need help defining the word "evidence".
> 
> ...


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

I thought Christians were bad until I ran into edgy, militant, internet Atheists.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

why does Cat always argue with trolls?


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Poltergeist said:


> Abiogenesis violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states processes left to themselves become more disorganized and chaotic, not more complex.


Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.

^^ totally not my words but the premise is there.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

TaylorFitz said:


> So there is not life outside of us because we can't get to where it could be? And because of this God exists? I believe in God yet don't find any logic in this argument.
> 
> And you can be Christian without believing everything in the bible. Jesus didn't write the bible, God didn't wrtie it, people wrote it. People that were trying to get more people to convert to Christianity, they can make shit up.


I was saying that I think the universe being so vast that our minds can't comprehend it is big evidence of a creator. When you look at the cosmos don't you see a beauty you can't explain? This is God's creation. It wasn't an accident.

Me stating that I don't believe there is life elsewhere was kind of separate from my belief in God. But I was trying to illustrate that if that's the case (and even from a scientist's perspective, we are 99.9999999999999999999999999% likely the only planet with life) then this matches up nicely with the fact that in the Bible there aren't any other civilizations out there.


P.S. For those arguing the Bible was made up by someone bored one day, please do your homework before making such an ignorant statement. The Bible is a compilation of books written over hundreds of years by different people, and was divinely inspired by God. Ancient manuscripts even reveal that a man named Jesus Christ did exist and was crucified, so it's not a "fairy tale".


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Don't get me wrong, I think anyone can feel however they want because at the end of the day none of us has any clue as to the true nature of our existence...

but I in every religion thread I just have to post this:


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

:lmao Oh boy...

We don't know... therefore GOD.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt the Bible translated from 3 different languages? One of those languages being so ancient?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*You've got me all wrong holy man. I absolutely believe in god. I just hate the motherfucker. ---- Riddick*


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Not to mention that it was heavily edited during the Roman Empire to reflect whatever the leaders of that time wanted their populous to follow - omitting entire _books_ of the Bible if they felt them out of line - to the point that the Bible of the present day no doubt has to bear little resemblance to the one written during the time of Christ.

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus was doing between ages 10 and 30, because there's scarcely a word about it in the Bible. For example, who was Christ's prom date? Did he get cut from the JV quidditch team? The world needs to know these things in order for all of us to live our lives properly.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Even if there were a god, i wouldn't worship him. Christians laugh at the north koreans crying about Kim Jong, and its quite possibly the funniest hting ever. Both are brutal killers, hold their people back, treat them as slaves, and blatantly lie to them. 

And also, why believe in a creator? If you believe in creation, something must have created the creator, and somethung to create that. Why not skip a step and believe the universe is just here, and always has been? 

Fact is, christianity was used to control early people, and thats the only purpose it had. Sure, you can learn some good lessons from that book, but overall its a pretty terrible thing. Theres a reason only a few parts are ever shared in Sunday school, it oozes of cruelty and the twisted beliefs f those who enforced it.

You speak of proof, too. And yet it has been proven that the universe will create itself, and that a creator is impossible. Why do you refute actual evidence, with uninformed medical assumptions? You really do baffle me.

And your grade nine astromy lesson was cute

Edit: Im sure a man named King Midas existed too, does that prove an old king was cursed to create gold sll around him? Dont try and play with the big boys, you simoly cant


----------



## peejay (Nov 9, 2008)

Most people only believe in God and are religious out of fear of possibly going to 'hell' when they die. I'd rather think about every possibility and think for myself rather than lazily answering everything with 'god did it'


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Catalanotto said:


> Lmao at YOU calling ME ignorant.
> 
> 
> Your only 'proof' is a fucking BOOK and you associating atheists and Satan makes you look even dumber. Just because someone gets sick and then suddenly isn't sick doesn't mean there is some fucking guy in the sky.
> ...


Why are you so hostile? You're so blinded by your satanic beliefs that you can't have a civil discussion about this. It's ok though, almost every atheist I've ran into is the same way.

I didn't say someone getting a serious illness and suddenly losing it "proves" God. Just as a gun doesn't necessarily "prove" someone killed someone. All of the evidence is brought together to prove something, and let me tell you my friend, there is far more evidence for the existence of a divine creator than there is otherwise.

Evolution is a theory. You cannot prove it. A creator can be proven by simple logic and reasoning after digesting all of the facts but the thing is, almost every atheist doesn't know or want to know the facts. They've all surrounded themselves with lies and live in a fantasy world which includes evolution and supposed "proof". 

Why don't you ask your science teacher how whale/sea fossils are being found on top of mountains (Andes)? (I'll give you a hint: *Flood*)


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

satan always seemed like a cooler guy to me


----------



## Stannis Baratheon. (Feb 26, 2005)

The One and Only God.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Hiplop said:


> Even if there were a god, i wouldn't worship him. Christians laugh at the north koreans crying about Kim Jong, and its quite possibly the funniest hting ever. Both are brutal killers, hold their people back, treat them as slaves, and blatantly lie to them.
> 
> And also, why believe in a creator? If you believe in creation, something must have created the creator, and somethung to create that. Why not skip a step and believe the universe is just here, and always has been?
> 
> ...



You're ignorant of the nature of God. He is eternal, with no beginning or end. He wasn't created otherwise he wouldn't be God. Get it?


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> I was saying that I think the universe being so vast that our minds can't comprehend it is big evidence of a creator. When you look at the cosmos don't you see a beauty you can't explain? This is God's creation. It wasn't an accident.
> 
> *Me stating that I don't believe there is life elsewhere was kind of separate from my belief in God. But I was trying to illustrate that if that's the case (and even from a scientist's perspective, we are 99.9999999999999999999999999% likely the only planet with life) then this matches up nicely with the fact that in the Bible there aren't any other civilizations out there.*
> 
> P.S. For those arguing the Bible was made up by someone bored one day, please do your homework before making such an ignorant statement. The Bible is a compilation of books written over hundreds of years by different people, and was divinely inspired by God. Ancient manuscripts even reveal that a man named Jesus Christ did exist and was crucified, so it's not a "fairy tale".


How can anybody even say that we are the only life in the universe? The universe is around 14 billion years old. Our earth is only about 4 billion years old. So there was no life at all for ten billion years? I just dont believe that we are all alone at all.


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> Why don't you ask your science teacher how whale/sea fossils are being found on top of mountains (Andes)? (I'll give you a hint: *Flood*)


At the risk of brutally raping your mind, sea level has not always been at its present state. It fluctuates slightly over the course of millennia. And by slightly, I mean a shit ton.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Why are you so hostile? You're so blinded by your satanic beliefs that you can't have a civil discussion about this. It's ok though, almost every atheist I've ran into is the same way.
> 
> I didn't say someone getting a serious illness and suddenly losing it "proves" God. Just as a gun doesn't necessarily "prove" someone killed someone. All of the evidence is brought together to prove something, and let me tell you my friend, there is far more evidence for the existence of a divine creator than there is otherwise.
> 
> ...



Being atheist has nothing to do with believing in Satan, you tool. You are so very uneducated, but we already saw that by reading your ridiculous posts.


Shut the hell up and read this because it says it all.

http://godisimaginary.com/


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Not surprised the creationist is ducking the facts presented in this thread and is instead resorting to childish arguments. Thought you would be more intellectual (actually thats a blatant lie, much like creationism)


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

You just refuted your own case, the universe could be eternal. If god needs no origin story nor does the universe.

Also enjoy how you ignored my burial of you. I said good day etc


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Cynic said:


> At the risk of brutally raping your mind, sea level has not always been at its present state. It fluctuates slightly over the course of millennia. And by slightly, I mean a shit ton.


Lol dude, do you understand what a fossil is? An organism that has been buried rapidly. You don't achieve whale fossils any other way but a worldwide flood.



Catalanotto said:


> Being atheist has nothing to do with believing in Satan



Exactly. Which is why I said the biggest lie Satan ever told was convincing people he didn't exist.

Lmao.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Poltergeist are you implying that Noah's Ark was literally possible? If so, high five, you're awesome.


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> Lol dude, do you understand what a fossil is? An organism that has been buried rapidly. You don't achieve whale fossils any other way but a worldwide flood.


fpalm

Fuck it, you win. A wizard did it.


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Why are you so hostile? You're so blinded by your satanic beliefs that you can't have a civil discussion about this. It's ok though, almost every atheist I've ran into is the same way.
> 
> I didn't say someone getting a serious illness and suddenly losing it "proves" God. Just as a gun doesn't necessarily "prove" someone killed someone. All of the evidence is brought together to prove something, and let me tell you my friend, there is far more evidence for the existence of a divine creator than there is otherwise.
> 
> ...


Even if the other poster is an atheist, why do you have to call him a devil worshiper? It seems that anybody that has a different opinion is working with the devil. 

O and the thing that I highlighted. This made me laugh my ass off. Want to know how they found sea fossils on mountains. That was probably part of an ocean, and it dried up over millions of years, or the water level got lower in that part and that is how a whale fossil came there. The mountains were once on the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Are you that much of a coward that you refuse to respond to me? The one who is levelheadedly speaking with you? You get proven wrong and you grab your ball then head on home. You're pathetic

Haha mrmister, exactly. We still find new species every day just about, and we span worldwide. Noah wasnt a animal expert, nor did he have access to most of the planet. Finding the animals would be impossible. And making them tame

I just continue to pick you apart op


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

But unlike God, Evolution is in the fave five.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

i believe i was the level headed one Hiplop. Back in your box son.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Religion is a scam. It's a way to make you think on their terms, not yours.

I'm spiritual, yes, but I'll be damned to let a now coporate entity like religion and churches/mosques/etc. tell me how to think and act.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Exactly. Which is why I said the biggest lie Satan ever told was convincing people he didn't exist.
> 
> Lmao.



What the fuck?


Goddamn, you're an idiot, just leave the forum.

Satan has nothing to do with this discussion and nearly everyone has owned you. Keep ducking from the blasts, we all know you've been destroyed.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Sparta101 said:


> Even if the other poster is an atheist, why do you have to call him a devil worshiper? It seems that anybody that has a different opinion is working with the devil.
> 
> O and the thing that I highlighted. This made me laugh my ass off. Want to know how they found sea fossils on mountains. That was probably part of an ocean, and it dried up over millions of years, or the water level got lower in that part and that is how a whale fossil came there. The mountains were once on the bottom of the ocean.



I didn't say he was a devil worshipper, however he is under satanic influence and isn't aware of it.

And you're right, it was under the ocean, during Noah's Flood.



Catalanotto said:


> What the fuck?
> 
> 
> Goddamn, you're an idiot, just leave the forum.
> ...


I'll pray for you dude. Seriously. 

What's your name?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Noah doing a run-in


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> I didn't say he was a devil worshipper, however he is under satanic influence and isn't aware of it.
> 
> And you're right, it was under the ocean, during Noah's Flood.


I'm a woman and I don't believe in Satan or God. Whatever you do in your life is YOUR choice, not some fucker in the sky or bitch down under.

I don't believe in things that there is no proof exists.


----------



## Commander Sheppard (Jan 1, 2012)

GD said:


> The One and Only God.



THE WHITE MAMBA


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)




----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Cain vs. Abel in a Grudge Match. 

Book it.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Maybe rush, maybe.

Admit you're wrong, or stop hiding from me. Im not going to bite!


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Winning™ said:


> Cain vs. Abel in a Grudge Match.
> 
> Book it.


Thor vs anyone. My money is on THOR.


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

Winning™ said:


> Cain vs. Abel in a Grudge Match.
> 
> Book it.


Only if Cain comes back with his mask lol.


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Question: how come when it's Christianity it's "religion" but when it's Greek gods its "mythology." Greek gods are badass shit. 

Zeus > douche God


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

MIGHTY THOR


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

MrMister said:


> Thor vs anyone. My money is on THOR.


im more worried about galactus myself

the proof he exists is undeniable


----------



## Mister Excitement (Apr 17, 2006)

Kratos would kick all of their asses.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Poltergeist said:


> Before becoming a Christian, I was into the whole Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution argument, and constantly mocked religious folks for believing in a "magic man in the sky".
> 
> I just want to share with you my two main reasons why I believe a creator exists. And trust me me, I have more reasons than I can count for believing in one. But for the sake of time and because most of you probably don't love reading *THAT* much, I'll give you my two top reasons. (Also note there are far better arguments for a creator but I wanted to share mine.)
> 
> ...


1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.

1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge? 

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? 

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)

3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.) 

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants. 

5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?

5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?

5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change? 

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

7. Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.

7a. Why does the Flood story need to be consistent? 

8. Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.

9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood. 

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.

10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals. 

11. Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

12. Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing? 



8*D


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Why the fuck has no wrestling promotion ever done a properly done rivalry based on the Cain/Abel story?

Besides the killing, of course.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Catalanotto said:


> I'm a woman and I don't believe in Satan or God. Whatever you do in your life is YOUR choice, not some fucker in the sky or bitch down under.
> 
> I don't believe in things that there is no proof exists.


Look, you certainly have the right to believe what you want to believe. But I have the right to inform people about the truth, and not because I think I'm better, but because I truly do care about people. You have the right to move on and ignore it. If you saw someone walking towards a cliff you'd try to save them right? It's the same thing. I really want people to realize there is more to life than what they think there is. Millions of people have felt God in a very real way. No it's not some overly emotional thing that can happen to anyone. I can't explain it. Words can't describe it. When I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior I had the most unimaginable feeling ever. Like I said I can't even put it into words. I just wanted to let you all know that Jesus IS God in the flesh and died in one of the worst ways you can die to pay the price for our sins (ones that have been committed and ones that will be committed). The gift of being saved is free, you just have to come to the realization that it IS real and Jesus really did die for *YOU!* so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity in hell.

Please accept Jesus as your savior. I care too much about people to not share this message. No matter what you're going through in life, Jesus can take your pain away.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Proof that Thor is real:











'Proof' that God is real.












That's right, no one has an actual picture of God BECAUSE HE ISN'T REAL.


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 20, 2006)

Cynic said:


> Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Jesus was doing between ages 10 and 30, because there's scarcely a word about it in the Bible. For example, who was Christ's prom date? Did he get cut from the JV quidditch team? The world needs to know these things in order for all of us to live our lives properly.


He probably went on a 10-year bender after realising he could convert water into wine.



Poltergeist said:


> Lol dude, do you understand what a fossil is? An organism that has been buried rapidly. You don't achieve whale fossils any other way but a worldwide flood.


fpalm



Rush said:


> 1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?
> 
> 1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
> 
> ...


RUSH



Winning™ said:


> Why the fuck has no wrestling promotion ever done a properly done rivalry based on the Cain/Abel story?
> 
> Besides the killing, of course.


Kane/Undertaker



Poltergeist said:


> Look, you certainly have the right to believe what you want to believe. But I have the right to inform people about the truth, and not because I think I'm better, but because I truly do care about people. You have the right to move on and ignore it. If you saw someone walking towards a cliff you'd try to save them right? It's the same thing. I really want people to realize there is more to life than what they think there is. Millions of people have felt God in a very real way. No it's not some overly emotional thing that can happen to anyone. I can't explain it. Words can't describe it. When I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior I had the most unimaginable feeling ever. Like I said I can't even put it into words. I just wanted to let you all know that Jesus IS God in the flesh and died in one of the worst ways you can die to pay the price for our sins (ones that have been committed and ones that will be committed). The gift of being saved is free, you just have to come to the realization that it IS real and Jesus really did die for *YOU!* so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity in hell.
> 
> Please accept Jesus as your savior. I care too much about people to not share this message. No matter what you're going through in life, Jesus can take your pain away.


:lmao


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

Winning™ said:


> Why the fuck has no wrestling promotion ever done a properly done rivalry based on the Cain/Abel story?
> 
> Besides the killing, of course.


they did, they even named one of the wrestlers KANE


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Can't wait for Poltergeist to deal with RUSH's questions one by one.:side:


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> When I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior I had the most unimaginable feeling ever.


I have no doubt that it's probably great to live under the delusion that when you die you will be rewarded with a mansion and a new car. I'm sure it's a great comfort, which is why people turn to religion in the first place: fear of the unknown. 

You can walk with Christ all you want. You learn a lot more about life when you walk alone.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

sXe_Maverick said:


> He probably went on a 10-year bender after realising he could convert water into wine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:mark: DAT MULTIQUOTE


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Look, you certainly have the right to believe what you want to believe. But I have the right to inform people about the truth, and not because I think I'm better, but because I truly do care about people. You have the right to move on and ignore it. If you saw someone walking towards a cliff you'd try to save them right? It's the same thing. I really want people to realize there is more to life than what they think there is. Millions of people have felt God in a very real way. No it's not some overly emotional thing that can happen to anyone. I can't explain it. Words can't describe it. When I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior I had the most unimaginable feeling ever. Like I said I can't even put it into words. I just wanted to let you all know that Jesus IS God in the flesh and died in one of the worst ways you can die to pay the price for our sins (ones that have been committed and ones that will be committed). The gift of being saved is free, you just have to come to the realization that it IS real and Jesus really did die for *YOU!* so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity in hell.
> 
> Please accept Jesus as your savior. I care too much about people to not share this message. No matter what you're going through in life, Jesus can take your pain away.


Unless it was someone I love, no, I probably wouldn't save them, because I don't want to risk getting killed for some dumbfuck who didn't notice a cliff.


You've avoided several points in this thread. Try answering them because no one cares about your gay message about Jesus.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

MrMister said:


> Can't wait for Poltergeist to deal with RUSH's questions one by one.:side:


neither can i. while i wait i think i'll post the thoughts of Mark Isaak on 5 major misconceptions about evolution :side:

A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved. 

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.


"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.


"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994 


"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.


Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.


----------



## Postage (Jun 20, 2007)

stop trolling these nice people, asshole.


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

*You must spread reputation before giving it to Rush again*

You killed Jesus. You bastard.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS (Jun 5, 2010)

Walls said:


> There is a God, I agree:


Is that the fucking host of fear factor?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

I'm not here to debate anymore than I already have. As doing so is pointless because we could go on for hours and hours without either side convinced of the other's.

I'm simply here to tell you about Jesus and that he paid the ultimate price for your sins (everything that is wrong with this world is the result of sin; murder, rape, child molestation, lying, stealing, cheating, abortions, war, famine, disease, sickness, natural disasters, etc. are all the result of man's continued sinning over the course of human history starting with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.) God loves us more than we can imagine which is why he came to Earth in flesh (Jesus) to pay that price. 

What he did on the cross is free, you just have to accept it. That's all there is to it. People hear of the gospel everyday and laugh it off without ever accepting salvation and end up in a place they really don't want to be when they die. I don't mean to scare people but the Bible is very clear.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

swagger_ROCKS said:


> Is that the fucking host of fear factor?


It's Walls, it must be the god of all pot smoking MMA fans, Joe Rogan.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> I'm not here to debate anymore than I already have. As doing so is pointless because we could go on for hours and hours without either side convinced of the other's.
> 
> I'm simply here to tell you about Jesus and that he paid the ultimate price for your sins (everything that is wrong with this world is the result of sin; murder, rape, child molestation, lying, stealing, cheating, abortions, war, famine, disease, sickness, natural disasters, etc. are all the result of man's continued sinning over the course of human history starting with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.) God loves us more than we can imagine which is why he came to Earth in flesh (Jesus) to pay that price.
> 
> What he did on the cross is free, you just have to accept it. That's all there is to it. People hear of the gospel everyday and laugh it off without ever accepting salvation and end up in a place they really don't want to be when they die. I don't mean to scare people but the Bible is very clear.


Fucking cop out.


Never return.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

well this was a great thread


----------



## NostalgicDave (Mar 10, 2011)

God and jesus, real or not have had a bigger impact on the world throughout history than any other person ever.

Whatever they did, or if they did anything, thier impact is true.


----------



## Shining_Wizard1979 (Sep 8, 2009)

Sparta101 said:


> Even if the other poster is an atheist, why do you have to call him a devil worshiper? It seems that anybody that has a different opinion is working with the devil.
> 
> O and the thing that I highlighted. This made me laugh my ass off. Want to know how they found sea fossils on mountains. That was probably part of an ocean, and it dried up over millions of years, or the water level got lower in that part and that is how a whale fossil came there. *The mountains were once on the bottom of the ocean*.


Most likely the land that became the mountains was underwater, the marine animals were left in the sediments and fossilized, and then the mountains were formed when the Nazca Plate plate slammed into the tectonic plate containing South America. The oldest whale fossils are millions of years older than the Andes.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

NostalgicDave said:


> God and jesus, real or not have had a bigger impact on the world throughout history than any other person ever.
> 
> Whatever they did, or if they did anything, thier impact is true.


Considering most of the population consists of fucking idiots, this comes as no surprise.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Poltergeist said:


> I'm not here to debate anymore than I already have. As doing so is pointless because we could go on for hours and hours without either side convinced of the other's.
> 
> I'm simply here to tell you about Jesus and that he paid the ultimate price for your sins (everything that is wrong with this world is the result of sin; murder, rape, child molestation, lying, stealing, cheating, abortions, war, famine, disease, sickness, natural disasters, etc. are all the result of man's continued sinning over the course of human history starting with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.) God loves us more than we can imagine which is why he came to Earth in flesh (Jesus) to pay that price.
> 
> What he did on the cross is free, you just have to accept it. That's all there is to it. People hear of the gospel everyday and laugh it off without ever accepting salvation and end up in a place they really don't want to be when they die. I don't mean to scare people but the Bible is very clear.


Adam and Eve just wanted some fucking apples. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH OF GOD?


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> Adam and Eve just wanted some fucking apples. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH OF GOD?


No shit. The fuck were they supposed to eat? The snake? 

I guess that could've solved two problems at once. Oh well, hindsight.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

answer my questions. don't be a cop out like your boy jesus. he quit when the going got tough.


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

That was a decent first try at a stand-up comedy routine, Poltergeist. If I were you however, I'd take a lesson from these guys:


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Rush said:


> answer my questions.


Please refer to post #80. Thanks


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

not being able to answer the questions proves that you know that you're wrong. thanks for agreeing withe veryone else. it feels good to know we converted you.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> not being able to answer the questions proves that you know that you're wrong. thanks for agreeing withe veryone else. it feels good to know we converted you.


Thanks for the laugh. =)


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

thats why i said don't be a cop out.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

Poltergeist said:


> I was saying that I think the universe being so vast that our minds can't comprehend it is big evidence of a creator. When you look at the cosmos don't you see a beauty you can't explain? This is God's creation. It wasn't an accident.
> 
> Me stating that I don't believe there is life elsewhere was kind of separate from my belief in God. But I was trying to illustrate that if that's the case (and even from a scientist's perspective, *we are 99.9999999999999999999999999% likely the only planet with life*) then this matches up nicely with the fact that in the Bible there aren't any other civilizations out there.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone is educated enough about the universe to make a statement like that. 



Winning™ said:


> Why the fuck has no wrestling promotion ever done a properly done rivalry based on the Cain/Abel story?
> 
> Besides the killing, of course.


Pretty sure every brother vs. brother rivalry has been inspired from that. 



Rush said:


> neither can i. while i wait i think i'll post the thoughts of Mark Isaak on 5 major misconceptions about evolution :side:
> 
> A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)
> 
> ...


tl;dr 



Poltergeist said:


> http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm


So I clicked on this link and the first thing I saw was that this website is not only claiming that Noah's Flood was real but that it happened 4,600 years ago. Are you serious bro?


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

On the contrary, it's highly likely that we're not the only planet with life.

_RE: Bible books are DIVINELY INSPIRED~!_ Christians tend to ignore the female gospels, that were removed to aid in the oppression of women, and the fact that the miracles were added in relatively recently, in an attempt to stop dwindling church attendance.


----------



## Mikey Damage (Jul 11, 2004)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> The existence of god can never be proven or disproved, just like every other "fact" in life. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs though, and no one will ever be wrong, because no one else will ever be right.


Agreed. I guess we'll all see in the afterlife.


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

Mikey Damage said:


> Agreed. I guess we'll all see in the afterlife.


There is no afterlife.


----------



## The Poet (Jun 13, 2005)

As a man of "faith", I put faith in quotes because I tend to believe more then your average athiest, so calling me one would be wrong. I don't believe in a book, nor do I believe something is bigger then what I should or should not believe in.

But I'll quote Gil Grissom from CSI, fictional yes, but true non the less.

"I believe in God, in science, in sunday supper... I don't believe the rules you tell me how i should live." 

You may see me in church, you may even see me praying or singing. And yes I've seeked the wisdom of a priest or two with some life struggles this past year. 

But I also believe in Aliens, Evolution, Science, Miracles are bullshit and life is what you make it.

The Bible is a book written by winners, kings, narcissists, plunderers and would be idles. It's been re-written, edited and re-translated by the Vatican more times then any of us could know. It's a book showered with controversy and scrutiny, and if you tell me I'm wrong then you can go cry to Joel Olsteen and his millions he's taken from hard working blue collar individuals believing his some sort of saint, or angel, or even the second coming. When in fact hes just some southern douche who has charisma and has read the bible a few times.

I believe in being a good person, being who I am and doing what I think is right, and if you don't like that, you can fuck off.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

I read the OP's arguments, and they were hardly convincing (and even arrogant).



> why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? The answer is obvious ... there was no history!


umm... No recorded history does not 100% mean no history.

Anyway... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory



> The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.


Looks like everything's in Europe eh... how about the rest of Asia? The Americas? Australia?

AND AFRICA!



> Regardless of your beliefs on Creation, it has absolutely nothing to do with your salvation, which is completely dependent upon one's faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ,


Jesus: No faith in me? ETERNAL DAMNATION!



> It is far more reasonable to accept the Biblical claim that God created all of mankind's different languages; than it is to believe that some space-dust from a massive chaotic explosion somehow became life, and then took on intelligence, and then from the same evolutionary process ended up with 7,000 different languages. That makes no sense at all


That makes no sense at all.



> So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago?


Because we're stupid. And a lot of us still are.



> Now you better﻿ hope your spacecraft can travel for 5 years without coming into contact with space debris. One tiny piece of rock is enough to completely obliterate your spacecraft traveling at light speed.


Where's your proof?



> Furthermore, if you study interstellar travel, it's physically impossible to send other humans to another star system.


It might be - for now. Who knows if we discover wormholes? What if we discover how to teleport? You assume God, I assume teleportation.



> But the bottom line is we don't know and won't know for sure until we get to heaven and ask God himself.


What if there isn't Heaven? You'll be saying, shit, uh-oh.


----------



## Shining_Wizard1979 (Sep 8, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> Looks like everything's in Europe eh... how about the rest of Asia? The Americas? Australia?


Non-Egyptian African societies in the South and West. . .


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Shining_Wizard1979 said:


> Non-Egyptian African societies in the South and West. . .


shit, I missed out Africa. I'm sorry!


----------



## Hypno (Aug 3, 2009)

I believe in God but I find religion to be stupid as fuck, even though I'm technically Catholic. 

Plus, my nickname is Jesus among friends because I share a distinct resemblence to what people believed he looked like.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

A higher deity exists....probably.


Religion on the other hand has no place in today's world.


----------



## Cactus (Jul 28, 2011)

While I think organized religion in 2012 is a stupid idea, I don't think we really can go around disapproving a higher deity's existence. No human can be in a position to answer that question credibly. We know fuck all about the Universe and what created it. Our science has been proven wrong many times in the past, and we are getting way ahead of ourselves when try to prove something along these lines.


----------



## Quasi Juice (Apr 3, 2006)

I really don't understand the argument of; it's impossible to travel to another galaxy (at the moment I might add, who knows what technology brings us), so therefore there_ must_ be no life in the universe except for us. That makes no sense. Why should we be able to reach other life forms? Perhaps God intended us to never be able to communicate. Hell, maybe it's an experiment by God to see how several "copies" of life forms develop over time, how they differentiate etc  

I always find it hilarious that religious nutjobs quote stuff from the Bible like it must be true. The Bible is highly unreliable; it's stories passed on from one person to another and there was no technology so what happened? People forgot bits of the stories, and made other shit up to make it more entertaining or to proof a point. I believe Jesus existed, but I think Jesus was just a highly intelligent normal guy and a great public speaker. He didn't cure people of their illnesses, he healed them with words because he made them _believe_ they were okay. The mind is a powerful tool. If you have think you have heart problems, you will start to "feel" your heart skipping a beat, or you stay up at night listening. All in the mind.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

If God exists, he's an asshole for no-showing Shawn Micheals when he needed him most.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

I don't really understand people who say things like "Well, it's not like we can disprove a deity so we shouldn't question religious people."

That line of thinking only exists with religious matters. You can't prove I'm not an alien invader from beyond the sun, but that doesn't mean you should suspect I am one. It's this weird special treatment we give these ideas because they happen to be old.


----------



## samizayn (Apr 25, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Conclusion - I find it *extremely* arrogant to say there isn't a God or Creator. It takes more faith in my opinion to believe there isn't a God than an adult believing in Santa Claus (ironically, most atheists say the reason they *don't* believe in God is the *SAME* reason they don't believe in Santa Claus.)


...

Well first of all you've got burden of proof switched, so there's the end of that. It's not up to atheists to "prove god does not exist", and it doesn't take faith to not believe in god. Atheism by its very definition is lack of faith.

Anyway.


dan_marino said:


> If God exists, he's an asshole for no-showing Shawn Micheals when he needed him most.


he's an asshole for no showing _Michaels_?! SOB jobbed out his own son.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

i'll tell you what, it's not unthinkable a deity exists, it's not unthinkable maybe a more advanced and more intelligent life does dwell somewhere in the cosmos or maybe other dimensions. maybe. but there's never been reason to think that and there probably never will be. as someone who has studied philosophy of religion i believe that's all there is to it.


----------



## Quasi Juice (Apr 3, 2006)

greendayedgehead said:


> ...
> 
> Well first of all you've got burden of proof switched, so there's the end of that. It's not up to atheists to "prove god does not exist", and it doesn't take faith to not believe in god. Atheism by its very definition is lack of faith.
> 
> ...


His own......._son_


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

This thread is fucking useless, who gives a shit whether god is real or not? All religion does is cause misery, pain and suffering around the world, and to think that all this stuff is for something that doesn't exist really frustrates me.

If all governments new what was good for the world then they would just exterminate all religious people.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Way to answer your own question chief.


----------



## JasonLives (Aug 20, 2008)

I dont believe in any God. But I do believe there are things us humans are too stupid to understand yet. Things we cannot explain, things our brain just cant comprehend.
Its one big mindfuck if you start thinking about it. Like, how did the universe start? Something must have started from something. As far as I know, things just doesnt pop up from nothing. At one point, there has to have been something out there. But how did it became to be?


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> The existence of god can never be proven or disproved, just like every other "fact" in life. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs though, and no one will ever be wrong, because no one else will ever be right.





> Shirley Crabtree III It has been disproved. Stop repeating propaganda.


I'll just respond to this here instead of a petty rep, since you yourself are so clueless. 

Religion is no more of a belief system than science. Science is just the predominant belief system, but there is no irrefutable, 100% evidence, for ANYTHING to be anointed as the correct way of thinking in the universe. And the only fact of the matter is, we know nothing and never will. People can formulate ideas on how things work, but that's all belief systems like religions and science are, _ideas_ to explain the world.

You folks take your ideas, whether it is for or against a god, evolution, whatever, for _fact_, and that's just laughable. IF the universe is so grand, we are but a speck of dust, IF time is so infinite, a thousand lifetimes is but a fraction of a blink of an eye. The mere suggestion that a fraction of a speck of dust with a negateable amount of experience can understand anything is ignorance at best.

But once again, this is just an idea itself. Am I right? No. Am I wrong? No. And neither are you.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Kd got proven wrong so many times

You dont believe what youre preaching, do you? When you realize you lost, you just spouted out nonsense. "dont deny me in front of the public", youre denying him pretty hard in this thread...


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

stax just because it's a belief system doesn't mean science doesn't support itself with a shit load of evidence while religion does not.

Are you telling me the theory of gravity isn't 99% accurate just because its still only a theory and cannot be proven?


----------



## seancarleton77 (Jul 4, 2006)

I need to get some popcorn and a cold beverage, this thread is entertaining, RIDICULOUS but entertaining none the less.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

P.Smith said:


> This thread is fucking useless, who gives a shit whether god is real or not? All religion does is cause misery, pain and suffering around the world, and to think that all this stuff is for something that doesn't exist really frustrates me.
> 
> If all governments *new* what was good for the world then they would just exterminate all religious people.


knew*


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> stax just because it's a belief system doesn't mean science doesn't support itself with a shit load of evidence while religion does not.
> 
> Are you telling me the theory of gravity isn't 99% accurate just because its still only a theory and cannot be proven?


Evidence is only valid within it's own belief system, if someone thinks something different, that evidence has no value. Spouting evidence as support of science is no different than supporting miracles as proof of the existence of a higher power.

Just because gravity, an idea that could actually be an unknown completely different, could be true in this corner of the observable 93 billion light year across universe, that doesn't mean the universe stops at the observable or even at a single universe.

I enjoy science as much as the next guy, but I also understand that the sheer amount of what we could know to base the ideas on is so miniscule, the validity of the basis of the very foundations of anything we could ever formulate is in question.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Nonsense. Evidence is not only valid within it's own belief system. That's ridiculous. 

"Spouting evidence as support of science is no different than supporting miracles as proof of the existence of god."

That is, without a doubt, the stupidest single statement I've ever seen on the internet. Just...no. No. The universe exists independant of people and absolute certainty is not required to learn about it. The things we find out confirm OTHER things we find out. This is why science is based on prediction. Theories are proven when they make a testable prediction that comes true, because it shows our knowledge building on other knowledge. 

You're essentially arguing we can't know anything because we don't know everything and that's idiotic.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> stax just because it's a belief system doesn't mean science doesn't support itself with a shit load of evidence while religion does not.
> 
> Are you telling me the theory of gravity isn't 99% accurate just because its still only a theory and cannot be proven?


gravity is a law not a theory


----------



## EGame (Apr 12, 2006)




----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

lmao at people who believe in god

mentally ill


----------



## Svart (Jun 11, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Before becoming a Christian, I was into the whole Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution argument, and constantly mocked religious folks for believing in a "magic man in the sky".
> 
> I just want to share with you my two main reasons why I believe a creator exists. And trust me me, I have more reasons than I can count for believing in one. But for the sake of time and because most of you probably don't love reading *THAT* much, I'll give you my two top reasons. (Also note there are far better arguments for a creator but I wanted to share mine.)
> 
> ...


The most long winded non sequitur. Ever.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Wrestling > Cena said:


> Hope God looks like Morgan Freeman
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NO! GOD IZ WHITE! JEBUS SPOKE ENGLISH AND VOTED REPUBLICAN!

And WCW, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation IS a scientific theory.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Poltergeist said:


> Reason being is, the closest star system to us (5 light years) would take thousands upon thousands of years to reach with a robot, and by the time it reached the star system, it would﻿ take 5 years to receive a message or signal from it, then another 5 years to send one back. The probability of that star having a planet with life on it is so minuscule anyway that it's not practical. If (big "if" here) we somehow found out how to travel at light speed, there are still many obstacles to overcome. First, you need the energy to propel an object at light speed. Scientists have already estimated that the energy level required for such a feat would be the amount of energy the world consumes in 1 day for only a couple of seconds of light speed. Do the math. 1 day of energy consumed on earth times how many seconds there are in 2.5 years. Now let's assume we overcome this obstacle. Now you better﻿ hope your spacecraft can travel for 5 years without coming into contact with space debris. One tiny piece of rock is enough to completely obliterate your spacecraft traveling at light speed.
> 
> Now after﻿ being extremely lucky, you finally reach Our closest star system Alpha Centauri. Guess what? You now have to slow the thing down so it can safely land on a celestial object. Even more energy is required for this, not to mention the time it'll take to receive and send signals to the spacecraft.
> 
> ...


Sooooo many things FUCKED up about this section of your little spill. Well, actually, a lot of it was bogus, but this section really confused me. 

Basically you're saying that God must exist because we haven't figured out how to travel to another solar system? Do you have any idea how retarded that sounds? Then answer me this... how long would it take to travel to heaven? Funny thing about the Andromeda galaxy is... we can at least _see_ that. 

And what about the moon? 1,000 years ago people were saying the same thing about it that you are saying about Alpha Centauri and look what happened. We fucking _landed_ on it and brought pieces of it back. 

It's not impossible to travel to other stars either. Not at all. The problem is keeping astronauts alive long enough to survive the journey. Big difference. Humans are definitely capable of _getting there_ though. We've sent countless space probes all over the fucking place. Obviously "God" didn't have a problem with that. 

Most of those other star systems don't even have life, and are incapable of ever having life. Only a tiny, TINY fraction of the stars in the sky even have planets orbiting them. Why? What purpose do they serve? Did he put them all there purposely, even ones we can't see, just to just taunt us like an arrogant fucking prick? Terrible logic.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Also, people who say "Theories can't be proven" need to learn what "Theory" means in a scientific context


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

Cerbs said:


> It's not impossible to travel to other stars either. Not at all. The problem is keeping astronauts alive long enough to survive the journey. Big difference.


And that it would take a boatload of money.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)




----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

TKOK! said:


> And that it would take a boatload of money.


They would FIND a way to make it happen if it was ever discovered another planet out there somewhere had some new kind of element compound that could replace gasoline. 

I'm _positive_ that's what it would take. 

In fact there would be hundreds of companies all over the world jump starting their own space programs in a frantic race to get there first and claim as much of it as possible.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Kincaid said:


> Also, people who say "Theories can't be proven" need to learn what "Theory" means in a scientific context


And you cannot understand that what exists with in your belief system is as irrelevant to those outside it. It's no different than science thumpers laughing at the supposed ignorance of those who believe in a higher power and everything they stand for. You guys cannot understand the idea that a belief system is just that. No one will ever be able to prove themselves 100% right because it's just a bunch of cobbled together ideas in a belief system vs another belief system, and the idea of ever thinking we'll know anything is pure ignorance on the cosmic level at best.

I guess people have to do something though, their insignificance in ever impacting anything no matter what they could ever do is rather crushing. The idea of an infinite time is too long, the actual size of the supposed infinite universe too grand, for any one person, or even millions of years of ideas upon ideas built on each other, to grasp. The power of observation is not enough if you can't perceive the bigger picture of not only insignificance, but the idea that you are restricted to a common belief system that may in itself be founded upon what works here, but not there, though we'd never be able to test it to find out.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

No one in science claims a 100 percent certainty about anything. Your problem is you're already thinking of science as a religion. It isn't. Science is not a list of things that describe how scientists feel the universe works, it is a collection of data that they feel describes the universe. There's a small difference there. Religion is making the data and saying that's how things are. Science is collecting the data and then listing off the data. 

Again, you're saying we don't know everything so we can't know anything. That's just fundamentally flawed. 

Science makes predictions based on information it has. Religion has no such information. It merely has claims and faith.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't know why people who believe in sky wizards think they have an equally weighted opinion. I give no undue respect to such people.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Kincaid said:


> No one in science claims a 100 percent certainty about anything... Science is not a list of things that describe how scientists feel the universe works, it is a collection of data that they feel describes the universe... Science is collecting the data and then listing off the data.


The minute you start trying to interpret data though, personal bias in injected. There is no such thing as an unbiased observer, no matter how hard anyone wants to call themselves such. With that bias, the validity of such interpretations is in question.

Again, I believe in science, but cannot accept it as the absolute as science thumping theists, no different than bible thumping christians, want you to.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

I doubt anyone thinks of "science as a religion". In fact most people who trust science are opposed to the whole idea of religion.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

People are so indoctrinated into science that cannot see that it is nothing more than the most popular belief system of all time, and nothing more.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

You just described Religion.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

Cerbs said:


> They would FIND a way to make it happen if it was ever discovered another planet out there somewhere had some new kind of element compound that could replace gasoline.
> 
> I'm _positive_ that's what it would take.
> 
> In fact there would be hundreds of companies all over the world jump starting their own space programs in a frantic race to get there first and claim as much of it as possible.


I'm 99% sure i've heard of something like that. Not a planet but a big gas cloud.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

i$e said:


> You just described Religion.


I know I did, and if the science supporters stepped back and looked at how they looked to an observer, they'd see that militant atheist is right, and that there is little difference between the atheists in this thread, and the bible thumper evangelist you might find on tv. They each blindly follow their beliefs with absolute fervor and surety that what they believe is correct.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

No. They're not comparable and I don't know why you're having such a hard time accepting that science is based on observable, tangible evidence and religion is based on fairy tales with literally no evidence. Science and religion are absolutely not compatible, and putting them on an even platform (which they are not) is part of the whole problem of why religion gets any respect at all (when it deserves none).


----------



## HeliWolf (Oct 25, 2010)

Why would a Creator, design and then actually create the vastest and most complex object that has ever existed (the Universe), *EVER* but then only populate it with some squishy bipeds and various cute and/or deadly animals? That's just pure laziness. If he's a Creator surely he wouldn't stop at just one world, which just happens to be the very world we exist and inhabit? It's too much of a coincidence for me to believe in. 

Plus all that techno-mumbo jumbo you spouted proved one thing and one thing only: Extraterrestrial travel is insanely difficult and humanity has not advanced far enough to tackle it yet.


Also all the good old reasons:

-The Bible is a story book. Not a history book. The Bible is the The Lord of the Rings, but even harder to read.
-The Bible was not written by God. It was written by many different men. Humans in other words. Humans are dicks, we lie, cheat and steal. The Bible is not a reliable source of information.


----------



## Desecrated (Feb 4, 2009)

Read to page 5, and no further, so not sure if this was presented.

Science explains everything in life. Scienfically, how does God exist? Who created 'God'?

Everything the human body does, its the simple, small things that make it work. Not a man who stuck cogs in your brain and hearts, snapped his fingers and stuck you in a womans vagina for 9 months before popping out. Its all complex shit, I can't possibly talk about it. I didn't study science, or its sub-branches. Someone who has, could easily explain how the body works.

Also, the OP's reasoning for becoming a Christian is really, really retarded. You gave up, and decided to worship God, because we can't venture further than our galaxy, for a few more thousand years? There is no peak to science. They find something new, and there are a million new things to learn and understand. Some day, a man will step out of the Milky Way galaxy, and venture into the vast unknowns. Will it be a hundred years? Not on the current pace science and space travel has taken. Will it be 500 years? Not very likely either. Basically, won't be in our lifetime. Won't be in the lifetime of 50 generations. But, if we don't wipe ourselves out to nuclear devices, natural disasters don't kill off the planet and wildlife, and we don't get any more retarded American presidents, I can say there may be some hope for it.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

i$e said:


> No. They're not comparable and I don't know why you're having such a hard time accepting that science is based on observable, tangible evidence and religion is based on fairy tales with literally no evidence. Science and religion are absolutely not compatible, and putting them on an even platform (which they are not) is part of the whole problem of why religion gets any respect at all (when it deserves none).


And yet this viewpoint supports the point I had just made.


----------



## Mani-Man (Nov 19, 2003)

HeliWolf said:


> *-The Bible was not written by God. It was written by many different men. Humans in other words. Humans are dicks, we lie, cheat and steal. The Bible is not a reliable source of information.*


Exactly,to me it seems more like the bible is the source of more bad things than good.

Because of that book the people have murdered,burned,raped,abused,
enslaved,kidnapped just because they *"believed"* in the things in the book!


----------



## The Cynical Miracle (Dec 10, 2006)

Gods gotten stale IMO, his pops have been decreasing for a century now. They need to turn him heel, freshen him up a bit and while their at it they could turn Satan face, the Devil as an anit-hero type face could draw serious money and ratings. Hopefully at the Rapture they do a double turn ala Bret V Austin at WM.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> And yet this viewpoint supports the point I had just made.


It's directly opposite your point. Read it again.

Like most agnostics, you offer a hybrid of fortune-cookie idealism, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, some flagrant lies and a crippling lack of conviction.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

HeliWolf said:


> -The Bible was not written by God. It was written by many different men. Humans in other words. Humans are dicks, we lie, cheat and steal. The Bible is not a reliable source of information.


 This, the Bible was pretty much the original Wikipedia.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

TKOK! said:


> I'm 99% sure i've heard of something like that. Not a planet but a big gas cloud.


yeah, it's an interesting topic. Just think... the first discovery of oil anywhere in the galaxy and BOOM... the space program has all the funding it will ever need and then some. We could visit Andromeda in a matter of decades. 


Haystacks Calhoun said:


> I know I did, and if the science supporters stepped back and looked at how they looked to an observer, they'd see that militant atheist is right, and that there is little difference between the atheists in this thread, and the bible thumper evangelist you might find on tv. They each blindly follow their beliefs with absolute fervor and surety that what they believe is correct.


For the most part, I don't follow what you're saying. I still don't see how science is anything like religion. Science offers something very fundamental that religion doesn't... proof. "Faith" and all that nonsense doesn't apply. There certainly isn't anything about physics that requires "beliefs". It's _law_. 

I do agree, however, that atheists are a lot like hardcore religious people. There is definitely no certainty that there is _no god_. There could be, but it requires suspending disbelief and a lot of people have trouble doing that. Same way a lot of people find it hard to be entertained by wrestling  

And what there's so many Gods in this world. SO damn many. What if I want to believe just so I get into Heaven, but I choose the wrong God, and it's actually India's Hindu gods that are the correct God. Wouldn't that be just as bad as not believing at all? What if Satan was actually an alright guy and the Satanic bible is really the "good book"? Might as well just not believe until some kind of evidence is provided. Science has proven there is no man in the clouds though, so we can all agree on that.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

i$e said:


> No. They're not comparable and I don't know why you're having such a hard time accepting that science is based on observable, tangible evidence and religion is based on fairy tales with literally no evidence. Science and religion are absolutely not compatible, and putting them on an even platform (which they are not) is part of the whole problem of why religion gets any respect at all (when it deserves none).


Saying that religion deserves no respect doesn't seem much different then what the crazy religious people are saying. All you need to do is start insulting people for their beliefs and you would be just as bad as the guy that says you're going to hell for not believing in Christ. 



Desecrated said:


> Read to page 5, and no further, so not sure if this was presented.
> 
> *Science explains everything in life.* Scienfically, how does God exist? Who created 'God'?
> 
> ...


You sure about that?


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Stax, its clear you have no idea what youre talking about, quit talking and you wont look like such an idiot.

Science isnt clouded by a big brother and a fear of the unknown,its the exact opposite,and that is why it is true. We dont have a fesr if discovery any more, and our minds really have no limit.

And science isnt a specific thing, it varies a ton of categories, and it all points to there being no creator.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

If science is a religion, then I propose that Theists be banned from hospitals and just let them use their prayer since it obviously works. REMEMBER, Gawd answers prayers but sometimes the answer is "No. I won't cure your cancer. I have to help a football player score a touchdown right now. lol sorry."


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

TaylorFitz said:


> Saying that religion deserves no respect doesn't seem much different then what the crazy religious people are saying. All you need to do is start insulting people for their beliefs and you would be just as bad as the guy that says you're going to hell for not believing in Christ.


Why does it deserve respect? Believing and endorsing various religions that have been the _direct_ cause of more murder, rape, torture, pain, misery, slavery and fundamental evil than anything else in the history of mankind is to be respected? Sorry, no. I don't subscribe to that nonsense.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

haystacks name something specifically in science that requires faith


----------



## TheVoiceless (Dec 30, 2011)

I've always wondered where the Dinosaurs fit into the bibles time frame....JS


----------



## Chocolate Soup (Oct 29, 2011)

god exists because science says bees shouldn't be able to fly but they can


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

Poltergeist said:


> No matter what you're going through in life, Jesus can take your pain away.


This is an obvious lie, because OP is still here.

Also, religion is the opiate of the masses, and Karl Marx was smarter than every kiddie-molesting pope.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Here's an interesting read, for whatever it's worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
*


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

If praying to Jesus could take your pain away, there wouldn't be millions of people dropping dead from AIDS all over Africa and several corrupt dictators letting the others starve to death. 

I'm sure at least one person over there is Christian and tried that already.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> And what there's so many Gods in this world. SO damn many. What if I want to believe just so I get into Heaven, but I choose the wrong God, and it's actually India's Hindu gods that are the correct God.


 Iv'e thought this for quite a few years and was actually about to post this myself. 

Also, when you consider that Christianity and some other religions around today pretty much all have the same beginning ideology, they were not the first religions so if there was a god/creator then it would be from the very first religion? (which was the Egyptians as far as i recall and most if not all of religions today adapted theirs from it)


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

I don't see why we bother debating about God's existence. It's an individual's right to have or not have faith in this greater power we refer to as God. Just because we can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it's actually not there. I don't see the issue with people having faith in something spiritual. If it helps them then that's what matters. I choose to be open about it because I have no evidence that God exists; however I don't dismiss the fact that he/she may actually be out there. If you're willing to be a good person, I think all that's matters and once we die, we will know for certain if God is out there. There isn't anything wrong with choosing to believe or not. I hate it when people get into arguments about something that is essentially someone's right.



Cerbs said:


> If praying to Jesus could take your pain away, there wouldn't be millions of people dropping dead from AIDS all over Africa and several corrupt dictators letting the others starve to death.
> 
> I'm sure at least one person over there is Christian and tried that already.


On a religion's person's perspective, God isn't meant to necessarily take away your pain. It's the "after life" that matters in most religions and following the righteous path throughout your existence on earth.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

http://www.godhatesfags.com/


*^^^^

Yeah*


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

People can twist religion into something bad though. That doesn't mean God actually hates anyone. Some religious people use God to justify things that they despise. That's one thing I despise about religion.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

Indeed, and that is (imo) the major problem anthiests have against Christianity. Doesn't it say in the bible that all men and women were created equally and that god also loves each person equally? I know there is anti[insert something here] in the Bible due to peoples reactions to things like homosexuality. But if everyone is equal and god loves them all the same aren't they going against god's own belief?


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Steve. said:


> Indeed, and that is (imo) the major problem anthiests have against Christianity. Doesn't it say in the bible that all men and women were created equally and that god also loves each person equally? I know there is anti[insert something here] in the Bible due to peoples reactions to things like homosexuality. But if everyone is equal and god loves them all the same aren't they going against god's own belief?


Yes, I think they are. If we look at Jesus, for example, he was pretty much a hippie spreading love to everyone. He didn't hate anybody; therefore isn't that how we should be? Also, let's keep in mind that the bible is outdated. I can understand why some people would follow certain regulations that come up but other things seem out of context for our modern society.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Religion is responsible for more evil in the world than anything else, so no, I won't sit idly by.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

You don't have to be religious to believe in God though. A lot of people seem to have this misconception.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Believing in God already held civilization back thousands of years. Time to banish such a retarded notion once and for all.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

It's because people don't use religion in the right context. There are many people that believe in God but they aren't religious and they don't hold anyone or anything back.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Stacks wtf dude. Science is all about skepticism. It doesn't claim to have all the answers and isn't satisfied with GOD DID IT. It looks at everything with a critical eye. It's bettered mankind rather than hinder it. It discovers new things all the time and morphs and changes constantly. So what if it disproves itself sometimes. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF SCIENCE.

Come on man.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> I don't see why we bother debating about God's existence.


Because I'm constantly baffled at some people's utter disregard for logic. I keep telling myself going into these kind of conversations that I'm not trying to alter their perspectives, but fuck, after about two replies I'm always like, "HOW... THE FUCK... _DO YOU THINK_ THIS WAY?" 

I'm really trying to understand it more than anything. It's a train of thought I can never seem to grasp. The whole "faith" thing really makes absolutely no sense to me. 

"Have faith in god..." Why? What the fuck did he ever do for me? "Well he gave you blah blah blah" Really? I thought I got that genetically from my parents? 

Fucking no clue. NO. CLUE. 


> On a religion's person's perspective, God isn't meant to necessarily take away your pain. It's the "after life" that matters in most religions and following the righteous path throughout your existence on earth.


That's what is most depressing about religion. Like... this life doesn't even matter and I should spend it obeying some mythological creature's ideals. Then what happens if I die and there is no afterlife, I'm just fucking DEAD? I won't even be conscious to realize what a gullible dick bag I was all those years .


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Cerbs said:


> Because I'm constantly baffled at some people's utter disregard for logic. I keep telling myself going into these kind of conversations that I'm not trying to alter their perspectives, but fuck, after about two replies I'm always like, "HOW... THE FUCK... _DO YOU THINK_ THIS WAY?"
> 
> I'm really trying to understand it more than anything. It's a train of thought I can never seem to grasp. The whole "faith" thing really makes absolutely no sense to me.
> 
> ...


Yes, I completely understand what you mean because I also felt this way. I'm not a religious person by any means and as I've stated, I don't really have an opinion on God's existence. If he exists, great and if he doesn't, that's fine too. I think that for some people, it helps them get through difficult times or even every day by believing that there is something out there protecting them and that once they die, there is more to life than what we have witnessed. 



> That's what is most depressing about religion. Like... this life doesn't even matter and I should spend it obeying some mythological creature's ideals. Then what happens if I die and there is no afterlife, I'm just fucking DEAD? I won't even be conscious to realize what a gullible dick bag I was all those years .


Well, you don't have to necessarily follow every guideline that the bible or any other religious books offers you. With or without God, we as humans have the ability to make the right decisions and to be good people. Some people choose not to and that's their problem. Will they go to hell if they decide to murder someone? Maybe, maybe not. I think that in some ways, the idea of God has provided individuals with a distinction between right and wrong. Would that be possible if we didn't believe in this notion of God? Maybe so.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm like you FA i'm neither here nor there on the religious debate, like you said if believeing in God helps people in their day to day lives makes them feel happy or fullfilled then who am i to disagree with that? The only religious people i can't stand are those who use it to discriminate and make the world a bad place. At the end of the day people will make good or bad descisions weither they are religious or not it's their reasoning behind those actions that cause such a fuss.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Steve. said:


> I'm like you FA i'm neither here nor there on the religious debate, like you said if believeing in God helps people in their day to day lives makes them feel happy or fullfilled then who am i to disagree with that? The only religious people i can't stand are those who use it to discriminate and make the world a bad place. At the end of the day people will make good or bad descisions weither they are religious or not it's their reasoning behind those actions that cause such a fuss.


That's exactly what it is. I hate it when people approach me and put me down for not being religious; however it's just as annoying when people that aren't religious come up to you and claim that your ideology is stupid. There are people that believe in ghosts and aliens so I think it's laughable that believing in God is too far fetched.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> That's exactly what it is. I hate it when people approach me and put me down for not being religious; however it's just as annoying when people that aren't religious come up to you and claim that your ideology is stupid. There are people that believe in ghosts and aliens so I think it's laughable that believing in God is too far fetched.


I've never in my life had people come up to me and tell me I shouldn't believe in God. I've had quite a few come up to me and tell me that Jesus is my salvation. I mean nutjobs have knocked on my door multiple times to tell me this.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

hey now, let's not start knocking people who believe in aliens.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

MrMister said:


> I've never in my life had people come up to me and tell me I shouldn't believe in God. I've had quite a few come up to me and tell me that Jesus is my salvation. I mean nutjobs have knocked on my door multiple times to tell me this.


Some people do go on about how ridiculous religion is to someone that has faith. I did that a few times when I was a teenager but realized that it was wrong.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I think you missed my point Gee. Yeah people do give others shit for believing in God, but they don't go door to door doing this. 

Believers literally go door to door to sell their beliefs. Christianity is/was all about conversion. In other words, they go out of their way to hassle folks.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. You were literally speaking.  Well, Jehovah's Witnesses do that a lot. I'm not familiar with any other religious group that goes door to door. I do agree that it is annoying.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Mormons do it as well. It's also just more aggressive here in Texas and the South than it is in Montreal. I'm never offended by it, just annoyed. I mean it doesn't actually affect my life in any way.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

It's required by their religion to hassle people about it though.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Two of my cousins are Jehovah's Witnesses. They can't attend any parties such as baptisms, weddings, etc. I would find that difficult but if that's what makes them happy, good for them.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

MrMister said:


> Mormons do it as well. It's also just more aggressive here in Texas and the South than it is in Montreal. I'm never offended by it, just annoyed. I mean it doesn't actually affect my life in any way.


Yeah I'm friends with a bunch of mormons(not mormon myself). So I know all about that, had a friend recently leave for his mission. It seems like everytime I get one of the christian religious papers it's always about the end of the world.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> hey now, let's not start knocking people who believe in aliens.


 Yep, there is faaaaar too much going on in this universe for us to have discovered even 5% (or less) of it given that it's ever expanding and we pretty much only know the fundementals of how things are mean't to work. How do we know that 10000000000000 lighyears away there is something that can disprove everything we have found out and take as fact?

I find it hard to believe that there is no other lifeforms in the universe considering how unimaginably large it is and is becoming, even if it's like bacteria or something.

Ghost wise, i believe in them having some experience with things that are pretty much in that category (can't say 100% it was ghosts because there is no 100% proof that they exist) The same sort of thing applies to religion or some divine shit happening, i'm open minded until something happens to me to make me go to one side of the fence. It just so happens that ghostly happenings have happened to me before godly things.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I really don't get the Jehovah's Witness cult. Mormons are odd, but those folks are just...bizarre. The snake handlers are the weirdest though for sure, at least that I know of.

Actually wtf am I talking about. There are way weirder cults out there than snake handlers.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Why does constantly knocking on my door make Jehovah's Witnesses so happy, those bastards just never stop. They're as annoying as the constant girl scouts that come to my door trying to sell me overpriced chocolates.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Steve. said:


> Yep, there is faaaaar too much going on in this universe for us to have discovered even 5% (or less) of it given that it's ever expanding and we pretty much only know the fundementals of how things are mean't to work. How do we know that 10000000000000 lighyears away there is something that can disprove everything we have found out and take as fact?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that there is no other lifeforms in the universe considering how unimaginably large it is and is becoming, even if it's like bacteria or something.
> 
> Ghost wise, i believe in them having some experience with things that are pretty much in that category (can't say 100% it was ghosts because there is no 100% proof that they exist) The same sort of thing applies to religion or some divine shit happening, i'm open minded until something happens to me to make me go to one side of the fence. It just so happens that ghostly happenings have happened to me before godly things.


Sure, it is very possible that ghosts do exist. I can't think of an incident where a "ghostly" thing happened but it's not far fetched to think that it has happened to others and that it will happen to me... hopefully not. :evil:


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Ghosts existing seems ridiculous and impossible, I see no reason to believe there are any because it makes less sense than heaven/hell and all the stupid TV shows that are about "hunting" ghosts are even worse.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

I think God's existence makes more sense than ghosts as well.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Religion kinda scares me. Particulary people like the OP. I mean for starters the link to show "Evolution is a hoax" is completele bullshit and it scares me that people like the OP can believe this because a book say so. Sure believe in an afterlife and a god but I'll call a spade a spade and if you overlook facts because of anything then you are deluded.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

I definitely don't believe in ghosts. 

But aliens... I can buy into that. As long as the government is running weird ass experiments in the desert with strange shit flying around at night, there will always be a market for alien skeptics. 

Even if it all is just a government hoax, I applaud them.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

See i have no actual explaination for what i had, the closest thing would be ghosts and that is what i labled it as it's just my way of making sense of it. 

Which is pretty much the reason religion started, a way of explaining natural occurences and how they came to be that people back then had no way whatsoever of working out, well at least it was like that for the Greek's with all the natural shit lol

Chances are that we are never going to prove God, ghost's and most things like that exist so it all goes back to what makes you feel happy and what make life worth living in each persons life.

Edit: The whole God exists makes more sense that ghosts point, that is why i'm open minded to it all. How could i say i believe in ghosts and not in god when both of them will hardly ever be proven? That would make my a complete hypocrite. It just so happened that one of them (i think) has happened to me all ready where as the other hasn't....yet, it may do in the future?


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Cerbs said:


> I definitely don't believe in ghosts.
> 
> But aliens... I can buy into that. As long as the government is running weird ass experiments in the desert with strange shit flying around at night, there will always be a market for alien skeptics.
> 
> Even if it all is just a government hoax, I applaud them.


I highly doubt aliens have ever visited us as it would be incredibly difficult to travel lightyears no matter how advanced they would be. I have no doubt aliens exist though in the incredible number of planets there are.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

I hope the Egyptians were really on to something. 

I'm gonna have my family bury me with all my shit just in case. 

Hopefully one of them doesn't become a crackhead and dig up my corpse later to pawn my shit for drugs and I'm all sitting around, chilling in my afterlife, and all my shit suddenly disappears. That would pretty much suck. Must be why mummies are always so pissed off when they come back to life.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> I highly doubt aliens have ever visited us as it would be incredibly difficult to travel lightyears no matter how advanced they would be. I have no doubt aliens exist though in the incredible number of planets there are.


Difficult, but not impossible. Imagine who far we would've come as a whole if we worked together instead of against one another. If advanced life isn't rare out there then there would have to be a society that that got the big picture sooner than we have. 

Also, if traveling vast distances operates outside of time, then they could go anywhere instantly, a sort of "move without moving" like in DUNE.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

MrMister said:


> Difficult, but not impossible. Imagine who far we would've come as a whole if we worked together instead of against one another. If advanced life isn't rare out there then there would have to be a society that that got the big picture sooner than we have.
> 
> Also, if traveling vast distances operates outside of time, then they could go anywhere instantly, a sort of "move without moving" like in DUNE.


Or they could event horizon it


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> jesus-is-savior.com


Honestly, this is some of the funniest goddamn shit I have read in my entire life. Instead of arguing with the OP about how ridiculous that is... I thank Poltergeist for posting it. The laughs it provided were great.

I especially loved this part...



> This diabolical _New World Order_...


Ah-ha! I knew it! Hogan was behind the whole thing! :lmao


Arguing facts with someone who believes literally in bible fairy tales is pointless. If they are delusional enough to believe something like that in the first place, no amount of facts will convince them otherwise.

I give props to those who posted Carlin. He describes how I feel about religion better than I could.

If I didn't think Poltergeist actually believed this nonsense based on his follow up posts, I'd say everyone just got Jeritrolled. Cause if that was the real goal here, it was pulled off brilliantly.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

TKOK! said:


> Yeah I'm friends with a bunch of mormons(not mormon myself). So I know all about that, had a friend recently leave for his mission. It seems like everytime I get one of the christian religious papers it's always about the end of the world.


Mormons especially have always confused me. They basically came around from a known swindler who claimed to have been given golden texts from an angel in the woods. And this was in the 1800's. Doesn't something about this seem... suspicious?


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

Wow, another religious debate thread? You guys going for WF Thread of the Year right off the bat, eh?


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

dan_marino said:


> Mormons especially have always confused me. They basically came around from a known swindler who claimed to have been given golden texts from an angel in the woods. And this was in the 1800's. Doesn't something about this seem... suspicious?


Maybe, I truly have never looked to deep into it.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

The Mormon thing was done in a South Park episode wasn't it? 

I haven't had any Mormons knock on my door so far, a few Jehova's witnesses' though but i just take their booklets and read those instead of having a conversation with them... mainly because some of the imagery is pretty cool and gives me tattoo idea's XD I make sure my nan keeps the ones left at hers for the same reason since she gets them every month or so.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

Let me step in by saying Jesus didn't save us. Goku did. Goku killed the devil and the Z-Fighters should be in the Bible. It's blasphemy that they mention Lucifer, but fail to mention the evil Lord Frieza.

So yeah, I just try not to think about it and go on about my life. Whether we were created by God or not is kinda irrelevant. Just do you, be a good person and I'm sure everything will be cool.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Loopee said:


> Whether we were created by God or not is kinda irrelevant. Just do you, be a good person and I'm sure everything will be cool.


How incredibly condescending.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

How so?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Self-evident.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm just saying though, do you. I'm not gonna tell anyone to go out and kill people, cause I don't believe in that lol. I'm not gonna worry about life after death if there is any. If there is, I'll deal with it when it happens. As long as I can live my life saying I had no regrets and I was happy with myself, that's all that really matters, imo.


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Mithro said:


> Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.


Fantastic irony.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

You're moving a lot like Jim Ross right now, lol

I don't see why you wouldn't trust an atheist though. People are individuals.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

By the way I agree with your last post Loopee. It's just the first time you said it, I disliked the 'you should do this' tone. It's cool.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Mithro said:


> Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.


You realize anyone that knows anything about history could tell you that religion and religious people have the worst reputation out everyone?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Mithro said:


> Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.


Christians seriously need a better rep agent. Every Christian I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's belief in science heresy, their proven scientific facts fairy tales, and generally thinking it is your job to shove religion down our throats isn't going to undo any scientific facts, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Christians a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Christians about as much as they trust rapists.




_Yeah_.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

i$e said:


> By the way I agree with your last post Loopee. It's just the first time you said it, I disliked the 'you should do this' tone. It's cool.


Oh, my bad. I mean, I'm all for free will. It's whatever, really.


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

Loopee said:


> You're moving a lot like Jim Ross right now, lol
> 
> I don't see why you wouldn't trust an atheist though. People are individuals.


I don't distrust Atheists, I'm just basing the distrust on actual studies

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/



UnDeFeatedKing said:


> You realize anyone that knows anything about history could tell you that religion and religious people have the worst reputation out everyone?


I don't necessarily disagree with that point.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Thats a study of religous people on what they think of athiests. Got a link to a non-biased study?


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

i$e said:


> Thats a study of religous people on what they think of athiests. Got a link to a non-biased study?


Sadly, no. Religious people still make up like 95 percent of the world population, so this probably isn't that inaccurate.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

I personally think that it's pretty stupid. Just saying. I have no problems with religious people, but some of the stuff some of you say based off religion is crazy.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Mithro said:


> http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/


:lmao @ "get down on your knees & blog"

Christians comparing atheists to rapists... and they wonder why some people hate them.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Both sides are parasitic hypocrites.


----------



## Big Fat Sean (Dec 11, 2010)

Mithro said:


> I don't distrust Atheists, I'm just basing the distrust on actual studies
> 
> http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/30/religious-people-do-not-believe-in-atheists-study/
> 
> ...


In 2001, 49% of US Americans thought humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

In 2006, only one in three young adults in the US could find The UK on a map.

In 2010, 40% of Americans did not know who the Vice President was.

In 1999, 20% of Americans thought the sun revolved around the earth.

Polls can be awful things.


----------



## X3iE (Sep 5, 2011)

I believe in God too.

I still read The Bible sometimes; when I go for a book.

Now days it does seem like atheism is the new "popular" thing, especially for young people online.

In addition, people assume popular things are the "right" things. People are sheep and follow the majority around and not think for them self.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Mithro said:


> Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.


I'll make christians a deal: I'll stop telling them their beliefs are silly when they stop believing in a book that tells me I deserve to be locked in the basement and tortured forever because they can't prove their point.

If I started shouting about how a magical pixie in the sky created the universe with no proof other than a book I read that got published a few thousand years ago you would laugh at me too. If I told you you had no reason NOT to believe it, you'd just shake your head and laugh. You think atheists are harsh because we're treating religion without kid gloves, the way _every other claim_ is treated. Problem is: People have given religion a special exemption from critical thinking for way too long.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Mithro said:


> Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.


Replace Atheists with Christians and your post will be more accurate.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

X3iE said:


> I believe in God too.
> 
> I still read The Bible sometimes; when I go for a book.
> 
> ...


More irony. Yay.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

X3iE said:


> I believe in God too.
> 
> I still read The Bible sometimes; when I go for a book.
> 
> ...


my favorite part of the bible is where it condones slavery


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

X3iE said:


> I believe in God too.
> 
> I still read The Bible sometimes; when I go for a book.
> 
> ...


:lmao How about christians let their kids get to a decent age, without pushing religion on them or taking them to church, and let them decide for themselves whether or not they want to be religious. 

and yes, this post was very ironic.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Mithro said:


> Atheists seriously need a better rep agent. Every Atheist I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's deity a sky god, their holy book fairy tales, and generally having an obviously hateful tone isn't going to undo any religious belief, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Atheists a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Atheists about as much as they trust rapists.





Catalanotto said:


> Replace Atheists with Christians and your post will be more accurate.





Kabuto420 said:


> Christians seriously need a better rep agent. Every Christian I've ran into on the internet and in life have been huge dicks. Calling someone's belief in science heresy, their proven scientific facts fairy tales, and generally thinking it is your job to shove religion down our throats isn't going to undo any scientific facts, it just makes you look like a dick, and ends up giving all Christians a bad rap, because people judge groups based on their loudest members, that's just a fact. No wonder people trust Christians about as much as they trust rapists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

WCW said:


> my favorite part of the bible is where it condones slavery


My favourite part is where a snake starts talking.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Catalanotto said:


> Replace Atheists with Christians and your post will be more accurate.


Anyone forcing either belief -- any belief, really -- down another's throat is equivalent to any other. Whether an Atheist tells me I'm a fucking idiot for believing in a God, or a religous zealot tells you that you'll burn in hell for all eternity, it doesn't matter.

If you disagree with this you are a hypocrite as well.

Just face the facts: your opinions are your own and if you need to force others to agree with you, go join a club or commit suicide.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Two of my cousins are Jehovah's Witnesses. They can't attend any parties such as baptisms, weddings, etc. I would find that difficult but if that's what makes them happy, good for them.


*ahhh Jehovah's Witnesses. I love having fun with them!*


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

I wonder if the "hate" is mostly on Christians... for example, nobody really comments on... Buddhism?

Is it because Christians are just over-the-top with their preaching/evangelism?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

All of them are stupid. Christianity is the biggest though and responsible for the most evil so thats the biggest target for rational thinkers to attack.


----------



## Big Fat Sean (Dec 11, 2010)

starship.paint said:


> I wonder if the "hate" is mostly on Christians... for example, nobody really comments on... Buddhism?
> 
> Is it because Christians are just over-the-top with their preaching/evangelism?


I would hazard a guess that 95% of your interactions regarding this subject are with people from a predominantly Christian society or upbringing.

Who know not a fuck about Buddhism


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

starship.paint said:


> I wonder if the "hate" is mostly on Christians... for example, nobody really comments on... Buddhism?
> 
> Is it because Christians are just over-the-top with their preaching/evangelism?


Buddhists don't influence world politics based on their views. Buddhists don't tell you you're going to burn in hell for not practicing zazen.


----------



## Loopee (Oct 12, 2009)

X3iE said:


> I believe in God too.
> 
> I still read The Bible sometimes; when I go for a book.
> 
> ...


If religious people make up 95% of the world, that makes your post void and you the sheep.

Just saying.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I liked when the Vatican wrote a letter of support to Hitler.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I would have wrote that letter too.*


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Well, ******** are famed for their expansive rational thought, so I'm not surprised.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Not only would I have written it, I would have personally delivered it.*


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

thats good customer service


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

LadyCroft said:


> *ahhh Jehovah's Witnesses. I love having fun with them!*


When I used to live in Phoenix, there was a couple of young guys who came by a few times with the Jehovah's Witness spiel. I invited them in and fired up the bong right in front of them. Heeeeeeeelarious. They were too polite to be mad about it.


----------



## Big Fat Sean (Dec 11, 2010)

LadyCroft said:


> *Not only would I have written it, I would have personally delivered it.*


Hand delivery is a must. I sent him a letter on a Monday, but he did Nazi it until the Friday. 

:side:


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

i$e said:


> All of them are stupid. Christianity is the biggest though and responsible for the most evil so thats the biggest target for rational thinkers to attack.


I tolerate Buddhism since it doesn't seem to be as stupid as the others.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Kabuto420 said:


> When I used to live in Phoenix, there was a couple of young guys who came by a few times with the Jehovah's Witness spiel. I invited them in and fired up the bong right in front of them. Heeeeeeeelarious. They were too polite to be mad about it.


*Yeah I do something similar. I don't invite them inside though. We usually go out and sit at the picnic table over bourbon. I wrote a blog on it but those are long gone it seems.*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

LadyCroft said:


> *Yeah I do something similar. I don't invite them inside though. We usually go out and sit at the picnic table over bourbon. I wrote a blog on it but those are long gone it seems.*


Mmmmm... bourbon. I love me some Booker's.

Alas, no JH to have fun with in Hawai'i. The only time I had them knock on the door here, it was a couple of creepy old Asian ladies. Like, the lady from Poltergeist creepy. Hmmm... that makes me wonder about that OP from _Poltergeist_ all over again. :lmao


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm merely going by my own personal life experiences, and I'm intelligent enough to not cast a deciding judgment on an entire religion based solely on the action of a few people, but it still stands that the absolute most hate-filled, judgmental, bigoted people I've ever met in my entire life were also the most devout Christians. And on the flip side, the kindest, most intelligent, thoughtful, caring people I've met were total atheists. 

That's just me, but that's been my experience.


----------



## Svart (Jun 11, 2011)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> I tolerate Buddhism since it doesn't seem to be as stupid as the others.


In my view, Buddhism is more a way of approaching life than a religion.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Svart is right, but Buddhists have started wars before too.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Nitemare said:


> Anyone forcing either belief -- any belief, really -- down another's throat is equivalent to any other. Whether an Atheist tells me I'm a fucking idiot for believing in a God, or a religous zealot tells you that you'll burn in hell for all eternity, it doesn't matter.
> 
> If you disagree with this you are a hypocrite as well.
> 
> Just face the facts: your opinions are your own and if you need to force others to agree with you, go join a club or commit suicide.



I dunno if you just used my post as a general thing or if that was directed at me but I ain't trying to force anything down anyone's throat. I don't care what people believe in, it's up to them, though I do poke fun at the belief of God and things Jesus did because it's just ridiculous to me and the bible is a joke. In the end, though, to each his own. I don't talk much about religion unless someone else sparks a convo and, even then, I don't force people to believe what I believe, I just ask for proof of what they believe and give them my reasons as to why I believe what I do.


There are so many silly things in religion that I just can't understand why people can take it seriously. If some dude was walking down the street saying he could walk on water and turn water into wine, someone would call the cops and he'd be removed in a straight jacket, but it's totally normal that some dude that apparently existed a long time ago was really the original member of the X-Men.


If that wasn't directed at me in any negative way, we will still have sex tonight.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

You know, ive never met a truly nice christian, and i mean that. Most of the kind ones are after reputation of being a good person, or they are scared/miss family. Generally they look down on others and try to propel themselves above, using christianity as their fuel.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

i$e said:


> Why does it deserve respect? Believing and endorsing various religions that have been the _direct_ cause of more murder, rape, torture, pain, misery, slavery and fundamental evil than anything else in the history of mankind is to be respected? Sorry, no. I don't subscribe to that nonsense.


Religion has done a lot of bad things but I think it's also led to a lot of good things. To be honest I think people would have used some other reason to kill and do horrible things to each other even there was no religion. 



CM Dealer said:


> This is an obvious lie, because OP is still here.
> 
> Also, religion is the opiate of the masses, and Karl Marx was smarter than every kiddie-molesting pope.


Fucking Marx. Really smart guy but his ideas have caused so many bad things throughout history.



~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Ah yes, I see what you mean. You were literally speaking.  Well, Jehovah's Witnesses do that a lot. I'm not familiar with any other religious group that goes door to door. I do agree that it is annoying.


They are the ones that do it most of the time but I've seen other groups go door to door. The worst/funniest instance would be a priest from a church coming to my family's door while we were decorating out Christmas tree. You could clearly see that's what we were doing from outside and my mom was a total bitch to the guy. When he said "Merry Christmas" and left we realized he was not a Jehovah's Witness and was just someone collecting money for a Christmas fund. My mom literally ran into the street, called him back, apologized, and gave him a few bucks. 



Nitemare said:


> Anyone forcing either belief -- any belief, really -- down another's throat is equivalent to any other. Whether an Atheist tells me I'm a fucking idiot for believing in a God, or a religous zealot tells you that you'll burn in hell for all eternity, it doesn't matter.
> 
> If you disagree with this you are a hypocrite as well.
> 
> Just face the facts: your opinions are your own and if you need to force others to agree with you, go join a club or commit suicide.


Well said. My exact feelings about all of this stuff. 



LadyCroft said:


> *ahhh Jehovah's Witnesses. I love having fun with them!*


The ones in my area suck. I actually will listen to what they have to say but all they ever do is end up giving me a pamphlet. I do have some awesome religious comics though thanks to them.

At school we have these "preachers." They seem to make people like Christianity less by what they do. I go to Temple University and we have a really really diverse campus yet some of these guys go and talk about how all the different religions can't coexist (ironic since that's exactly what everyone on the campus is doing) and that everyone that doesn't believe in the bible is going to hell. People mess with them a lot though. I just don't understand how they think the message they send could possibly appeal to anyone.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Catalanotto said:


> I dunno if you just used my post as a general thing or if that was directed at me but I ain't trying to force anything down anyone's throat. I don't care what people believe in, it's up to them, though I do poke fun at the belief of God and things Jesus did because it's just ridiculous to me and the bible is a joke. In the end, though, to each his own. I don't talk much about religion unless someone else sparks a convo and, even then, I don't force people to believe what I believe, I just ask for proof of what they believe and give them my reasons as to why I believe what I do.
> 
> 
> There are so many silly things in religion that I just can't understand why people can take it seriously. If some dude was walking down the street saying he could walk on water and turn water into wine, someone would call the cops and he'd be removed in a straight jacket, but it's totally normal that some dude that apparently existed a long time ago was really the original member of the X-Men.
> ...


I was generalizing but the same thing applies. I, however, do force things down people's throats. You'll find out soon enough. #run?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Just to be completely fair, not _all_ Christians are douchebag assholes trying to cram their religion down your throat. I was raised in a hardcore Southern Baptist environment and those people are completely off their rocker insane with their hellfire and brimstone bullshit. Part of why I moved to Hawai'i was to get far far away from that environment. The problem is, most of the Christians you meet that tell you they are Christian are the kind of douchebag assholes wanting to push the religion on you, so it looks like they are all that way.

My roommate is an example of a good Christian. He goes to bible study on Wednesday nights and church on Sunday mornings. He also knows I want nothing to do with it and has never once tried to push that shit on me. In over 5 years of living together, we've never had a problem over religion. He doesn't act all crazy with the shit either. We can hang out, smoke bud together, no prob. We watch wrestling together too. He did say something weird one time about how he thought God had delivered me to him, because when I met him he was living in a hostel and didn't have a lot of friends... but whatever, I let it slide and he never brought it up again. As much as I have fun laughing at and mocking Christians, I would feel like the douchebag asshole if I was that way with him, because he has never given me reason to act that way towards him.

Although I consider all the religious stuff to be ridiculous bullshit... I also think everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want. I mock and laugh at the Christians who try to push it on everyone else. Those are the ones who deserve it.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Nitemare said:


> I was generalizing but the same thing applies. I, however, do force things down people's throats. You'll find out soon enough. #run?


I found out last night.


Stretched my mouth, just like the dick of a handsome black man could.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

TaylorFitz said:


> The ones in my area suck. I actually will listen to what they have to say but all they ever do is end up giving me a pamphlet. I do have some awesome religious comics though thanks to them.
> 
> At school we have these "preachers." They seem to make people like Christianity less by what they do. I go to Temple University and we have a really really diverse campus yet some of these guys go and talk about how all the different religions can't coexist (ironic since that's exactly what everyone on the campus is doing) and that everyone that doesn't believe in the bible is going to hell. People mess with them a lot though. I just don't understand how they think the message they send could possibly appeal to anyone.


*I love their little comics. I collect 'em. I once flirted with one of the boys. He had to be like 15 or 16. I'll listen to them as long as they don't mind me drinking while I do. So I listened to the guy try to save my soul and most of the time I was winking at his son while rubbing my foot up his leg. I'm pretty sure he got excited. 

That's the same day my sister dosed me though. I really shouldn't have done the kid that way. I'm sure he didn't mind at the time but I bet he was probably religious guilty once the boner went down. He probably had to pray about it. Maybe even did some Hail Mary's even though he's not Catholic. 

I hope he masturbated.*


----------



## TheCelticRebel (Jun 6, 2011)

LadyCroft said:


> *I love their little comics. I collect 'em. I once flirted with one of the boys. He had to be like 15 or 16. I'll listen to them as long as they don't mind me drinking while I do. So I listened to the guy try to save my soul and most of the time I was winking at his son while rubbing my foot up his leg. I'm pretty sure he got excited.
> 
> That's the same day my sister dosed me though. I really shouldn't have done the kid that way. I'm sure he didn't mind at the time but I bet he was probably religious guilty once the boner went down. He probably had to pray about it. Maybe even did some Hail Mary's even though he's not Catholic.
> 
> I hope he masturbated.*


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

LadyCroft said:


> *I love their little comics. I collect 'em. I once flirted with one of the boys. He had to be like 15 or 16. I'll listen to them as long as they don't mind me drinking while I do. So I listened to the guy try to save my soul and most of the time I was winking at his son while rubbing my foot up his leg. I'm pretty sure he got excited.
> 
> That's the same day my sister dosed me though. I really shouldn't have done the kid that way. I'm sure he didn't mind at the time but I bet he was probably religious guilty once the boner went down. He probably had to pray about it. Maybe even did some Hail Mary's even though he's not Catholic.
> 
> I hope he masturbated.*


I'm sure he was fine. If you have to spend all day with your dad trying to convert people to your religion you need something to make the day more interesting.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Hiplop said:


> You know, ive never met a truly nice christian, and i mean that. Most of the kind ones are after reputation of being a good person, or they are scared/miss family. Generally they look down on others and try to propel themselves above, using christianity as their fuel.


*Sorry I missed this post earlier. Wow that's a shame. I live in the bible belt...hellfire and brimstone shit and 9 out of 10 Christians I know are really good people. It's that 10 percent that are awful. And it's not even the Christianity that make them awful. I'm sure they were awful people before they found religion.*


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Yeah, its odd. Im not saying they are all bad people, but my sample of evidence seems to show different results. I guees most people are after self worth, these people just makeit blatant.

Wish it wasnt around, but eh


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

Sorry to derail 'Confessions of ******* Sex Pest'. Who wants to watch this with me?


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

LadyCroft said:


> *Sorry I missed this post earlier. Wow that's a shame. I live in the bible belt...hellfire and brimstone shit and 9 out of 10 Christians I know are really good people. It's that 10 percent that are awful. And it's not even the Christianity that make them awful. I'm sure they were awful people before they found religion.*


For sure, I just spent two weeks back in Lynchburg, VA (Falwell's former hometown) and didn't notice a thing about stuck up Christians.

I hide when the Mormons come around the neighborhood in the summer here though.


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

Hiplop said:


> You know, ive never met a truly nice christian, and i mean that. Most of the kind ones are after reputation of being a good person, or they are scared/miss family. Generally they look down on others and try to propel themselves above, using christianity as their fuel.


Ouch, that's sad man. I can kind of relate though, since I live in the South and grew up in a pretty isolated part of it, and the amount of backstabbing, lying, cheating so-called "Christians" that I've run across is enough to make you want to ditch any notion of Christianity. I just figure that that's their deal and not mine, and I shouldn't let their attitudes affect my belief. But then again, I'm not your stereotypical Christian, either.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Steve. said:


> The Mormon thing was done in a South Park episode wasn't it?
> 
> I haven't had any Mormons knock on my door so far, a few Jehova's witnesses' though but i just take their booklets and read those instead of having a conversation with them... mainly because some of the imagery is pretty cool and gives me tattoo idea's XD I make sure my nan keeps the ones left at hers for the same reason since she gets them every month or so.


I love when the two Mormon guys come to my door. They're used to knocking on Theist doors since it's the South so when two come to my door, they know pretty fast that I'm an Atheist. Some will try to get out fast and others will fake being nice and hand me a pamphlet. A lot of them probably haven't even met an Atheist in real life until they come to my door. Poor guys are probably terrified.


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

Panther said:


> I love when the two Mormon guys come to my door. They're used to knocking on Theist doors since it's the South so when two come to my door, they know pretty fast that I'm an Atheist. Some will try to get out fast and others will fake being nice and hand me a pamphlet. A lot of them probably haven't even met an Atheist in real life until they come to my door. Poor guys are probably terrified.


Two mormons guys came to my grandpa's place years ago. My grandpa is muslim. So when he found out what they were trying to do, he brought out the Quran and started preaching to them and telling them that they should change instead. He obviously didnt mean it, but it pissed him off that they would come to his house and they literaly told him that he should change to something good. I laughed my ass off.


----------



## Steve Patriot (Oct 12, 2007)

Atheism’s downfall is that it assumes large swaths of humanity are capable of comprehending how Atheism’s required practices play out in reality. Get some thoughtlessly brainwashed Christian surrounded by perfectly concise scholars that utilize the whole of sociological/psychological/biological terminology to shatter her illusion, and it will be moot. All she has to say, is that “My faith is what makes him exist”. 

Atheism is impossible as an ideologically widespread acceptance, because humans are not _rational_, they are _emotional_. Modern day representative democracy is a failure for the exact same reason. People will vote with their emotions, not what is logically best for human progress.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> For sure, I just spent two weeks back in Lynchburg, VA (Falwell's former hometown) and didn't notice a thing about stuck up Christians.
> 
> I hide when the Mormons come around the neighborhood in the summer here though.


*I think people have a preconception about Christians. I really do. I think the asshole Christians were assholes before they found religion. That's my experience by the way. And I live amongst them. That's my life. Everyone I know is Christian. I just don't see them being the assholes people think they are.*


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

The best Christians don't preach.


----------



## Virgil_85 (Feb 6, 2006)

greendayedgehead said:


> he's an asshole for no showing _Michaels_?! SOB jobbed out his own son.


And he didn't even wait until the 21st century so Mike Tenay could do the commentary...


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Steve Patriot said:


> Atheism’s downfall is that it assumes large swaths of humanity are capable of comprehending how Atheism’s required practices play out in reality. Get some thoughtlessly brainwashed Christian surrounded by perfectly concise scholars that utilize the whole of sociological/psychological/biological terminology to shatter her illusion, and it will be moot. All she has to say, is that “My faith is what makes him exist”.
> 
> Atheism is impossible as an ideologically widespread acceptance, because humans are not _rational_, they are _emotional_. Modern day representative democracy is a failure for the exact same reason. People will vote with their emotions, not what is logically best for human progress.


Wow. _Dayum_. This is very eloquently said. Bravo.

(no sarcasm)


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

LadyCroft said:


> *Sorry I missed this post earlier. Wow that's a shame. I live in the bible belt...hellfire and brimstone shit and 9 out of 10 Christians I know are really good people. It's that 10 percent that are awful. And it's not even the Christianity that make them awful. I'm sure they were awful people before they found religion.*


Nah most of them are horrible, that's why the republicans get voted in every election.


----------



## ~Humanity~ (Jul 23, 2007)

Do any of you religious followers believe that maybe someday you can be swayed from your opinion?


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

TH1 said:


> Do any of you religious followers believe that maybe someday you can be swayed from your opinion?


Well, I used to be a devout Muslim, and now I'm not.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

TaylorFitz said:


> Religion has done a lot of bad things but I think it's also led to a lot of good things.


Like what?


----------



## Mr Cook (Feb 27, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> #2 I believe in the Bible and everything it says, and nowhere﻿ does it state about life on other planets. Furthermore, if you study interstellar travel, it's physically impossible to send other humans to another star system. Intergalactic travel is impossible altogether, including robots. Even with robots, i'm going to go out on a limb and say it's impossible to send a robot to another star system.
> 
> Basically, it's *impossible*.
> 
> ...


I havent read the pages of comments, but I expected a much brtter argument than the one provided above, i'm working from my mobile so i'll break my counter-argument down into simple bullets;

#1 - I am an athiest, but show me proof of a higher being/creator, and I'll believe. That isn't arrogant in the slightest, just sensible.

#2 - You state that intergalactic travel is impossible, and this is all part of God's plan? Even to exclude the possibility of intergalactic travel in the future is ridiculous as in a short period of a few thousand years, humanity as evolved tremendously, and still continues to evolve at an incredible rate.

#3 - But then in addition, you state that there is no life on other planets, because the bible does not speak of any. If you honestly believe everything in the bible, well then you cannot ridicule the idea of intergalactic travel, there are billions + of planets in this universe, and we actually have some form of evidence or proof to back it up, rather than the reports of an unverified book which could easily be fictional.

#4 - There's other points, I'll take a look at this again later, I'll accept a valid, logical reason to believe in a creator, but so far I havent seen any, this was especially poor, and thought a decent debate would be created, but this argument is too easy to argue against.

#5 - Bottom line is, the existance of a creator has not yet been proven, hence I won't believe yet, and faith is just a word used, when the pro-christian argument becomes illogical.

A lot of belief in religion stens from fear and not understanding, but just because we don't know what created us, it doesn't mean we should all go panic and believe in a theory with little substance and minimal evidence.


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

SL said:


> #1 - I am an athiest, but show me proof of a higher being/creator, and I'll believe. That isn't arrogant in the slightest, just sensible.
> .


That's asking for a bit much as there is absolutely none.


----------



## Deadman™ (Feb 9, 2004)

I didn't read this thread, but I know what happened, this isn't the first religious thread.

Some believe, some don't. Some don't know. 
Some made good arguments why they believe and which "God" they believe in. I respect that and their beliefs.
Some made good arguments why they don't believe. I respect that and their beliefs.
Some have issues with organized religion but believe in a God. I fully understand and respect that.
Some bashed others beliefs (you are pathetic btw), come up with an argument FOR your beliefs if you want to have a credible argument. That I do not respect.

I believe in God. I am a Christian, but also believe everyone has a right to believe in who, what, when, where, whatever they want. I figure if you can respect others beliefs, I will respect yours. If not, I don't return the favor.

Basically, it is place your bets. All debts settled upon death.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

What you need to realise (and quickly) is that Atheism isn't a belief; it's a rejection of one.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

i$e said:


> Like what?


the crusades


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

i$e said:


> What you need to realise (and quickly) is that Atheism isn't a belief; it's a rejection of one.


It's a belief there is no god.


----------



## Daredevil Jeff (Dec 17, 2007)

Also for the good things that religion did, I'll just quote Bertrand Russell.



> I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

not necessarily CERBS, it's just an absence of any faith.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> It's a belief there is no god.


Actually it's a disbelief in God. To say not believing in something is akin to believing in something is nonesensical. It's as much a belief as "Off" is a TV channel.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Cerbs said:


> It's a belief there is no god.


Nah, doesn't work like that.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

regardless of it's an absence or not. You still hold a belief, like everyone else.


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

TH1 said:


> Do any of you religious followers believe that maybe someday you can be swayed from your opinion?


I doubt it, unless inevitable (or at the very least, logical) proof comes up in support of another religion or in support of no religion. I'm a Christian not solely because it was how I was raised, but because I believe it to be the most logical and practical way of explaing life and our world.

@i$e, Atheism *is* a belief, regardless of the fact that it is a rejection of the belief in any higher power. People must base their reasonings and thought processes on something, if not a religion, then something else. You believe that there is no higher power of any sort and in the power of modern science, logic, and reason, thus, you "believe" in Atheism. It's a belief. Don't get "belief" confused with "religion."


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Tebow, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal touchdowns.

*snickers*


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Nas said:


> regardless of it's an absence or not. You still hold a belief, like everyone else.


Nope.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Nas said:


> regardless of it's an absence or not. You still hold a belief, like everyone else.


Not true.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Really baffled at why people are having trouble grasping the concept. It's really basic.

Just a quick 'lol' @ the guy who said he thinks god is the most logical way of explaining the world. Incredible.


----------



## Daredevil Jeff (Dec 17, 2007)

Xist2inspire said:


> You believe that there is no higher power of any sort and in the power of modern science, logic, and reason, thus, you "believe" in Atheism. It's a belief.


Believing in science would be very stupid.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

"Anyway, The Odds of the Universe originating Out of Nothing and ordering itself by Chance are greater than a Tornado sweeping through a junkyard and leaving behind a brand new 747 jet. It defies logic and observation."

I read this in a book, a long time ago. What do you guys think? There's also the argument, so then what's the chance of a higher deity creating the universe?

Well, let's look at it this way. It's either created by chance or by a higher deity. So, if the chance of it being created by chance is near impossible, then the chance of it being created by God is highly probable, no?


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

Daredevil Jeff said:


> Believing in science would be very stupid.


Not as stupid as some make it out to be. Some people like to believe only in what's been proven and what they can experience themselves, what's wrong with that? Seems like a reasonable line of thinking to me.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

i$e said:


> Just a quick 'lol' @ the guy who said he thinks god is the most logical way of explaining the world. Incredible.


Octum Razor's ruling i guess?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Xist2inspire said:


> Not as stupid as some make it out to be. Some people like to believe only in what's been proven and what they can experience themselves, what's wrong with that? Seems like a reasonable line of thinking to me.


You missed the point.


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

i$e said:


> You missed the point.


Please explain it to me then.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Nas said:


> "Anyway, The Odds of the Universe originating Out of Nothing and ordering itself by Chance are greater than a Tornado sweeping through a junkyard and leaving behind a brand new 747 jet. It defies logic and observation."
> 
> I read this in a book, a long time ago. What do you guys think? There's also the argument, so then what's the chance of a higher deity creating the universe?
> 
> Well, let's look at it this way. It's either created by chance or by a higher deity. So, if the chance of it being created by chance is near impossible, then the chance of it being created by God is highly probable, no?


Most flawed arguement in human history.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Nas said:


> regardless of it's an absence or not. You still hold a belief, like everyone else.


Exactly. 

You either believe in god, or you believe there is no god. There isn't another side of the fence. 

Unless you neither believe nor disbelieve, which would make you agnostic, not an atheist.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Stop talking shit.



> The truth is that atheism is the absence of the belief that is theism. Theism is the belief that at least one god of some sort exists; a-theism is the absence of a belief that some sort of god exists. In standard English the prefix "a" is defined as "without, absence, privation, lacking." Thus atheism, or a-theism, has to be defined defined as without, the absence of, the privation of, or lacking a belief in at least one god of some sort.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> Exactly.
> 
> You either believe in god, or you believe there is no god. There isn't another side of the fence.
> 
> Unless you neither believe nor disbelieve, which would make you agnostic, not an atheist.


Disbelief is not in itself a belief. A negation of something is not in it's self said thing.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

i$e said:


> Stop talking shit.





> As with many definitions, the meaning of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are difficult to pin down, and they mean different things to different people in different contexts. Let's start with some basic dictionary definitions.
> 
> *The American Heritage Dictionary defines an "atheist" as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." An "agnostic" is "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God" or "one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."* This dictionary also notes that 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley invented the word "agnostic."
> 
> ...


I think not.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

fergieska said:


> Most flawed arguement in human history.


Why?

Anyways, it's not what I believe, yet. Maybe one day. I still look at all options, considered. I'm still sitting on the fence. Here's another one we can discuss. And please, explain why, instead of just saying, "no, that's wrong".
---------

This is a post by a good friend of mine, on another forum. We had a ginormous discussion about the existence of God, there. He brought a few good points, that I thought are worth reading,



> The Case For God:
> 
> (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
> (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
> ...


I then asked him to explain further, the part about the first cause. He answered,



> Two reasons that support the Causal premise:
> 
> - In the Case of the Universe, prior to the Big Bang, there’s not even a potentiality of its being. How could something become actual, if there’s not even a potentiality of its existence?
> 
> ...


So, let's discuss. Let's keep insults to ourselves now.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I prefer English dictionaries when discussing the English dictionary.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

imagine how fucked up the world would be if we followed the same logic as believers in all walks of life.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

The problem with whether atheism is a belief or not is... well a problem.

Because we have two definitions,

1- Atheists believe that a God doesn't exist

2- Atheists disbelieve in the existence of a God. 

Both are right.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Disbelieving =/= believing in something else.

So no, they're not the same.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Cliffy Byro said:


> imagine how fucked up the world would be if we followed the same logic as believers in all walks of life.


And what is that logic?


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

So, what about

1- Atheists believe that a God doesn't exist

2- Atheists have a lack of belief in God.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

atheists aren't stupid enough to believe in something without proof.

Show me the footage and i'll happily convert.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Cliffy Byro said:


> atheists aren't stupid enough to believe in something without proof.
> 
> Show me the footage and i'll happily convert.


Read one of my above posts, which puts forward a case of God existing. Then, dispute it. We'll go from there.

Edit: Post 302


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

i've seen your post and it's straw clutch worthy.

We are here purely by accident/co-incidence. We don't really have a purpose per say.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Nas said:


> So, what about
> 
> 1- Atheists believe that a God doesn't exist
> 
> 2- Atheists have a lack of belief in God.


Both are the exact same thing. 

The latter is just a pussy foot way of saying what the former definitively states out of fear of possibly being wrong one day. Both signify you don't believe in God, which is the same as believing there is no God if you're never going to be convinced otherwise. 

Have no idea what some people are smoking in this thread. 


Cliffy Byro said:


> atheists aren't stupid enough to believe in something without proof.


Absolutely ridiculous statement.


----------



## Irish Jet (Nov 15, 2011)

In Soviet Russia, God believes in you.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

Nas said:


> So, what about
> 
> 1- Atheists believe that a God doesn't exist
> 
> 2- Atheists have a lack of belief in God.


 The thing with those two is that they both have belief in them, if it was

1- Atheists believe that a God doesn't exist.

2- Atheists do not think there is a God.

It's the same principle but also different from one another.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

To settle the definition, everyone has different degrees to how far they take their Atheism. Some are 100% sure that there are no god/goddesses. Others, like me, are 99.99999% sure that there are no deities. I always leave the possibility open but the lack of evidence is stacked against the Theists.



> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.


Now can we PLEASE shut up about the definition and conitnue bickering about whether ANY deity/s exists?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Obviously not to any sane, logical, rational human being.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

There's no way of knowing whether or not deities exist, so it's a pointless debate. 

And that's really God's fault (if there is such a thing).


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Cliffy Byro said:


> i've seen your post and it's straw clutch worthy.
> 
> We are here purely by accident/co-incidence. We don't really have a purpose per say.


Instead of just saying it's straw clutch worthy. Why don't you explain why you think it's straw clutch worthy? 

Are we here by accident? You see, there has to be a First Cause. A trigger. My post, or rather my friend's post just delved deeper into the First Cause.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> There's no way of knowing whether or not deities exist, so it's a pointless debate.
> 
> And that's really God's fault (if there is such a thing).


Yeah, it's a pointless debate, and one that I most certainly guarantee will go around in circles. Every discussion I have had about the existence of God has gone in circles. It's more to do with the fact, that we are stubborn people who don't want to change our beliefs. 

Yet, I'm still here...


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Nas said:


> The problem with whether atheism is a belief or not is... well a problem.
> 
> Because we have two definitions,
> 
> ...


They both mean the exact same thing. You just structured the sentences differently.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Yeah, I edited my second definition in another post. They both mean the same thing, yet one is a belief and one isn't. It's remarkable.

Anyways, this is irrelevant to me. My post on The Case of God, is what I want to attend to. Post 302.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Yes, I see what you mean. Essentially, it means that someone doesn't believe in God so that's really all that matters.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm willing to ignore logic, definition and rationality and agree if it means we don't have to talk about it any more.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

You've been doing that all day so far, why not?


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Why don't you want to talk about it anymore? And is my 302 post also, irrational, illogic and devoid of definition?

If so, please post your rebuttal. We can have a civilised conversation about this, as long as no one trolls or insults.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> Both are the exact same thing.
> 
> The latter is just a pussy foot way of saying what the former definitively states out of fear of possibly being wrong one day. Both signify you don't believe in God, which is the same as believing there is no God if you're never going to be convinced otherwise.
> 
> ...


I'll happily be convinced otherwise when proof presents itself of his existence.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Hey Mr.Byro. You're entitled to what you believe (or your lack of a belief). But my 302 post shows that there is an external agent that created the universe, no? We can't believe that nothing created everything? It doesn't fit.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

P.Smith said:


> Nah most of them are horrible, that's why the republicans get voted in every election.


*Where does that happen P?*


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Last time I checked their was some monkey as president LC, been a couple years though.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

There aren't christian Democrats?


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Cliffy Byro said:


> I'll happily be convinced otherwise when proof presents itself of his existence.


No shit.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Nas said:


> But my 302 post shows that there is an external agent that created the universe, no? We can't believe that nothing created everything? It doesn't fit.


It doesn't show anything. It's a flawed, illogical statement that says nothing more than 'I can't work it out so God must have done it'. The same mentality that has held civilization back for thousands of years. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

They're getting closer to observing that things can, and do, generate out of nothing.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Nas said:


> Why?


Because the reasoning in itself is a contradiction. You are claiming something can't come from nothing EXCEPT for one very specific thing. God. The reasoning your using can be exposed as follows:

"If everything came from nothing then what did God come from?" There are only two reasonable answers to this:

1. God came from another God (creates endless cycle)

2. God came from nothing (breaks reasoning that something can come from nothing)

Now you're likely to go with part 2 here in the sense that "God never came from anything, he always was." Now the flaw in this is that exact same reasoning has no proof to it, you can claim anything was always there, space could be claimed as always there.

The problem you've got here is a 100% hypothetical situation. Essentially your answer holds as much ground as any other guess given by anyone else regardless of how silly it might seem because it falls into the unknown and supernatural. You said what is likely, but going by calculations the chance of it being right is too small to take note of because an infinite amount of possibilities can be created all with the same credential. So it is more likely to say win the lottery every time for the rest of your life than for your assumption of how everything came to be to be true.

Sure you can believe that and I can't tell you how it got there, but don't back it up with "everything cant come from nothing so that means God" because that's illogical.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Good exposé of the ridiculous Cosmological idea.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

i$e said:


> It doesn't show anything. It's a flawed, illogical statement that says nothing more than 'I can't work it out so God must have done it'. The same mentality that has held civilization back for thousands of years.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374
> 
> They're getting closer to observing that things can, and do, generate out of nothing.


That's quite an interesting read. Of course, still hypothetical.

But the idea of a First Cause is not illogical, so you're wrong about that. That 302 post is the opposite of "I can't work it out". It looks to me like it's actually trying to work *it* out. 

Although I'll keep a close eye on the Higgs Boson (God's particle ).

But one of the points brought up in my 302 post was,



> In the Case of the Universe, prior to the Big Bang, there’s not even a potentiality of its being. How could something become actual, if there’s not even a potentiality of its existence?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Cerbs said:


> You've been doing that all day so far, why not?


This is a rather arrogant response for someone who's entire arguement has been "No it isnt!"

You are claiming the negation of something is the exact same as the thing it is negating. To an extent you are claiming a positive is a negative.


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that something can indeed be made out of nothing (and by nothing, I mean *nothing*. No gas, no chemicals. Nothing), the Big Bang theory will continue to be just that: A theory, and a highly illogical one at that. 

I also find it hard to accept some of evolutionary theory. I'd think that other animals would've have adapted to match our evolutionary standard by now. To me, if you're not at the top of the food chain, then you'd damn well better adapt to get there.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Cerbs said:


> You've been doing that all day so far, why not?


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/10832109-post148.html

Bottom line describes you.

At least Nas is saying something worthwhile and offering some kind of viewpoint.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Xist2inspire said:


> Until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that something can indeed be made out of nothing (and by nothing, I mean *nothing*. No gas, no chemicals. Nothing), the Big Bang theory will continue to be *just that: A theory*, and a highly illogical one at that.
> 
> *I also find it hard to accept some of evolutionary theory.* I'd think that other animals would've have adapted to match our evolutionary standard by now. To me, if you're not at the top of the food chain, then you'd damn well better adapt to get there.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VlaydYx5aw

I think this sums that up fairly well.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

fergieska said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VlaydYx5aw
> 
> I think this sums that up fairly well.


Haha, awesome.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

fergieska said:


> Because the reasoning in itself is a contradiction. You are claiming something can't come from nothing EXCEPT for one very specific thing. God. The reasoning your using can be exposed as follows:
> 
> "If everything came from nothing then what did God come from?" There are only two reasonable answers to this:
> 
> ...


I understand, now.

The first point of God comes from another God, which is of course an infinite cycle... Well, if God was created by another... then they're not really God then, are they? If that makes sense. 

The premise of the first point you bring up is essentially every motion must be caused by another motion and that by another motion and that by... and so forth. There *must* be an initial prime mover. We can call that "God".

Or think of it this way,

God has no matter, no form, no quantity, no quality, no relation; nor is God qualified by any of the remaining categories. He has no genus, no differentia, no species, no proprium, and no accident. He is immutable… He is, therefore, absolute oneness. 

Both your points revolve around the idea that God "came"...

That wasn't what I was trying to say, forgive me if I gave the impression that I did. Just for the record, it's either everything came from nothing or came from something (God)? Is that illogical, or is there an option C? I'm missing something here.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)




----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

Umm, was that video clip (Not yours, Haystacks) meant to be serious or not? (And yes, that was a serious question.)


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Nas said:


> God has no matter, no form, no quantity, no quality, no relation; nor is God qualified by any of the remaining categories. He has no genus, no differentia, no species, no proprium, and no accident. He is immutable… He is, therefore ..


Absolutely man-made.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

I'm not sure if he was serious.


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> I'm not sure if he was serious.


Sorry, bro, didn't mean your post, my bad.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

He's clearly taking the piss out of people such as yourself. I don't know if that qualifies as 'serious' or not.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Atheist Panda said:


> Absolutely man-made.


:lmao

Which God are you speaking of? There are so many you see... I slightly believe in one that is just a grand architect. The cause, if you will.

Any other God, then you're spot on.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

> The Higgs is a sub-atomic particle that is predicted to exist, but has not yet been seen


They should try polishing their microscope 

I kid...


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Nas said:


> I understand, now.
> 
> The first point of God comes from another God, which is of course an infinite cycle... Well, if God was created by another... then they're not really God then, are they? If that makes sense.
> 
> ...



Well the greeks believed in Gods who gave birth to Gods it is really based on the view of whether god is omnipotent. Omnipotence however is flawed logically, a simple point but to put it one way "If God is omnipotent then can God create a boulder he can not pick up?" As you can see with the statement any response leads to God being in a situation where he cant do something which is illogical for an omnipotent being.

What you're using is generally called "the first cause" arguement. Unfortunately it's been debunked as illogical many times in the past simply because it makes too many assumptions. This should explain it for you

As for an option C there is an endless amount of options. To say God did it holds as much ground as a matrix-esque conspiracy.

One theory that may interest you is the Cyclic Model theory


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HhGuXCuDb1U#!

If you've got 10 minutes, this is an entertaining watch.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

That's Ray Comfort, one of the most outspoken Christian apologists and at the time he was being a hundred percent serious. He's changed his analogy to the coke can one now.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MLJUOW9NE

Ray Comfort gets humiliated here.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

Also: Nas.

You say there MUST be an initial prime mover. How do you know this? That ASSUMES the universe was created. Perhaps the universe simply always existed?


----------



## Xist2inspire (May 29, 2010)

Atheist Panda said:


> He's clearly taking the piss out of people such as yourself. I don't know if that qualifies as 'serious' or not.


And what type of "people" would that be? Those were legit questions I have with evolution and the Big Bang theory, and I was hoping that someone would at least try to present and explain an alternate viewpoint in a sensible manner.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

fergieska said:


> Well the greeks believed in Gods who gave birth to Gods it is really based on the view of whether god is omnipotent. Omnipotence however is flawed logically, a simple point but to put it one way "If God is omnipotent then can God create a boulder he can not pick up?" As you can see with the statement any response leads to God being in a situation where he cant do something which is illogical for an omnipotent being.
> 
> What you're using is generally called "the first cause" arguement. Unfortunately it's been debunked as illogical many times in the past simply because it makes too many assumptions. This should explain it for you
> 
> ...


This stuff is scary (and eye opening) to read. I'm open to change of view, but once I get into it, it does have quite an affect on you. 

What can happen is, I can read it, consider it, approve it, but the last step of embracing it is a step too far.  

But, I admire you and Athiest Panda (iSe was better) for not falling into the pit of insults and ridicule.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Kincaid said:


> Also: Nas.
> 
> You say there MUST be an initial prime mover. How do you know this? That ASSUMES the universe was created. Perhaps the universe simply always existed?


I assume it's the general scientific consensus that the universe came into existence.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

It isn't. Before the big bang, we have no idea what the state of the universe was.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Whilst reading fergieska's article, there's this quote in it, that should answer your question, Kincaid:



> It has been objected that the universe might be eternal, thus eliminating the need for a cause. Yet few people today still regard the universe as eternal because they have accepted the Big Bang Theory, so this objection has fallen out of favor.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

It is, but the best part of science is that it evolves based on observation. That's all a rational mind can do, in my view.


----------



## Svart (Jun 11, 2011)

Atheist Panda said:


> It doesn't show anything. It's a flawed, illogical statement that says nothing more than 'I can't work it out so God must have done it'. The same mentality that has held civilization back for thousands of years.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374
> 
> They're getting closer to observing that things can, and do, generate out of nothing.


One of the few rational posts in this thread. Why must everything be attributed to some higher power?


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

fergieska, your first link doesn't really debunk the "First Cause" argument. It does point out that the idea of God simply existing is just a last resort to fall back on to. Of course, if the Prime Mover simply just is, why can't the universe simple just be, too. This is true. Of course this is only "if's", so nothing is really getting debunked.

And the premise of the universe always being there, much like God. Well, the article itself explains most people have accepted that the universe had come into existence. And not that it always was there.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

The big bang theory doesn't assume the universe isn't eternal. It assumes the universe _in it's current form_ started with the singularity. Anything before that can't be speculated at. The writer of that objection needs to do a bit more research.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Yeah, Kincaid, you're actually right. My bad.

That article does contradict itself. It suggests that the universe isn't eternal, and then goes on to criticse the First Cause argument by saying the universe may be eternal.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Nas said:


> Yeah, Kincaid, you're actually right. My bad.
> 
> That article does contradict itself. It suggests that the universe isn't eternal, and then goes on to criticse the First Cause argument by saying the universe may be eternal.


That's why I linked the Cyclic Model explanation it's a more scientific way of explaining how the universe could be eternal. Sorry I should have been clearer.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)




----------



## UsernameInUse (Jan 4, 2012)

There is no god, you mindless buffoon.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

12er's gonna 12.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

He's right though, to be fair. Better to be right and offensive than wrong and polite.


----------



## Big Fat Sean (Dec 11, 2010)

Xist2inspire said:


> And what type of "people" would that be? Those were legit questions I have with evolution and the Big Bang theory, and I was hoping that someone would at least try to present and explain an alternate viewpoint in a sensible manner.


I believe the point of the clip was that people do not understand the word "theory" in this context. People assume it to mean a good guess, when it is more of a scientific conclusion - eg the theory of gravity. As an aside, we have greater proof and a greater understanding of both the big bang and evolution than we do of gravity.

I would like to think, however, that if you do have faith in a deity, why give a shit. If your faith gives you comfort and peace, accept it. Stop debating it. Proof that something can be created out of nothing shouldn't affect your spiritual beliefs. Belief is devoid of proof, otherwise it would be very inadequately named.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Atheist Panda said:


> He's right though, to be fair. Better to be right and offensive than wrong and polite.


But you can't say you're right either. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Of course, you have a logical thought process and scientific data to help stray that the Bible is flawed, but nothing about science disproves anything about a God (because, let's face it, if a God does exist humans fuck everything up so the Bible could be a great example). And it never will, unfortunately.

btw you're all fucking nerds and debating this shit is pathetic. FYI KTHX


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Nitemare said:


> Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Kabuto420 said:


>


You can post all the stupid pictures you want, it doesn't change that there is a possibility that there is a creator -- a "God" -- and that our science will never be able to determine if he exists.

The entire thought that this universe has been in existence for billions of years, that we all evolved from nothing, that the universe always existed. It's way too complex for the human mind, way too thought out and advanced to comprehend. You'll never know, and if we ever do get advanced to that point, it'll probably be hundreds of thousands of years from now.

The best advice is to not think about it, not tell others they're wrong, and to stop being such a .......


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Nitemare said:


> But you can't say you're right either.


I just did.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

scientific study of today or some fucked up book written by some fucked up people 2000+ years ago when people were retarded and mostly illogical. What's more credible? :hmm:


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Atheist Panda said:


> I just did.


Actually, you typed it. And saying something doesn't mean it's right unless you're me, you stupid *$^&#*(%&#*(.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Nitemare said:


> *You can post all the stupid pictures you want*, it doesn't change that there is a possibility that there is a creator -- a "God" -- and that our science will never be able to determine if he exists.


Okay! 










:lmao



UnDeFeatedKing said:


> scientific study of today or some fucked up book written by some fucked up people 2000+ years ago when people were retarded and mostly illogical. What's more credible? :hmm:


_Yeah._


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

There will come a time when our brains will be able to process to much higher levels than we do right now, we currently can only use around 5%ish (maybe a tad higher/lower) of our brain (what we can do with even that amount is amazing) but in however many years we might be able to process even more of it and much more can be achieved that we can only dream of today.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Nitemare said:


> Actually, you typed it. And saying something doesn't mean it's right unless you're me, you stupid *$^&#*(%&#*(.


Nobody cares what you think, though.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Actually, more people care what I think and post than most people on this site. Combined. #run?


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

Steve. said:


> There will come a time when our brains will be able to process to much higher levels than we do right now, we currently can only use around 5%ish (maybe a tad higher/lower) of our brain (what we can do with even that amount is amazing) but in however many years we might be able to process even more of it and much more can be achieved that we can only dream of today.


actually thats just a myth. we use all our brain, just not always for direct thinking.

other 90% goes to subconscious crap and stuff that keeps you alive and functioning


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Nas, quick note, whenever I read your posts, I imagine that the guy in your sig is saying them in a panicked, angry voice.


----------



## Steve. (Apr 18, 2011)

redeadening said:


> actually thats just a myth. we use all our brain, just not always for direct thinking.
> 
> other 90% goes to subconscious crap and stuff that keeps you alive and functioning


 My bad then dude  i just remember something from a programme where someone had an advanced brain process than the normal human and scientists were on about how much we actually use and i remember it as quite a low number... if i'm wrong i'm wrong lol


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Christian Bale would cut a great promo on the matter.


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

I have a question for you guys. What is your opinion on Jesus Christ? Was he really the son of God? Did he have magical powers, or was he just a prophet? What are your thoughts on him?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Probably existed. Just a street magician most likely, similar to David Blaine or Derren Brown. Everyone was a retard back then though and took it all at face value. Obviously he wasn't the son of God because God doesn't exist, but yeah he was probably a pretty cool dude to have around at the time. Even got a book written about him.


----------



## Pseudonymically (Dec 24, 2011)

I'd like to believe in god. But I can't if he allows people to enter "Hell" and Burn for all eterenity all because they did minor insignificant things.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Why would you want to believe in a cruel tyrant?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Atheist Panda said:


> Probably existed. Just a street magician most likely, similar to David Blaine or Derren Brown. Everyone was a retard back then though and took it all at face value. Obviously he wasn't the son of God because God doesn't exist, but yeah he was probably a pretty cool dude to have around at the time. Even got a book written about him.


*I believe he existed as well. I find it funny, though, that he never thought any of this important enough to write about. 

Also the virgin pregnancy is the funniest story in the bible. *


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *Also the virgin pregnancy is the funniest story in the bible. *


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Jesus' mom was a lizard? 


oh wait, this explains alot... those fucking reptilian people! Now it makes sense! *


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Atheist Panda said:


> Why would you want to believe in a cruel tyrant?


eh eternal happiness is the only thing id want out of it


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Noah's Arc is up there.

The Bible is the best work of fiction ever. Some really good stories in there and an enjoyable read.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *I believe he existed as well. I find it funny, though, that he never thought any of this important enough to write about.
> 
> Also the virgin pregnancy is the funniest story in the bible. *







beginning of video


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Hitchslapped.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Good thing he is dead and in hell where he belongs.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

You embarrassed yourself last time you tried to get some attention so I'm not sure why you'd want to do that again.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Nitemare, you're past your prime. Get a new gimmick.


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

LadyCroft said:


> *
> Also the virgin pregnancy is the funniest story in the bible. *


You only find it funny because you're shocked Mary could remain a virgin for all those years until God put in his rod and shot his wad.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

God can't be proven and its supposed to be that way. We are saved by faith. Believing. That is his command. That we believe and trust in Him. He is righteous, good, no evil whatsoever, promises eternal life, where no offending thing can even enter into the body, as opposed to this world which is full of sin, suffering, etc. God created man with free will, man sinned against God. God separated himself from man and cursed the earth. Sin also brings forth death. And because every person falls under sin, all die. "The wages of sin is death." Our sins separated us from our God. Separation from God is darkness. It's death. BUT!! He saw all this beforehand and made a plan to save us from this. Which we all have access to til this day, so that we will be without excuse. Jesus came down and died for the sins of the world. He who believes that Jesus died for their sins are now free from their punishment of sin. Because it was laid on Jesus. And now you believe, and its counted unto you towards righteousness. We are now free from the torment of hell (whoever believes) because of Jesus, why do you think he wants praise. He saved us from being fucked! Now why is it this way? I don't know, but it is what it is. We could have all been fucked from the beginning but the point is he made a way of salvation. So whatever charges you have against God for wherever you end up is not on Him. All laid out in the Bible. The written word of God.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

2000 years ago some lunatics, or geniuses, depends on how you look at it since they controlled everyone with this shit, came up with this shit for you to follow their way of life and somehow it manage to survive 2000 years later where you would think people would be intelligent to think for themselves and reject the idea of some imaginary being overlooking us all and judging us whether we deserve to live in his pure heaven and if we dont then we apparently deserve to be punished for eternity.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> God can't be proven and its supposed to be that way. We are saved by faith. Believing. That is his command. That we believe and trust in Him. He is righteous, good, no evil whatsoever, promises eternal life, where no offending thing can even enter into the body, as opposed to this world which is full of sin, suffering, etc. God created man with free will, man sinned against God. God separated himself from man and cursed the earth. Sin also brings forth death. And because every person falls under sin, all die. "The wages of sin is death." Our sins separated us from our God. Separation from God is darkness. It's death. BUT!! He saw all this beforehand and made a plan to save us from this. Which we all have access to til this day, so that we will be without excuse. Jesus came down and died for the sins of the world. He who believes that Jesus died for their sins are now free from their punishment of sin. Because it was laid on Jesus. And now you believe, and its counted unto you towards righteousness. We are now free from the torment of hell (whoever believes) because of Jesus, why do you think he wants praise. He saved us from being fucked! Now why is it this way? I don't know, but it is what it is. We could have all been fucked from the beginning but the point is he made a way of salvation. So whatever charges you have against God for wherever you end up is not on Him. All laid out in the Bible. The written word of God.


you're brainwashed. You're no different than the north koreans who are crying about Kim Jong. He holds you back, judges you for eternal torture, lays impossible rules upon us, kills billions of people - even though he has the power to stop it, implements the power of fear to curse you into believing him

sounds like a dictator to me


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> 2000 years ago some lunatics, or geniuses, depends on how you look at it since they controlled everyone with this shit, came up with this shit for you to follow their way of life and somehow it manage to survive 2000 years later where you would think people would be intelligent to think for themselves and reject the idea of some imaginary being overlooking us all and judging us whether we deserve to live in his pure heaven and if we dont then we apparently deserve to be punished for eternity.


*

It's pretty genius actually. Look at it. Creating a religion based on fear is an easy way to control people. The money fucking floods in. I wish I had thought of it.*


----------



## CM Dealer (May 27, 2008)

You know what L. Ron Hubbard said, "The easiest way to make a million dollars is to start a religion".


----------



## KatManDo (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't like threads like this because the arguments on both sides of the conversation gets heated, typically neither side will be swayed in their decision or though process. So why discuss things with words, why not just live your beliefs, and if it catches someones attention great, if not well great because... Look at it like this "If they don't see me in everything you do, then they won't see me in anything you do"... Most of what we say is lip service anyhow.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Adam lived for 930 years and Eve lived for 929 years.


RELIGION IS TOTALLY BELIVABLE


----------



## Dub (Dec 4, 2008)

LadyCroft said:


> *
> 
> It's pretty genius actually. Look at it. Creating a religion based on fear is an easy way to control people. The money fucking floods in. I wish I had thought of it.*


LAMBERTIAN


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Where did the people come from that Cain found after killing his brother Abel? *


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

SUCCUBI


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Catalanotto said:


> Adam lived for 930 years and Eve lived for 929 years.
> 
> 
> RELIGION IS TOTALLY BELIVABLE


HEY! I'm 500 years old and I have a talking hamster so I find your comment offensive!


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *
> 
> It's pretty genius actually. Look at it. Creating a religion based on fear is an easy way to control people. The money fucking floods in. I wish I had thought of it.*


If Tebow was smart he would have said he believes in his own fucked up religion. It wouldn't have matter how absurd it was, people would have followed it after watching him pull off those miracle comebacks and fourth quarter performances. :side:


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

You guys watch WWE programming and you're calling us brainwashed. Face facts the whole world has been brainwashing your minds since you were born. Born, school, work, retire, dead. Like yep thats it, that's life. Wait til you see your spirit's state after your body dies. Then lets see how confident you are in your beliefs.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

The difference between evolution and Creationism is that evolution is real and Creationism is not real. Creationism is based on the Bible that says that God created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Clearly the world was not created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago, so therefore the Bible is just plain wrong. If the world were merely 10,000 years old then how do you explain the dinosaurs that are millions of years old? We've discovered life fossils that date back billions of years. Even the skeletons of modern humans date back before the time of Adam and Eve.

If we were to believe the Bible, then we would have to believe the Earth was created before the stars, which is the wrong order. If the stars were created 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. That's because if a star was further away than 10,000 light years, the light from that star wouldn't have got here yet. Our galaxy alone is about 100,000 light years across. If the Bible were true, we wouldn't be able to see but 1/10th the way across our own galaxy. We surely wouldn't be able to see other galaxies or galactic clusters or know that the universe is expanding.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> If Tebow was smart he would have said he believes in his own fucked up religion. It wouldn't have matter how absurd it was, people would have followed it after watching him pull off those miracle comebacks and fourth quarter performances. :side:


*sheeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiit 











Even when Jesus loses.... he wins!
*


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Nitemare said:


> You can post all the stupid pictures you want, it doesn't change that there is a possibility that there is a creator -- a "God" -- and that our science will never be able to determine if he exists.


And saying aliens caused it holds as much evidence as God. As does a matrix like scenario. As does a massive Panda called Skippy creating everything.

There is no point even considering something that holds such a small chance of being correct.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Yeah, I was right, we're starting to go in circles. 

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing"


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 20, 2006)

Catalanotto said:


> Adam lived for 930 years and Eve lived for 929 years.
> 
> RELIGION IS TOTALLY BELIVABLE


Well Yoda was 950 :side:



LadyCroft said:


> *Where did the people come from that Cain found after killing his brother Abel? *


If we are to believe the Adam and Eve tale, how did humanity progress if they only had sons, and would we not all be related?


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

On a less serious note: http://www.cracked.com/article_19597_8-gratuitously-violent-horror-movie-scenes-from-bible.html


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

sXe_Maverick said:


> If we are to believe the Adam and Eve tale, how did humanity progress if they only had sons, and would we not all be related?



To an extent we are more related than you think. To be born we need to come from 2 people, now with the exception of people who have siblings if you count backwards to the number of people there are more than there could have ever been. Meaning we do have some relation.


----------



## Notmarkingforanyon (Jan 3, 2012)

I love religious debates, they make more sense than a religious person proving a Scientist that he's wrong.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> God can't be proven and its supposed to be that way. We are saved by faith. Believing. That is his command. That we believe and trust in Him. He is righteous, good, no evil whatsoever, promises eternal life, where no offending thing can even enter into the body, as opposed to this world which is full of sin, suffering, etc. God created man with free will, man sinned against God. God separated himself from man and cursed the earth. Sin also brings forth death. And because every person falls under sin, all die. "The wages of sin is death." Our sins separated us from our God. Separation from God is darkness. It's death. BUT!! He saw all this beforehand and made a plan to save us from this. Which we all have access to til this day, so that we will be without excuse. Jesus came down and died for the sins of the world. He who believes that Jesus died for their sins are now free from their punishment of sin. Because it was laid on Jesus. And now you believe, and its counted unto you towards righteousness. We are now free from the torment of hell (whoever believes) because of Jesus, why do you think he wants praise. He saved us from being fucked! Now why is it this way? I don't know, but it is what it is. We could have all been fucked from the beginning but the point is he made a way of salvation. So whatever charges you have against God for wherever you end up is not on Him. All laid out in the Bible. The written word of God.


----------



## haribo (Feb 4, 2005)

Nitemare said:


> it doesn't change that there is a possibility that there is a creator -- a "God" -- and that our science will never be able to determine if he exists.


Over 400 posts, and this is about as accurate as this thread will get.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Weakest argument of all time. Embarrassing really.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

@ Hairbo Yep.

Entertainment value abound though.

Arguments don't have to be strong to be true.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> @ Hairbo Yep.
> 
> Entertainment value abound though.
> 
> Arguments don't have to be strong to be true.


In this case they pretty much need to. I mean that's one big assumption that Science will never figure out.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Yeah in this case it absolutely does. Ridiculous to think otherwise.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

"Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist." 


What is this shit ?!!! ^^^^


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Nitemare said:


> Actually, more people care what I think and post than most people on this site. Combined. #run?


Not really. :sad:


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Let people have their beliefs. People that go on about how believing in God is stupid are just as ridiculous as people that try to shove the notion of religion and God down your throat. Human beings aren't all drawn by science and the assumption that if you can't prove something, it doesn't exist. There isn't anything wrong with that and there isn't anything wrong with refusing to believe in God either.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

There is absolutely something wrong with that. I'm not expecting you to agree, but it's not the sign of a healthy mind to just ignore observed, tangible evidence in favour of blind faith (an irrational and illogical response to a lack of knowledge/understanding). Also, this is a discussion thread, so it will be discussed. Might be worth noting down who started the thread, too.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

I'm not stating that it can't be discussed but considering that we are different from each other, doesn't it make sense that some of us believe in faith more than science?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

It makes sense that there ARE people who believe in faith more than science, given the history of mankind. It's just an extremely irrational, and limiting, thought process.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Because it doesn't make sense to you.


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Atheist Panda said:


> There is absolutely something wrong with that. I'm not expecting you to agree, but it's not the sign of a healthy mind to just ignore observed, tangible evidence in favour of blind faith (an irrational and illogical response to a lack of knowledge/understanding). Also, this is a discussion thread, so it will be discussed. Might be worth noting down who started the thread, too.


But this all from with in your own belief system. You could appear just as irrational and illogical to another belief system. Fucking blind as fuck. All belief systems are based on observation, the only difference is what they say is causing the unseen.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> But this all from with in your own belief system. You could appear just as irrational and illogical to another belief system. Fucking blind as fuck. All belief systems are based on observation, the only difference is what they say is causing the unseen.


Exactly!


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> But this all from with in your own belief system. You could appear just as irrational and illogical to another belief system. Fucking blind as fuck. All belief systems are based on observation, the only difference is what they say is causing the unseen.


I don't have a belief system.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> But this all from with in your own belief system. You could appear just as irrational and illogical to another belief system. Fucking blind as fuck. *All belief systems are based on observation, the only difference is what they say is causing the unseen.*


no not at all, most belief (faith) is entirely the opposite. it's what makes a 'faith' a faith.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

DR JUPES said:


> no not at all, most belief (faith) is entirely the opposite. it's what makes a 'faith' a faith.


Wow, you just completely misunderstood what he was saying.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

what did i misunderstand


----------



## Stax Classic (May 27, 2010)

Belief system does not have to necessarily mean a religion.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Religion is always meant to explain what we see. 

Why the sun rises. 

Why we are the only intelligent species on earth. 

Why it's "wrong" to do certain things. 

Where earth and everything else _came from_. 




Are you serious? Are these questions not the very purpose of all religion?


----------



## gothmog 3rd (Dec 26, 2010)

I don't believe there is a God, I know it. In fact, it is me.


----------



## Seb (Jun 13, 2007)

Not interested in getting into a fully-fledged debate with anyone, but anyone who believes in a mythical, omnipotent sky wizard based on nothing but blind faith is naive or has the mindset of a child. I also doubt anyone could put a realistic estimate on how many millions of people have been killed in the name of religion. Thankfully, Christianity and religion in general is dying at least in this country. Lastly; "Just because you can't disprove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is the dumbest argument ever. It could be applied to literally anything.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Cerbs said:


> Religion is always meant to explain what we see.
> 
> Why the sun rises.
> 
> ...


The purpose of religion is to control people; to control how they think and how they act.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Kabuto420 said:


> The purpose of religion is to control people; to control how they think and how they act.


_Organized_ religion is.

But I seriously doubt that's how religion in general started. I'm sure honest people were once truly curious about questions they had no answer for and explained it the best way their limited scientific knowledge and imaginations could. 

But yeah, pretty sure it didn't take long after that before someone realized he could have sex with every woman in town in it was the creed of a God he made up.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

Haystacks Calhoun said:


> Belief system does not have to necessarily mean a religion.


Belief system isn't necessarily observation either or in fact the vast majority of our beliefs are not in fact from observing. this was my point.


----------



## MovedManc (Mar 29, 2010)

Kabuto420 said:


> The purpose of religion is to control people; to control how they think and how they act.


Even as an atheist I think this is just wrong.

I'm not going to say that religion hasn't been used to control people, because it quite obviously has, but that's not its purpose. It has also been used with great effect to add structure to people's lives and to communities as a whole. It can also give people hope in the most horrible situations imaginable. But for me, its main "purpose" seems to be to enable people to get their head around the insane chaos of the universe.

I think that there are a lot of people out there that just can't handle the possibility that murderers/rapists etc could commit horrible acts and not be judged or even found out (especially if they've committed said act against either themselves or a loved one), I think that there are many people that would fall apart at the prospect of a life or world without a specific purpose (even if the purpose is undefined/unknown) and I think that there are billions of people out there that just can't comprehend the nothingness of a death without an afterlife of some sort. I think people would even prefer the option of hell or purgatory over a complete stop to their existence.

I remember hearing Ricky Gervais say in an interview once that if he could believe in an afterlife/god he would, and I completely agree. It would be a much more comforting prospect to think that upon my death I'll be reunited with lost loved ones and that my consciousness will continue forever, but as much as I would like something like that, I don't see how what _I_ would like comes into the equation.
Unfortunately far too many people intertwine beliefs with hopes. That's why, if you ask people what they believe happens after death, they give you an answer that should have started with "I would like..." rather than "I believe..."


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Seb said:


> Not interested in getting into a fully-fledged debate with anyone, but anyone who believes in a mythical, omnipotent sky wizard based on nothing but blind faith is naive or has the mindset of a child. I also doubt anyone could put a realistic estimate on how many millions of people have been killed in the name of religion. Thankfully, Christianity and religion in general is dying at least in this country. Lastly; "Just because you can't disprove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is the dumbest argument ever. It could be applied to literally anything.


Yep.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Cerbs said:


> _Organized_ religion is.


Organized religion controlling people is more widespread but that does not mean someone who believes in religion in the privacy of his own home is not being controlled by it. His thoughts and actions are being influenced by an outside force and his thoughts are not entirely his own. I am not talking about being spiritual either. There is a difference between being religious and being spiritual.



Cerbs said:


> But I seriously doubt that's how religion in general started. I'm sure honest people were once truly curious about questions they had no answer for and explained it the best way their limited scientific knowledge and imaginations could.


Maybe religion by it's general definition was not started to control people but organized religion certainly was. It was created by smart people to control the minds of the weak. People were very superstitious and fearful back in those days. They could easily be controlled by the religious con men. Fear is a great motivator to the weak-minded.



MovedManc said:


> It has also been used with great effect to add structure to people's lives and to communities as a whole.


That's control. Not to say it always has to be evil but it is still control.



MovedManc said:


> It can also give people hope in the most horrible situations imaginable. But for me, its main "purpose" seems to be to enable people to get their head around the insane chaos of the universe.
> 
> I think that there are a lot of people out there that just can't handle the possibility that murderers/rapists etc could commit horrible acts and not be judged or even found out (especially if they've committed said act against either themselves or a loved one), I think that there are many people that would fall apart at the prospect of a life or world without a specific purpose (even if the purpose is undefined/unknown) and I think that there are billions of people out there that just can't comprehend the nothingness of a death without an afterlife of some sort. I think people would even prefer the option of hell or purgatory over a complete stop to their existence.


More control of the weak-minded. Lots of people simply do not have the brain power needed to think outside the box. Or they are too afraid of death, so they believe in a fairy tale because it gives them comfort. Entertaining the thought that once you are dead, that's the end of you, it scares the shit out of a lot of people. They would rather believe in a lie than face their own fears.

As the great George Carlin once said, "I wanna live. I don’t wanna die. That’s the whole meaning of life: Not dying! I figured that shit out by myself in the third grade."


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Cerbs said:


> Religion is always meant to explain what we see.
> 
> Why the sun rises.
> 
> ...


It should be noted that religion was wrong on all these questions.

These questions are better handled by philosophers and scientists. Fortunately, philosophers show up pretty early once civilizations began to pop up. Unfortunately, their ideas were lost for hundreds of years. The Catholic Church held us back for perhaps half a millennium. It would've been in everyone's benefit if guys like Newton and Galileo could've been around 500 years prior to when they actually were. We'd all have jetpacks by now for sure.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

MrMister said:


> It should be noted that religion was wrong on all these questions.


Obviously. 

Great philosophers and scientists weren't exactly available when Mesopotamia was the capital of civilization.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Right, but they do show up with the Greeks. Well philosophers do; true scientists won't be around until after the Church nearly ruins the world. China had some as well. Buddha most definitely was a philosopher and not really a religious figure.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

The Romans and Greeks were the ultimate pioneers of religious governing. I'm sure others tried it before them, but jesus christ, they had it _down_.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

The Greeks also started Western Philosophy.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

The Romans were amazing at it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

MrMister said:


> It should be noted that religion was wrong on all these questions.
> 
> These questions are better handled by philosophers and scientists. Fortunately, philosophers show up pretty early once civilizations began to pop up. Unfortunately, their ideas were lost for hundreds of years. *The Catholic Church held us back for perhaps half a millennium.* It would've been in everyone's benefit if guys like Newton and Galileo could've been around 500 years prior to when they actually were. We'd all have jetpacks by now for sure.


_Yeah._


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I see the early Romans more as brutal conquerors than religious zealots. It was only later when they adopted Christianity that they fucked over the western world.

edit: Still, you're not wrong that religion tried to answer the hard questions at first.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Must have been amazing to be a Roman back in the day; you could walk anywhere in the World and nobody would dare touch you for fear of crushing retaliation.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

This is directed at Atheist Panda... okay, you might not believe in "God", fine, but what is your opinion of various supernatural phenomena, for example, ghosts?


----------



## Silver C (Mar 8, 2005)

MrMister said:


> Buddha most definitely was a philosopher and not really a religious figure.


Indeed. However, his philosophy was so flawed that it was easily defeated in debates by pUrva mimAmsA and VedAntA schools of Indian philosophical thought. Which explains why Buddhism has spread to other countries and evolved into a form different than what Buddha himself preached.

As an example, consider the MadhyAmika school of Buddhism. MAdhyAmika was the foremost disciple of Buddha. He proposed that everything is unreal, or shUnyam (null/void). Not even Knowledge has an existence according to this school of Buddhism. 

This is refuted by his rivals as follows: If knowledge is also not real, then what does the mAdhyAmikan use to prove his philosophy? If he uses knowledge, he has to A) Admit the reality of knowledge. If so, the ver point he is trying to prove, which is sarva-shUnyavAda (voidness of everything) is defeated since knowledge is admitted as real, or B) If he says knowledge is not real, he then uses an unreal entity to prove something, which makes his philosophy unreal as well!

So many flaws in Buddhism. But to the mordern world wallowing in blind faith, Buddhism appears intelligent because it simply makes an attempt at mental gymnastics. Three other schools of thought tried to overcome the flaws of MAdhyAmika, but these were also weak.

This is an interesting thread. As regards Blind Faith, a cornerstone of Indian philosophical thought is that it is utterly rejected. Perception through senses and Inference is given full validity in their respective spheres. Consider the following example of a typical form of dialectics:

Atheist - I do not believe in God because such an entity cannot be sensed by sense organs.

Theist - I believe in God because we find that in practical life, every effect has a cause. A pot has a cause in the potter. Similarly, the Universe must have a cause in the intelligent creator. 

Both these arguments are not valid. There are several objects that cannot be sensed by organs of perception. Ultrasonic sound, dual nature of light, etc. These are known to exist only by using appropriate scientific tools to detect them. You cannot sense them otherwise. Furthermore, a single object may be perceived differently by different individuals...which makes the sense organs as 'valid only within their own spheres'. As long as perception is applicable, it is given full validity.

Now, the believer's argument is also wrong. An entity such as a pot is made by a potter. It also requires the use of a machine. It requires mud, which is the substance needed to make the pot. Hence, we wind up with multiple causes - material (mud), efficient (machine) and instrumental (potter)!!

So, the believer's argument raises so many questions - Is God the sole cause of the Universe? If so, what type of cause is he, material, efficient or instrumental as in the pot analogy? How do we know he is sentient? How do we know he is actually 'he' and not 'she' or 'it'? Does God have a body? Does God's actions in creation bind God to some form of result, as per the adage, 'as you sow, so shall you reap'? Why does so much diversity exist in the Universe? Has God himself become the Universe? 

We can even use the believer's argument as follows - If all things have a cause, why need god? We can say atoms are the cause and what we see is the effect, ie, the Universe!

...and so on.

The athiest is half right. Sense organs must never be contradicted if they perceive something definitely. If someone says, 'The moon is made of green cheese', he is wrong, because perception shows that the moon is not green cheese. But the same perception also shows the limitation of sense organs in perceiving things without proper tools. So, the Believer's argument that some things are beyond perception also has merit. But neither are right. Blind faith is useless. 

Philosophically, there is a way out of this mess. However, that is for serious learners of Indian thought and not needed here. This is just for fun!


----------



## Ketamine (Jan 2, 2012)

I am an atheist for not being part of any religion but i believe in god. What does that make me?


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Because it doesn't make sense to you.


Because he's above it? Not sure what you're trying to get at. Anyone who has truthfully read the bible; would NOT be religious. Can pretty much guarantee that.



> But this all from with in your own belief system. You could appear just as irrational and illogical to another belief system. Fucking blind as fuck. All belief systems are based on observation, the only difference is what they say is causing the unseen.


lol. You sound like a fucking afterschool special trying to sound intelligent but ultimately failing. 

Faith is based on the unknown, and the lack of understanding. So pretty much everything you said is wrong.



> But I seriously doubt that's how religion in general started. I'm sure honest people were once truly curious about questions they had no answer for and explained it the best way their limited scientific knowledge and imaginations could.


Its how christianity started. The greeks however did it right. 



> These questions are better handled by philosophers and scientists. Fortunately, philosophers show up pretty early once civilizations began to pop up. Unfortunately, their ideas were lost for hundreds of years. The Catholic Church held us back for perhaps half a millennium. It would've been in everyone's benefit if guys like Newton and Galileo could've been around 500 years prior to when they actually were. We'd all have jetpacks by now for sure.


Yep. The greeks had just about everything right, and the Romans were smart to steal from the greeks. Then the catholics came around and made us start all over. Even things like theatre were destroyed by the catholics.



> I am an atheist for not being part of any religion but i believe in god. What does that make me?


An idiot. 

because if you believe in god, you're going against his will and are going to hell, plus you believe in god. You lose either way


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Can we just lock this thread or move it to rants so I can amuse myself? thank you


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> 2000 years ago some lunatics, or geniuses, depends on how you look at it since they controlled everyone with this shit, came up with this shit for you to follow their way of life and somehow it manage to survive 2000 years later where you would think people would be intelligent to think for themselves and reject the idea of some imaginary being overlooking us all and judging us whether we deserve to live in his pure heaven and if we dont then we apparently deserve to be punished for eternity.


I think it all comes down to fear of death and the unknown, coupled with the natural human desire to believe we have some sort of higher purpose. It's kind of depressing to go through life with the knowledge that a) when I die I will disintegrate into nothingness and b) if my life is not completely forgotten 100 years after it ends, it sure as shit will be forgotten in a thousand years, much less a million years. It's difficult for human beings as emotional creatures to accept this, so they create this God delusion (apologies to Dawkins) in order to skip gayly through life believing a magical space wizard will reward us after death with a Hawaiian vacation and reuniting with all our lost loves.

Statistics show religious people are substantially happier than those who aren't. Well, of course they're happier: ignorance is bliss.

A life spent preparing for a second life that isn't coming is a completely wasted life. I'd rather put all my effort into enjoying and making the most out of the one life that I have.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

how does one rate happiness on a scale, cynic? I'm not sure I trust your stats.

I dont think its sad I will cease to exist. Perfection would suck, for eternity at least. For I imagine heaven would too have to follow gods rules, which gets rid of any happiness, imo. Just a higher form of dictatorship ina more enclosed space

Perfection to some could be pretentious crap, or it could be happiness with ones they love. Its too subjective to be a good thing


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm happy that I won't be immortal, fuck that shit, I'd get bored after awhile.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Atheist Panda said:


>


Lol i love how atheists can be so convinced in something they have no clue about. Do you KNOW for a fact there is no God or do you THINK there is no God? Answering truthfully we all know your answer, yet you act like you KNOW the truth, when you don't really know anything. Foolish. But yeah i guess you would same about this side.. I guess we'll see.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

For some reason, I felt the need to post this vid.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Lol i love how atheists can be so convinced in something they have no clue about. Do you KNOW for a fact there is no God or do you THINK there is no God? Answering truthfully we all know your answer, yet you act like you KNOW the truth, when you don't really know anything. Foolish. But yeah i guess you would same about this side.. I guess we'll see.


replace atheist
insert christian

Only atheists have proof, you have a corrupt system/book

Had tolkein been a higher-up and born in those times, you'd be worshipping gandalf. (Not a bad thing, gandalf is the boss)


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> I'm happy that I won't be immortal, fuck that shit, I'd get bored after awhile.


Would you be bored if the ability to be bored did not exist? Heaven isn't another earth, we are not held to the same standards as we are here.. it can't even be comprehended by the human mind, only if we had the mind of God could we understand. But he gives us insight into how things shall be. We don't know everything, we just know what is given for us to know through the scriptures. "What we shall be has not yet been made known, but we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope purify themselves, just as he is pure." The unbeliever can laugh now cry later. Prepare to meet your maker.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Hiplop said:


> replace atheist
> insert christian
> 
> Only atheists have proof, you have a corrupt system/book
> ...


What proof do you have? Lets say when you die you are standing in front of God and he asks you "Where is the proof you have that i do not exist." What will you answer? Something tells me your "proof" won't stand in that judgment.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

MacDanny 6 said:


> What proof do you have? Lets say when you die you are standing in front of God and he asks you "Where is the proof you have that i do not exist." What will you answer? Something tells me your "proof" won't stand in that judgment.


This is fucking hilarious. A pro-religious nut asking for proof. :lmao


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Get me a scientist to explain to me where the human spirit came from. All our emotions, feelings, our intelligence. Our minds are so powerful. We were created in the image of God! God created man in his own image, we faulted, theres a set up to get right with him again. But we put him aside and we think we are better and higher up than Him. Just shows how evil we are. Thats sin, we're all guilty.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Kabuto420 said:


> This is fucking hilarious. A pro-religious nut asking for proof. :lmao


Mind you i don't go to church at all and i don't consider myself "religious". I just read the bible. Call me a believer.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Mind you i don't go to church at all and i don't consider myself "religious". I just read the bible. Call me a believer.


Ahhhhhhahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You read the bible and you believe that bullshit?! C'mon, be honest, are you trolling? *snickers*


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Get me a scientist to explain to me where the human spirit came from. All our emotions, feelings, our intelligence. Our minds are so powerful. We were created in the image of God! God created man in his own image, we faulted, theres a set up to get right with him again. But we put him aside and we think we are better and higher up than Him. Just shows how evil we are. Thats sin, we're all guilty.


what the fuck is human spirit?

Our emotions and feelings are due to our increased intelligence, which came from evolution, which has tons of proof behind and has been accepted by most people that arent completely ignorant. Scientists have explained why our minds are so powerful, some, like you, unfortunately got left behind it seems.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

You were born into this world, you had no say in it, no choice of who you are or who your family was, you are a creation. Stop acting like you own the place. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. You are from beneath, I am from above. He who is from above is above all." Get in your place my friend.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> what the fuck is human spirit?
> 
> Our emotions and feelings are due to our increased intelligence, which came from evolution, which has tons of proof behind and has been accepted by most people that are completely ignorant. Scientists have explained why our minds are so powerful, some, like you, unfortunately got left behind it seems.


Sigh.


----------



## MovedManc (Mar 29, 2010)

Ketamine said:


> I am an atheist for not being part of any religion but i believe in god. What does that make me?


It makes you not an atheist . Atheism isn't about rejecting organised religion, it's the lack of a belief in any sort of creator/god.
If you believe in any sort of god, even if it's separate to any other religious belief in the world, then you're a theist.



MacDanny 6 said:


> What proof do you have? Lets say when you die you are standing in front of God and he asks you "Where is the proof you have that i do not exist." What will you answer? Something tells me your "proof" won't stand in that judgment.


The burden of proof should always fall on people who believe, not those who don't.
If I say that Megan Fox has just pulled up in front of my house, naked & sitting in a Bugatti Veyron that she's just bought for me would it be up to me to prove that it is true or other people to prove that it isn't?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Hiplop said:


> you're brainwashed.


Quite the opposite. You atheists have been brainwashed by Evolution. And anyone who laughs at the Bible should be laughing at themselves for believing in such hogwash. Micro-evolution is proven (variations within *kind*) Macro-evolution is not.

The reason why Evolution is a theory and always will be is because it is based on forensic evidence, not empirical evidence.

Forensic evidence is based on assumptions so no, it's not a fact or "proven".

Bottom line is believing in that garbage takes a bigger leap of faith than believing in God. The reason you can take that leap of faith easier is because you've been brainwashed by a satanic lies that are from the pits of hell. You serve death, not life, so like the Bible teaches, Christians will be hated and vilified for their belief.

I urge you to accept Christ as your lord and savior before it's too late. Please.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> I urge you to accept Christ as your lord and savior before it's too late. Please.


Christ? No way. I believe in Buddha.

So what makes your deity more real than mine?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Quite the opposite. You atheists have been brainwashed by Evolution. And anyone who laughs at the Bible should be laughing at themselves for believing in such hogwash. Micro-evolution is proven (variations within *kind*) Macro-evolution is not.
> 
> The reason why Evolution is a theory and always will be is because it is based on forensic evidence, not empirical evidence.
> 
> ...


This is ridiculous hogwash garbage. This argument says that believing in a fairy tale is less of a leap than believing in proven science.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Quite the opposite. You atheists have been brainwashed by Evolution.


What the fuck does evolution have to do with atheism?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Kabuto420 said:


> This is ridiculous hogwash garbage. This argument says that believing in a fairy tale is less of a leap than believing in proven science.


Fairy tale? fpalm

Proven science? fpalmfpalm



Evolution (Macro-evolution) is *NOT* proven!





> What the fuck does evolution have to do with atheism?


Nice straw-man.

The fact is that atheists put their faith in the teachings of Evolution and just accept what they're taught in the schools. Otherwise an atheist wouldn't have an argument for why they don't believe in a creator.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Evolution (Macro-evolution) is *NOT* proven!


Oh you have got to be kidding me.















Poltergeist said:


> Nice straw-man.
> 
> The fact is that atheists put their faith in the teachings of Evolution and just accept what they're taught in the schools. Otherwise an atheist wouldn't have an argument for why they don't believe in a creator.


Oh I find this a funny one. The arguement that people have a faith in science.

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. If evolution is proved wrong I will change my mind. I'll be shocked, embaressed and wrong. I will run through the strees proclaiming "It's a miracle, we don't evolve!" I will remove all the genetic algorithms I have created during my career because despite their effectiveness and that they work there must be a fault in them if evolution cant be done. The case is that it is not believing evolution that is a problem, but understanding it seems to be for some people.

Also no straw man, millions of atheists dont believe in evolution.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

fergieska said:


> Oh you have got to be kidding me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL!!! What you've just demonstrated is exactly what Micro-evolution is. Variation within kind. Changes in color is one prime example. (Oh by the way, Macro-evolution also asserts that changes are made by *random* mutations. Your example is _hardly_ *random*)

Why isn't there one transitional fossil? You can't show me one. If macro-evolution is true there would be many transitional fossils.

Evolution cannot be tested, repeated, and observed, therefor it's a belief, or faith, system.

Maybe some atheists don't believe in evolution, but just as there are different types of "Christians" (or people who claim to be Christians but are actually deceived, eg. Westboro Baptist Church) there are different types of atheists. If you understood colloquial language you would know I am referring to the evolutionist atheist.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> LOL!!! What you've just demonstrated is exactly what Micro-evolution is. Variation within kind. Changes in color is one prime example.


Actually it shows that to say microevolution can occur but Macro cant is moronic. It's like beleiving in inches but not feet.


Poltergeist said:


> Why isn't there one transitional fossil? You can't show me one. If macro-evolution is true there would be many transitional fossils.


Every fossil is a transitional fossil, evolution doesnt have an end point.


Poltergeist said:


> Evolution cannot be tested, repeated, and observed, therefor it's a belief, or faith, system.


Incorrect.


Poltergeist said:


> Maybe some Atheist's don't believe in evolution, but just as there are different types of "Christians" (or people who claim to be Christians but are actually deceived, eg. Westboro Baptist Church) there are different types of atheists. If you understood colloquial language you would know I am referring to the evolutionist atheist.


The "evolutionist atheist" is a made up term. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, in fact the catholic church accept evolution as a fact as do many other christians.

Also people like the Westboro are still christians, they are still following the bible. It is just that the bible is full of contradictions and people pick and choose what to follow from it. The westboro baptist view point is more similar to traditional christian views than your modern chirstian's views are today.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> Actually it shows that to say microevolution can occur but Macro cant is moronic. It's like beleiving in inches but not feet.


Wrong. A good example of micro-evolution is to look at the biological family of animals "Canidae". This includes wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, and domesticated dogs. These are all resulted from variation within the same kind. No matter how much time you add, you're always going to get the same type of animal. It does not eventually "branch off" into some other kind of biological family.

Your analogies are very basic and can't be compared with an extremely complex issue such as evolution. 



> Every fossil is a transitional fossil


fpalm



> Incorrect.


We can't go back the alleged *BILLIONS* of years ago and observe the *slow* process of the evolution of species happening, therefor you must have faith that it *just happened*.

As I said, it's based on forensic evidence, not empirical evidence. Forensics are based on assumptions, therefor you must have faith that man slowly *evolved* from a primate.

Belief in the big bang, formation of earth and the moon, and abiogenesis take even larger leaps of faith.



> The "evolutionist atheist" is a made up term. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, in fact the catholic church accept evolution as a fact as do many other christians.
> 
> Also people like the Westboro are still christians, they are still following the bible. It is just that the bible is full of contradictions and people pick and choose what to follow from it. The westboro baptist view point is more similar to traditional christian views than your modern chirstian's views are today.


It doesn't matter if it's a made up term. I'm using it to describe the atheists that I'm referring to. Atheism in general is a belief that is _generally_ fueled by so-called science.

And it doesn't matter what the WBC calls themselves. They are rejected by the true body of Christ and are not true "Christians". You ask why? It would take me hours to go in depth and I really don't have the time but basically they aren't born again, which is what the true body of Christ is. "Born-again Christianity" is what it should be called so people don't get confused but unfortunately we're grouped with false prophets. The true body of Christ takes the Bible as a whole, WBC does not.

"*As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." - James 2:26*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

I encourage you to watch this video if you have the time:

http://www.drdino.com/seminar-part-1-the-age-of-the-earth/


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Wrong. A good example of micro-evolution is to look at the biological family of animals "Canidae". This includes wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals, and domesticated dogs. These are all resulted from variation within the same kind. No matter how much time you add, you're always going to get the same type of animal. It does not. eventually "branch off" into some other kind of biological family.


You do not understand what Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution is if you genuinely think like this. You are trying to create some magic line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Dont just look at the colour change of the image I provided read it too.


Poltergeist said:


> Your analogies are very basic and can't be compared with an extremely complex issue such as evolution.


They are basic because what you're stating is incorrect on a very simple level.



Poltergeist said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a made up term. I'm using it to describe the atheists that I'm referring to. Atheism in general is a belief that is _generally_ fueled by so-called science.


Atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack of a belief. The negation of something is not the same as what it negated. A positive is not a negative.


Poltergeist said:


> And it doesn't matter what the WBC calls themselves. They are rejected by the true body of Christ and are not true "Christians".


You've spoken to jesus?


Poltergeist said:


> You ask why?


I didn't.


Poltergeist said:


> It would take me hours to go in depth and I really don't have the time but basically they aren't born again, which is what the true body of Christ is. "Born-again Christianity" is what it should be called so people don't get confused but unfortunately we're grouped with false prophets. The true body of Christ takes the Bible as a whole, WBC does not.


Oh but they do. If you take the bible as a whole then you follow the laws of the old testament too.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> You do not understand what Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution is if you genuinely think like this. You are trying to create some magic line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Dont just look at the colour change of the image I provided read it too.


I used to be an atheist. I've studied evolution in depth and it's hogwash. I'm not trying to create some magic line, the fact is that "magic line" is the fact that you don't get a cat from a dog or vice versa (just as an example)

Even assuming macro-evolution were possible (it isn't), you still have to prove the age of the earth, which can't be done because of the reliance on forensic evidence and erroneous dating methods that rely on assumptions. Put that up against the mountains of evidence for a roughly 6,000 year old earth and you'll see why believing the Earth is *billions* of years old is absolutely laughable.



> They are basic because what you're stating is incorrect on a very simple level.


Whether I'm incorrect or not, you can't provide analogies such as that. It's like trying to argue that since 2+2 = 4 that we *must* know the *exact* distance from Earth to the nearest star.




> Atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack of a belief. The negation of something is not the same as what it negated. A positive is not a negative.


I beg to differ. Atheism is more of a belief that a God doesn't exist than a lack of belief because it takes faith to believe so. It's religious in nature therefor it's a belief.



> You've spoken to jesus?


lolwut? I gave you a scripture from the Bible stating that faith without works(deeds) is dead. WBC is an exact contradiction to the teachings of Christ and how Christians are supposed to witness. Not only that, but they claim that God "hates" people. This is totally not biblical.





> I didn't.


Regardless, I'm still going to explain why. 



> Oh but they do. If you take the bible as a whole then you follow the laws of the old testament too.


Wrong. We take the Bible as a whole in that we believe in everything the Bible says. However if you've studied the Bible (which evidently by your sheer ignorance about the Bible that you've demonstrated, you haven't), you'd realize that the Old Testament was written for the people back in that day.

Now, many things are carried over from the Old Testament into the New Testament, however, things such as tithing are not carried over.

You obviously don't understand much about the Bible so you can't really have an intelligent discussion about it.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> *HEY POLTERGEIST*


You missed my post. 

I believe in Buddha.

Are you going to insist that Jesus exists and Buddha doesn't?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> I used to be an atheist.


Uh-huh.


Poltergeist said:


> I've studied evolution in depth and it's hogwash. I'm not trying to create some magic line, the fact is that "magic line" is the fact that you don't get a cat from a dog or vice versa (just as an example)


You havent studied evolution in depth because you keep proving that you don't actually know what it is. Evolution is not the process of a cat from a dog.


Poltergeist said:


> Even assuming macro-evolution were possible (it isn't), you still have to prove the age of the earth, which can't be done because of the reliance on forensic evidence and erroneous dating methods that rely on assumptions. Put that up against the mountains of evidence for a roughly 6,000 year old earth and you'll see why believing the Earth is *billions* of years old is absolutely laughable.


Well this is definately a Poe. There is no good evidence to suggest the world is 6000 years old and there is litteraly a mountain of evidence for the earth being billions of years old.




Poltergeist said:


> Whether I'm incorrect or not,


You are incorrect.


Poltergeist said:


> you can't provide analogies such as that. It's like trying to argue that since 2+2 = 4 that we *must* know the *exact* distance from Earth to the nearest star.


No, no it's not.



Poltergeist said:


> I beg to differ. Atheism is more of a belief that a God doesn't exist than a lack of belief because it takes faith to believe so. It's religious in nature therefor it's a belief.


No it's not a belief, a baby would be an atheist a person who never heard of deities would be atheists but would not be possible to not believe in a deity because they dont know what it is.




Poltergeist said:


> lolwut? I gave you a scripture from the Bible stating that faith without works(deeds) is dead. WBC is an exact contradiction to the teachings of Christ and how Christians are supposed to witness. Not only that, but they claim that God "hates" people. This is totally not biblical.


It is biblical actually.

Leviticus
"20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."




Poltergeist said:


> Wrong. We take the Bible as a whole in that we believe in everything the Bible says. However if you've studied the Bible (which evidently by your sheer ignorance about the Bible that you've demonstrated, you haven't), you'd realize that the Old Testament was written for the people back in that day.


Basically God took a chill pill, relaxed and changed his mind.



Poltergeist said:


> Now, many things are carried over from the Old Testament into the New Testament, however, things such as tithing are not carried over.


To quote Jesus:
""Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place"


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Dec 14, 2008)

The first link you gave, the guy sounds like an ignorant moron. I'm agnostic myself, but the only argument he shows is the "history before 4,000 B.C." shtick, completely dismissing the existence of dinosaurs, which has been proven and therefore makes his argument redundant. Not to mention his argument about languages, the reason languages aren't consistently growing now a days is because society has _evolved_ into civilisations with national and international communications.

Furthermore, in regards to your argument about the universe, is it not simpler to note that when the Bible was written the scholars had no idea about the vast size of the universe, and the simple fact that the universe is so vast in comparison to the size of our planet that it in itself completely denounces the possibility of a Christian god?


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

Why are people still discussing this? Christians are christians and they aren't going to change their minds, they already believe in god so they'll just make up some other BS to try and counter your argument.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Hiplop said:


> Because he's above it? Not sure what you're trying to get at. Anyone who has truthfully read the bible; would NOT be religious. Can pretty much guarantee that.


:lmao Sorry but no. Just because someone chooses to follow science rather than religion or the belief that God exists doesn't mean they're above "anything." I wasn't trying to get to anything and my post wasn't directed to you anyway so I don't see why you keep trying to change my mind. All I was saying was that it doesn't make sense to him; hence why he perceives it as irrational. It doesn't mean it's irrational to people that have faith. Also, when did I mention the bible? Just because a person believes in God doesn't mean they follow everything that the bible states.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

I've spoken with Jesus. 

Of course, teenage curiosity and a lot of cough syrup was involved, but he seemed like an alright guy.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Jesus was a cool man.

Also, spirituality > religion anyway.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Jesus was a cool man.
> 
> Also, spirituality > religion anyway.


I can always remember a rather good quote from Ghandi about Jesus

_"I do not reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."_


----------



## haribo (Feb 4, 2005)

If I was as short as Hiplop I'd probably hate God too.


----------



## Deadman™ (Feb 9, 2004)

I posted my "respect my beliefs and I respect yours" post in post #277. I stand by it. If you are respectful of others beliefs, no matter what your view on God is, I got no problems with you. Call me and others "brainwashed," "simple minded," "stupid" and other names and I ignore your argument.

Now as to why I personally believe and why I believe what I believe.

*Evolution* does exist. That is simply the ability for a living thing to adapt to, overcome and survive in new conditions. There are species of shark that due to flooding got trapped in fresh water lake. They adapted and survived. There is a species of Jelly Fish, that much like the shark got trapped in a lake in southeast Asia. The lake had no predators for the jelly fish and over the years, decades and centuries have lost their stinging defense mechanism. You can swim among them and have no problem.

*The THEORY of evolution.* Yes, no matter what is "proven" it still is* NOT the LAW of evolution*. There is plenty of proof for those that want to believe and there is plenty of loop holes for those that don't. Can God and evolution coexist? Well, if it is "God" anything is possible.
*Charles Darwin said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”* There are people, scientists among them, that believe that the development of molecular biology that shows the complexity of cells and how they are not simple by any means and have this protein that works with that protein to perform a basic function. And how information is transferred within the "simple" cell itself (as if by design) is enough proof as _“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”_*
Charles Darwin also said (paraphrasing) that if in the future the fossil record did not back up his believes for gradual evolution (Gradualism), that his theory could indeed be wrong.* In 1972 Niles Eldridge and Stephan Jay Gould published their theory of *"Punctuated Equilibrium"* siting that the fossil record in fact did NOT back up Darwin's theory of gradualism. *Evolutionary scientists that recognized that the fossil record didn't show gradual evolution.* So they put forth their theory of punctuated equilibrium which basically states that since the fossil record does not back up Darwin's theory, that evolution then took place in giant steps. An animal or whatever would go along for many, many years (thousands, millions) and then BAM an newer more advanced version was produced that was greatly different from it's parents. A belief called *Cladogenesis where instead of gradually becoming another species (primates gradually into humans) that it just splits into 2 separate distinct species.* OK, so now we have 2 separate beliefs in the theory of evolution. Which is right? *Much like this religion's God vs that religion's God, there is conflict of belief, therefore doubt that either might be right.* At least to me. You are free to make your own choice. I respect that, unlike some of you.

The biggest thing for me with evolution and no God, is that we are all accidents. If we weren't made, then we are cosmic accidents. Therefore NOTHING MATTERS except what we place priority on. Not even life itself matters, because it is only by chance that we are here anyway. And people pound the theory of evolution like it is, pardon the analogy, Gospel truth. *If it IS true, who cares? It doesn't matter. You are born, you live, you die. * It doesn't matter if your great grand parents to the 100th power were people, primates or slugs. It just doesn't matter. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING resting on the theory of evolution. People will make a HUGE deal that someone doesn't believe in the theory of evolution when it JUST DOESN'T MATTER one way or the other if you do. Did I mention that it doesn't make a bit of difference in life if it is true or not. The ground doesn't spit you out and not allow you to Rest In Peace if you didn't believe in the almighty Theory of Evolution.
*Now if you believe in this, good for you. I have no problems with that. There is certainly enough evidence for you to believe in it. I have believed in it in the past until I looked at the probability and science behind it. And just respect that there is also enough loop holes and doubt for people to not believe in it. *

I would also state that my lack of "faith" in evolutionary science does not mean I have issue with science in general. The science that lead to the development of organ transplants saved my life.

*The only "religion" I will argue is the one I believe in, which is Christianity. And I recognize and accept that I cannot on any level "prove" this to anyone.* I have believed in God and I have doubted God's existence at times in my life. My faith does not stem from some brainwashing of theology from when I was a kid. * I did go to church as a kid. HATED IT!* Had a believe system, but nothing unshakable. I left high school, joined the army for a couple of years and was as far from God as I ever was for several years beyond that. Then, through a friend I started going to church. I grew up in a Lutheran church. Very rigid, planned out, "religious" services. My friend went to a Pentecostal church. That was WAAAAYYYYY different than what I was used to. I even thought they were wack jobs for a while. *As I got to know them, I realized that they HAD NO AGENDA.* It wasn't money. It wasn't rules. It was Jesus. That was it. They didn't even (and to this day do not) pass a collection plate. They simply say "there is a box by the door, tithes and offerings go in there." That got me interested. The people weren't wack jobs. They were sweet helpful people that would do anything for you, and ask for nothing in return. They didn't care that I was a long haired tattooed guy. The pastor eventually did my uncle's funeral and said to "Stay clear of religion" during the service. That shocked me and I had been attending their church a while. He said that "religion is full of man made rules that you will never be able to follow anyway. Follow Jesus and you will know the right things to do and not to do." It is THAT belief system. THAT way of doing things that got me to believe in God and Jesus as my savior. What confirmed it for me beyond any doubt. Nothing that anyone said. Nothing that anyone did. As has been said, NOBODY can prove God to you. I was in a service one day. We were singing a song and a feeling came over me that overwhelmed me. A feeling of love. The feeling that the "story" of the cross and forgiveness of sins, was real. And that it was for me. I cried uncontrollably. I COULD NOT STOP. And that is when I knew. And I don't care if I am the resident "nut job" on the forum for believing that. It is 100% truth. And Truth be told I am old enough to be most of your fathers and have had more life experience through work, travel, military, parenting and kidney failure/transplant than most of you combined. Not speaking down to anyone. Just resent the "brainwashed" remarks. This is a choice I made, on my own. No coercing. No brainwashing. I just gave God a chance to show me. And He did. 

And for those who say it is *"all about the money."* Well, someone forgot to send the memo to our church. We are a small church of about 40 members with another 10-20 that come here and there. We struggle financially. Some months we are ahead, some months we lose money. I know, I do the finances there. Our pastor took a 25% salary cut for half the year in 2010. Has had one raise in 5 yrs. I worked for free for most of the year. Our maintenance guy and cleaning is 100% voluntary. The cleaning lady still does it voluntarily after having to be let go from paid staff because of financial problems. Yeah, for churches money is an issue. Some (like us) more than others. But we still pay a mortgage, electric, water and heating costs. And where we live there is snow removal this time of year. 

Again, I have no issue with anyone's beliefs. As long as they don't involve hatred and/or bashing of my, or others, beliefs or personal attacks against us for having them. If your biggest argument is bashing people and their beliefs simply because you cannot or chose not to offer a decent argument, you're just an ass. As the saying goes "Jesus loves you, but I think you're an asshole." Yep, I'm a Christian. Yep I said it. Probably shouldn't have but being a Christian doesn't make me less human.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Well said, Deadman! Don't let anyone tell you that believing in God is being naive and ignorant. I think that trying to change someone's beliefs and put them down just because they disagree with you is far worse.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> :lmao Sorry but no. Just because someone chooses to follow science rather than religion or the belief that God exists doesn't mean they're above "anything." I wasn't trying to get to anything and my post wasn't directed to you anyway so I don't see why you keep trying to change my mind. All I was saying was that it doesn't make sense to him; hence why he perceives it as irrational. It doesn't mean it's irrational to people that have faith. Also, when did I mention the bible? Just because a person believes in God doesn't mean they follow everything that the bible states.


The bible is really gods word. Its as close as you're going to get, if you're picking and choosing what to believe - YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You have a fairy tale connection with nostalgia that limits your ability to think rationally. I don't go through LOTR and choose the parts that don't exist, its all there. You either believe all of it 



> *What proof do you have? Lets say when you die you are standing in front of God and he asks you "Where is the proof you have that i do not exist." What will you answer? Something tells me your "proof" won't stand in that judgment.*


I'd spit in his face. He's nothing more than a dictator, and hes the most ruthless, cruel one to ever live. He has all the power in the world to stop suffering, and yet tons of people die of hunger every fucking day. They say "everything has a purpose", tell me the fucking purpose of a child getting raped, then tortured. And that's just the beginning of it. He thrusts rules that he knows we cannot keep upon us, and if we don't follow them we get sentenced to eternal torture. It demolishes free speech, and the ability to have fun. And all the aforementioned kids in Africa suffering? They are going to hell for eternity, for they do not believe in him, and they likely lie and steal to survive. Brainwashing you into KILLING ALL THE NONBELIEVERS. If anyone is different, they get incinerated, and yet he "loves all of us". He has also killed more people than Adolf Hitler, innocent people. Your god is not great.

He sounds a lot like Kim Jong Il to me, only much worse. Both had power to be good people, but they go against it.

And that isn't tangible proof, that is reasoning within you "Belief system" (as haystacks lulzworthy pointed out). 

I could bring facts into this quite easily, but you'll do the classic "OUR MINDS CANT COMPREHEND SUCH AWESOME SKY MAN, WE NO NUFFIN BUT DAT SAVIOR". Some trees disprove Christianity.

Also, no one is naturally like how the bible wants us to be, and if thats the ideal of Heaven being perfect, I never want to go there.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Hiplop said:


> The bible is really gods word. Its as close as you're going to get, if you're picking and choosing what to believe - YOU DON'T BELIEVE. You have a fairy tale connection with nostalgia that limits your ability to think rationally. I don't go through LOTR and choose the parts that don't exist, its all there. You either believe all of it


No. You could believe in God without agreeing with everything that's written in the bible and without being religious. How is it that some people believe that something is out there but they don't necessarily agree with everything stated in the bible? The world has evolved; therefore individuals understand that too. That doesn't mean you believe in God any less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

This explains it all. You can be spiritual and believe in the divine without religion or the bible.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

if you believe in the christian god, you're going to hell (assuming hes real in this context), anyway. Why not just skip a step, and not believe? I'd rather not believe and have a great life on earth being myself, than have a shit life trying to be a false representation of perfect, then ultimately ending up with nothing/eternal torture

imo if you believe, you have to be a strong christian, always doing as he says..otherwise you're just silly


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Hiplop said:


> if you believe in the christian god, you're going to hell (assuming hes real in this context), anyway. Why not just skip a step, and not believe? I'd rather not believe and have a great life on earth being myself, than have a shit life trying to be a false representation of perfect, then ultimately ending up with nothing/eternal torture


Why do people not have to believe? If it gives them a purpose then what does it matter?

Again, you can believe in God without the notion of religion. I think that to some people just believing, doing the right thing and being a good person is enough.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

starship.paint said:


> This is directed at Atheist Panda... okay, you might not believe in "God", fine, but what is your opinion of various supernatural phenomena, for example, ghosts?


Believing in Ghosts and believing in God are the same thing. They're both irrational and illogical, and both lack ANY evidence to support it. They both require a certain lack of intelligence and a child-like thought process. The difference is that, despite being the same, believing in God is a notion that has been given centuries of undue respect (due to the oppression of religion and mankind's general inability to reason).



Ketamine said:


> I am an atheist for not being part of any religion but i believe in god. What does that make me?


Not an atheist. 



Nitemare said:


> Can we just lock this thread or move it to rants so I can amuse myself? thank you


That would end badly for you. 



Cynic said:


> I think it all comes down to fear of death and the unknown, coupled with the natural human desire to believe we have some sort of higher purpose. It's kind of depressing to go through life with the knowledge that a) when I die I will disintegrate into nothingness and b) if my life is not completely forgotten 100 years after it ends, it sure as shit will be forgotten in a thousand years, much less a million years. It's difficult for human beings as emotional creatures to accept this, so they create this God delusion (apologies to Dawkins) in order to skip gayly through life believing a magical space wizard will reward us after death with a Hawaiian vacation and reuniting with all our lost loves.
> 
> Statistics show religious people are substantially happier than those who aren't. Well, of course they're happier: ignorance is bliss.


Agree with the first part. Second part is hilariously wide of the mark.



MacDanny 6 said:


> Lol i love how atheists can be so convinced in something they have no clue about. Do you KNOW for a fact there is no God or do you THINK there is no God? Answering truthfully we all know your answer, yet you act like you KNOW the truth, when you don't really know anything. Foolish. But yeah i guess you would same about this side.. I guess we'll see.


I know for a fact.



MacDanny 6 said:


> Get me a scientist to explain to me where the human spirit came from. All our emotions, feelings, our intelligence. Our minds are so powerful. We were created in the image of God! God created man in his own image, we faulted, theres a set up to get right with him again. But we put him aside and we think we are better and higher up than Him. Just shows how evil we are. Thats sin, we're all guilty.


Not really worthy of a response, this one. Embarrassing. 



MacDanny 6 said:


> You were born into this world, you had no say in it, no choice of who you are or who your family was, you are a creation. *Stop acting like you own the place.* "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. You are from beneath, I am from above. He who is from above is above all." Get in your place my friend.


Irony. 



MovedManc said:


> It makes you not an atheist . Atheism isn't about rejecting organised religion, it's the lack of a belief in any sort of creator/god.
> If you believe in any sort of god, even if it's separate to any other religious belief in the world, then you're a theist.
> 
> The burden of proof should always fall on people who believe, not those who don't.


Correct. 



Poltergeist said:


> Quite the opposite. *You atheists have been brainwashed* by Evolution. And anyone who laughs at the Bible should be laughing at themselves for believing in such hogwash. Micro-evolution is proven (variations within *kind*) Macro-evolution is not.
> 
> *Bottom line is believing in that garbage takes a bigger leap of faith than believing in God*.


Do _you_ even believe what you're saying? You sound like you're trying to convince yourself. Mind you, that's a trait of mental illness, which you have.



Poltergeist said:


> As I said, it's based on forensic evidence, not empirical evidence. Forensics are based on assumptions, therefor you must have faith that man slowly *evolved* from a primate.


You have _no_ evidence. Why would a God-believer want to bring evidence into this debate anyway? It's the start and end of your argument. You lose at the very first hurdle. 



Poltergeist said:


> I used to be an atheist.


No you didn't.



~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Just because someone chooses to follow science rather than religion or the belief that God exists doesn't mean they're above "anything."


It does. Science is not the opposite of religion either, and I don't 'follow' anything. Trying to justify something by placing a rational alternative directly on the other side of it does not give equal weight to both. 



~Fallen Angel~ said:


> All I was saying was that it doesn't make sense to him; hence why he perceives it as irrational. It doesn't mean it's irrational to people that have faith.


I understand it perfectly, thank you. I'm just rational, logical, free-thinking and not bound by prehistoric mindsets that oppress the mind. It's completely irrational by definition to have faith. 



Deadman™;10846770 said:


> *The only "religion" I will argue is the one I believe in, which is Christianity. And I recognize and accept that I cannot on any level "prove" this to anyone.* I have believed in God and I have doubted God's existence at times in my life. My faith does not stem from some brainwashing of theology from when I was a kid. * I did go to church as a kid. HATED IT!* Had a believe system, but nothing unshakable. I left high school, joined the army for a couple of years and was as far from God as I ever was for several years beyond that. Then, through a friend I started going to church. I grew up in a Lutheran church. Very rigid, planned out, "religious" services. My friend went to a Pentecostal church. That was WAAAAYYYYY different than what I was used to. I even thought they were wack jobs for a while. *As I got to know them, I realized that they HAD NO AGENDA.* It wasn't money. It wasn't rules. It was Jesus. That was it. They didn't even (and to this day do not) pass a collection plate. They simply say "there is a box by the door, tithes and offerings go in there." That got me interested. The people weren't wack jobs. They were sweet helpful people that would do anything for you, and ask for nothing in return. They didn't care that I was a long haired tattooed guy. The pastor eventually did my uncle's funeral and said to "Stay clear of religion" during the service. That shocked me and I had been attending their church a while. He said that "religion is full of man made rules that you will never be able to follow anyway. Follow Jesus and you will know the right things to do and not to do." It is THAT belief system. THAT way of doing things that got me to believe in God and Jesus as my savior. What confirmed it for me beyond any doubt. Nothing that anyone said. Nothing that anyone did. As has been said, NOBODY can prove God to you. I was in a service one day. We were singing a song and a feeling came over me that overwhelmed me. A feeling of love. The feeling that the "story" of the cross and forgiveness of sins, was real. And that it was for me. I cried uncontrollably. I COULD NOT STOP. And that is when I knew. And I don't care if I am the resident "nut job" on the forum for believing that. It is 100% truth. And Truth be told I am old enough to be most of your fathers and have had more life experience through work, travel, military, parenting and kidney failure/transplant than most of you combined. Not speaking down to anyone. Just resent the "brainwashed" remarks. This is a choice I made, on my own. No coercing. No brainwashing. I just gave God a chance to show me. And He did.
> 
> And for those who say it is *"all about the money."* Well, someone forgot to send the memo to our church. We are a small church of about 40 members with another 10-20 that come here and there. We struggle financially. Some months we are ahead, some months we lose money. I know, I do the finances there. Our pastor took a 25% salary cut for half the year in 2010. Has had one raise in 5 yrs. I worked for free for most of the year. Our maintenance guy and cleaning is 100% voluntary. The cleaning lady still does it voluntarily after having to be let go from paid staff because of financial problems. Yeah, for churches money is an issue. Some (like us) more than others. But we still pay a mortgage, electric, water and heating costs. And where we live there is snow removal this time of year.


You don't need to believe in sky wizards to be moral. In fact, Christianity is probably one of the most immoral religions in history.This stupid notion that you need God and the Bible to be a good person is exactly the kind of flagrant lie that needs to be stamped out of civilization. 



~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Well said, Deadman! Don't let anyone tell you that believing in God is being naive and ignorant.


It's naive and ignorant.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> Why do people not have to believe? If it gives them a purpose then what does it matter?
> 
> Again, you can believe in God without the notion of religion. I think that to some people just believing, doing the right thing and being a good person is enough.


I'm a good person. I am myself. In the truest sense, i am the best version of myself possible. I'm not tied down by laws I cannot keep.

Why not be a good person without it? Or do you have something to prove? 

But the christian god, he doesn't allow you into heaven if you don't follow religion, so what's the point? You're stabbing yourself in the back, essentially. Pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Atheist Panda said:


> It does. Science is not the opposite of religion either, and I don't 'follow' anything. Trying to justify something by placing a rational alternative directly on the other side of it does not give equal weight to both.
> 
> I understand it perfectly, thank you. I'm just rational, logical, free-thinking and not bound by prehistoric mindsets that oppress the mind. It's completely irrational by definition to have faith.


As I've stated before, if you find it irrational, fine but it's not irrational to everybody.




> It's naive and ignorant.


Yes, to you.



Hiplop said:


> I'm a good person. I am myself. In the truest sense, i am the best version of myself possible. I'm not tied down by laws I cannot keep.
> 
> Why not be a good person without it? Or do you have something to prove?
> 
> But the christian god, he doesn't allow you into heaven if you don't follow religion, so what's the point? You're stabbing yourself in the back, essentially. Pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.


Well, it's great that you're a good person and if you feel you don't need a God, that's fine. No one's forcing you to believe in anything; however if people want to believe, why is that wrong? There isn't anything wrong with believing that there is more to this world than we have witnessed.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

People like Panda are the reason I dislike atheists more than religious people.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> As I've stated before, if you find it irrational, fine but it's not irrational to everybody.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just hate god. Nothing against the followers, It'd be like saying I hate koreans, I wish they knew what was going on - but thats it


----------



## ~Fallen Angel~ (Oct 24, 2008)

Hiplop said:


> I just hate god. Nothing against the followers, It'd be like saying I hate koreans, I wish they knew what was going on - but thats it


That's your right and you're not the only one.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Cerbs said:


> People like Panda are the reason I dislike atheists more than religious people.


Good.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Cerbs said:


> People like Panda are the reason I dislike atheists more than religious people.


He's pretty spot on tbh.

When one side has facts and evidence while the other has "faith" which said would you say is more likely to be right? Not to mention our evidence is from recent studies, while Christianity is from 2000 years ago that only has a book filled with plenty of errors to go by. Seriously, so much from the bible has been proven wrong and yet people still decide to follow it? That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Seb (Jun 13, 2007)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> Seriously, so much from the bible has been proven wrong and yet people still decide to follow it? That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

People like the OP and MacDanny are why I think we'll all be better off once organized religion begins to peter out.

As I've said before I really have no problem with religion: i think it's silly and illogical, but I don't really care. It's just used to control and spread hate and ignorance far too often.


----------



## Victarion (Sep 8, 2007)

Atheist Panda said:


> Good.


LOL amazing username


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Holy shit, Carlin just destroyed The Bible in 6 minutes. 

Exceptional.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

destroying the bible only takes a sentence or two, to be fair.

But yeah, carlin what a GUY


----------



## Daredevil Jeff (Dec 17, 2007)

George Carlin was the first man to make me realize there is probably no God. GOAT.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> He's pretty spot on tbh.
> 
> When one side has facts and evidence while the other has "faith" which said would you say is more likely to be right? Not to mention our evidence is from recent studies, while Christianity is from 2000 years ago that only has a book filled with plenty of errors to go by. Seriously, so much from the bible has been proven wrong and yet people still decide to follow it? That doesn't even make sense.


No.

All atheists ever present are reasons they don't believe in God. Never any proof there is no God. They also translate the Bible completely literally and most of them wouldn't understand it if they wanted to. 

In fact,most atheists I know, REAL atheists anyways, wouldn't care enough about the topic of religion to argue about it to the extent some people have gone embarrassing lengths to in this thread. For people that claim to have "no beliefs", Jesus fuck they sure have a lot to say.

It's easy for silly children to poke fun at celestial beings behind their keyboards, but most of these morons change the first second they are faced with death. That's why I find most shit talking internet atheists no different than internet tough guys.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

there are trees that are older than the planet if you take the bibles word.

That's proof.


----------



## A. Arbuckle (Jan 3, 2012)

A couple of your fellow religious nutbags showed up at my door yesterday to read some bullshit out of the bible. They gave me a book to read over after I let them go on and on. I said, "Thanks, I need something to get the fire goin' in my stove. P.S. It's Thursday in the middle of the god-damned fuckin' day. Jesus Christ. Get a fuckin' job."

And that's that story.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

I'm not religious either, Hiplop, but atheists in her spewing their bullshit "logic" don't seem to understand that creations have creators. 

The notion that this universe just appeared out of thin air (or a thin vacuum if that even makes sense :/ ) makes less sense than the bible.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

creators don't have to be beings. The universe can, and will begin itself. If anything, (Not sure on the exact culture), but the ones who worshipped the planets/ universe were the closest to being correct in religion.

Cerbs, take an astronomy course or something, it'll make more sense I imagine. It's hard to articulate due to the lack of comprehension, but a course would help explain the beginning, im sure.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Cerbs said:


> No.
> 
> All atheists ever present are reasons they don't believe in God. *Never any proof there is no God.* They also translate the Bible completely literally and most of them wouldn't understand it if they wanted to.
> 
> ...



Since when is it on us to prove that there is no god? That is one of the dumbest arguments that anyone can make. It is up to them to prove that there is a god and to prove what they claim. Anyone that tries using faith as their only proof just shows that they have none whatsoever.

Also the big bang, though not yet proven, actually gives a proper explanation to how the universe came to be. What exactly is their explanation? That god allowed it to be and all of sudden it was?


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Hiplop said:


> creators don't have to be beings. The universe can, and will begin itself. If anything, (Not sure on the exact culture), but the ones who worshipped the planets/ universe were the closest to being correct in religion.
> 
> Cerbs, take an astronomy course or something, it'll make more sense I imagine. It's hard to articulate due to the lack of comprehension, but a course would help explain the beginning, im sure.


Yes Hiplop, I'm familiar with the "Big Bang" theory. 


UnDeFeatedKing said:


> Since when is it on us to prove that there is no god? That is one of the dumbest arguments that anyone can make. It is up to them to prove that there is a god and to prove what they claim.


Yeah, I think if you're going to shit on someone else's beliefs, you had better offer a better explanation. Because otherwise, you're not being an atheist, you're just being an asshole. 



> Also the big bang, though not yet proven, actually gives a proper explanation to how the universe came to be. What exactly is their explanation? That god allowed it to be and all of sudden it was?


A religious person could also (as some do) that God "caused" the big bang. Believing in the big bang isn't really even sacrilege.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Cerbs said:


> Yes Hiplop, I'm familiar with the "Big Bang" theory.
> 
> Yeah, I think if you're going to shit on someone else's beliefs, you had better offer a better explanation. Because otherwise, you're not being an atheist, you're just being an asshole.
> 
> ...


a religious person then would have to say something created god. Otherwise they have no point in "something cant start out of nothing", and then the spiral is too long for it to have any value (creator of the creator etc) Much easier to believe it did it by itself.

Didn't mean it to be pretentious, I realize it sounded that way; sorry, cerbs. I mean it makes sense, when you learn about it.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Cerbs said:


> Yeah, I think if you're going to shit on someone else's beliefs, you had better offer a better explanation. Because otherwise, you're not being an atheist, you're just being an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> A religious person could also (as some do) that God "caused" the big bang. Believing in the big bang isn't really even sacrilege.


I'll shit on their beliefs as long as their beliefs have no merit. 

If a religious person did that I'd laugh in their face and walk away. You can't take scientific discoveries and just say "god did it", it make them out to be even more of a retard if tried doing that. If god would have done that why was not mentioned in their almighty holy book? Oh that's right, because they were far too stupid back then to even understand something as complicated as evolution and the big bang, so they simply decided to go with an easier explanation of almight being that judges us upon death.


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

Hiplop said:


> a religious person then would have to say something created god. Otherwise they have no point in "something cant start out of nothing", and then the spiral is too long for it to have any value (creator of the creator etc) Much easier to believe it did it by itself.
> 
> Didn't mean it to be pretentious, I realize it sounded that way; sorry, cerbs. I mean it makes sense, when you learn about it.


No, it's cool. I understand what you're saying and I'm very fascinated by astronomy. 

Believe me, I'm much more into that kind of stuff than religion and it makes a lot more sense to me. The universe is also expanding, which _has_ been proven. So at one point, the universe must have been very small, there's no question about that. 

The only thing that hasn't been proven without a doubt is that it all just exploded into existence from a singularity like the big bang theory illustrates. And if it did, no one knows why or who or what caused it. That still leaves the door wide open for religious speculation if you ask me. If I studied it more professionally, maybe I would have a deeper belief system than "whatever" but I'd also be worried of going mad with anxiety. 


UnDeFeatedKing said:


> I'll shit on their beliefs as long as their beliefs have no merit.


Wow dude, you're just a totally awesome person


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

hawking pretty much proved it will create itself, that's the thing. it is just a theory, but technically so is gravity, and the reasons are pretty great. Definitely recommend you check out the book (name escapes me :\ )


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

-Own religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction. More unusually, average religiosity in the region also has a positive impact: people are more satisfied in more religious regions. This spillover holds both for those who are religious and for those who are not. The flipside of the coin is that a greater proportion of “atheists” (those who say they do not currently belong to any religious denomination) has negative spillover effects, for the religious and atheists alike.

halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/61/20/PDF/wp200901.pdf

-more recent research, with more representative samples and multivariate analysis, provides stronger evidence linking Judeo-Christian religious practices to blood pressure and immune function. The strongest evidence comes from randomized interventional trials reporting the beneficial physiological impact of meditation (primarily transcendental meditation). Overall, available evidence is generally consistent with the hypothesis that religiosity/spirituality is linked to health-related physiological processes--including cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune function

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12674818 

-In most countries, religious people report better health; they say they have more energy, that their health is better, and that they experience less pain. Their social lives and personal behaviors are also healthier; they are more likely to be married, to have supportive friends, they are more likely to report being treated with respect, they have greater confidence in the healthcare and medical system and they are less likely to smoke.

www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/Religion_and_Health_All_August09.pdf

-There is mounting scientific evidence of a positive association between religious involvement and multiple indicators of health.

-The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk.

www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_10_210507/wil11060_fm.pdf

-Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious. 

-The most religious Americans score a 66.3 on the Gallup-Healthways Healthy Behavior Index compared with 60.6 among those who are moderately religious and 58.3 for the nonreligious. 

www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx 

-Religious involvement was significantly associated with lower mortality (odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.39), indicating that people high in religious involvement were more likely to be alive at follow-up than people lower in religious involvement.

www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf

-Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent).

www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

-Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide.

www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/76/12/1225.full.pdf

-People with no religious affiliation are at an elevated risk with people who are religiously affiliated. 

-People with high levels of general religious involvement, organizational religious involvement, religious salience, and intrinsic religious motivation are atreduced risk for depressive symptoms and depressive disorders

-Longitudinal research is sparse, but suggests that some forms of religious involvement might exert a protective effect against the incidence and persistence of depressive symptoms or disorders.

www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aap/twr/1999/00000002/00000002/art00008

-The spiritual and religious group had less distress and less mistrust than the religious-only group (p < .05 for both). 

-Moreover, individuals who perceive themselves to be both spiritual and religious may be at particularly low risk for morbidity and mortality based on their good psychological status and ongoing restorative activities.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12008795 

-Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. 

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303


I guess religion does have benefits... Hmmmm. Maybe Atheists are just jealous that they can't have any faith.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Mithro said:


> I guess religion does have benefits... Hmmmm. Maybe Atheists are just jealous that they can't have any faith.


Actually I used to be religious but I became an atheist. Truth is I'm happier now that I am.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

That's awesome if your religion makes you happy. More power to you. It still doesn't prove that a supernatural deity/s exist. Specifically yours.


----------



## Callisto (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm not sure what evidence has been proven of the existence of a god, much less the Christian god. Religion is really no more than mythology. There are things in the bible alone that are ridiculously illogical (I mean turning water into wine. Really?).

The OP's logic does not make a lick of sense. So because humans do not yet have the necessary technologies to explore extraterrestrial life, then it is proof that a deity exists? For that matter, the Christian god specifically? So then by your logic, wouldn't a deity exist because there is not yet a known cure for cancer and HIV/AIDS?

Religion is man made and is not compatible with logic.


----------



## 99FELONIEZ (Jul 26, 2011)

Im agnostic. I have my doubts about the god from the bible...But I do believe in extradimensional beings and an afterlife.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

99FELONIEZ said:


> Im agnostic. I have my doubts about the god from the bible...But I do believe in extradimensional beings and an afterlife.


Would agnostic not mean that you simply don't know if the God exist or not? 

Anyways these kind of debates will always become void since the approach is different from believers and none believers. 

OP I think it's all well and swell that you believe in Jesus Christ and God. I hope it really brings joy and happiness in your life. Maybe it's something some people here are so massively into the whole negativity and massive egos that they will never experience the joy you have or share the same understanding.

Maybe they just don't have the same capacity and never will. But there are reasons why they won't believe in certain things. 

Different approach to life also gives us different views and opinions which can be interesting to look at. 

As for me I believe in the balance of life. 

There should be a balance between logic of science and God ll mighty. I don't believe in reality that those 2 really contradict one other.

Just human perception on it. It's that simple.


----------



## 99FELONIEZ (Jul 26, 2011)

ice_edge said:


> Would agnostic not mean that you simply don't know if the God exist or not?
> 
> Anyways these kind of debates will always become void since the approach is different from believers and none believers.
> 
> ...


yes ice edge you are correct


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

just had a drubked argument with a black dude in a kebab shop about god and it was fun

in the end i we shook hands but i called him mentally ill a few times and he chattwe a lot of shit along the wy


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

Hiplop said:


> I just hate god.


So let me get this straight. You're as bad as religious people. They love a God, and you hate him. But he doesn't exist!

WHAT A TWIST


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Hating fictionis possible, nitemare.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

No, it's really not.


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

~Fallen Angel~ said:


> if people want to believe, why is that wrong? There isn't anything wrong with believing that there is more to this world than we have witnessed.


There's something wrong when these cult beliefs are subsidised by taxpayers' money.

There's something wrong when children aren't given full access to information, in schools, in order to feed an agenda.

There's also something wrong when secular organisations waste millions of dollars a year trying to prevent AIDS. While followers of ancient books tell illiterate Africans that condoms are the work of the devil.

No religious person ever has private beliefs or believes anything that isn't connected to an organised religion. That's a complete myth. As such, no-one that perpetuates religion has any right to claim that they aren't harming anyone by doing so.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Word.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Atheist Panda said:


> Believing in Ghosts and believing in God are the same thing. They're both irrational and illogical, and both lack ANY evidence to support it. They both require a certain lack of intelligence and a child-like thought process. The difference is that, despite being the same, believing in God is a notion that has been given centuries of undue respect (due to the oppression of religion and mankind's general inability to reason).


Yet, on the topic of ghosts... okay, let's just say, in my city, there's apparently a haunted hospital. Lots of people have claimed to have seen "beings" around the area. So you think they are all nutjobs? There's just some supernatural stuff that can't be explained yet, but it's definitely out there. Maybe you should visit some haunted location and think for yourself when you actually experience something you cannot explain.


----------



## thesuperred (Dec 10, 2011)

God has to exist 'cause Jeff Hardy told us he was the anti-christ of pro wrestling. Duh.


----------



## Deadman™ (Feb 9, 2004)

Atheist Panda said:


> You don't need to believe in sky wizards to be moral. In fact, Christianity is probably one of the most immoral religions in history.This stupid notion that you need God and the Bible to be a good person is exactly the kind of flagrant lie that needs to be stamped out of civilization.


Nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE, did I say that. I said I had gotten away from God. I said that maybe I shouldn't have said something since I am a Christian. I didn't say I was a bad person when I wasn't a Christian. I didn't say I was more "moral" because I was a Christian. As a Christian we should hold ourselves to a certain moral standard. Society tends to hold us to a much higher standard than we could possibly live up to, which is why I said I shouldn't have said it. So, try again.

And why is Christianity so "immoral?" Examples would be great. And with your examples, make sure to leave out humans and the mistakes and evil deeds that humans can*CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES TO DO,* like murder and adultery in the Bible, where people chose to do something wrong and there was a subsequent consequence. And leave out the Westboro Baptist Church, because their believes, as much as they may think they are, are NOT Christ based beliefs. And same with the child molesting in the Catholic Church. That is people CHOOSING to do something wrong and other PEOPLE CHOOSING to cover it up. I based my whole "argument" on Jesus. If you can find the immorality in HIM, and not man made rules in the Bible, or various church denomination doctrine, I will rebut it, because quite frankly you have NOTHING to stand on if you are attacking MY beliefs. You have argument with various people, churches and even denominational beliefs, but not what I stated.


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

@^

The bible specifically states that gays should be either killed or made to live in gated communities (depending on which gospel you read).

The bible specifically encourages you to keep slaves.

The bible specifically tells men to rape the shit out of any woman that they marry.

The bible encourages murderous crusades against non-believers.

Having sex with (what modern people consider to be) kids was perfectly acceptable, in biblical times.

All of the supposed "Christian morals", that you refer to, evolved as a response to the secular world. Religious teachings have never been a guide to logical thinkers. It has always been the other way around.

Groups like Westboro actually come a lot closer to the true teachings of ancient scripture than other religious groups. As do Islamic extremists and so on.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

MovedManc said:


> It makes you not an atheist . Atheism isn't about rejecting organised religion, it's the lack of a belief in any sort of creator/god.
> If you believe in any sort of god, even if it's separate to any other religious belief in the world, then you're a theist.
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Deadman™ (Feb 9, 2004)

Shirley Crabtree III said:


> @^
> 
> The bible specifically states that gays should be either killed or made to live in gated communities (depending on which gospel you read).
> 
> ...


Yes, ancient scripture does state that homosexuals were to be stoned or whatever. They did own slaves at the time. And some of the other things were true. Although I do dispute the "raping of a wife, and sex with kids" arguments. That was before Jesus brought the new law, not after. If people did that it was a *MAN MADE RULE. *Just because I believe in God, doesn't mean I agree with everything in the old testament. To put it in "Forum Perspective" that is like saying if you think Chris Benoit was a good wrestler, then you condone what he did to his family. That is simply ridiculous. 
*Jesus brought JUST TWO RULES. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.* Yeah, that is it. TWO whole rules. It doesn't mean that the 10 commandments are void, because they are all fall under those 2 rules. He also said (paraphrasing) before you point out what is wrong with the other guy, look at what is wrong with you first. And the ever so popular "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And if you actually read any of the Gospels of Jesus, you will find *NOWHERE in there where He condemns a sinner or person for what they have done wrong.* You will find that the ONLY people He takes ANY MAJOR ISSUE WITH are the Pharisees or the Religious teachers and rulers of the day for being hypocrites.

The Westboro Church teaches that "God hates gays." Which is NOT TRUE! To use your own line, only correctly and honestly, THE BIBLE SPECIFICALLY SAYS that God does not hate anyone. He may hate sin, but he does not hate any person. So by Christ's teaching of "Love your neighbor as yourself" (and neighbor mean each other, not your physical neighbor, as they probably didn't exactly exist like that then, the *Westboro Church DO NOT TEACH THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST through their message. *

Again, my beliefs lie in the teachings of Christ. Not Old Testament law. Not whether Noah and the flood happened, not if Moses parted the Red Sea. Not if being gay is wrong. On the simple teachings of a Man I believe to be God's son, and His teaching that we are to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. * NOT A SINGLE WAR WAS STARTED ON THAT TEACHING.* Other religious wars yes. I won't argue that because it is true. I will be the first to state that I do not understand what God did. What God does. Or why it was/is/wasn't/isn't done. But remember *every "religious war" had a MAN WITH HIS OWN MOTIVES BEHIND IT*. Just because it is done in "God's name" doesn't mean it is approved by Him.


----------



## 2K JAY (Jan 2, 2011)

I personally like to believe in God. I'm not overly religious and I don't follow the bible much. People often take that book out of context. You're supposed to follow the MOTIVES of the stories in the book, not the actual stories. 

That being said, I'm not Holy. I just like to believe there is a God. And anyone who says there isn't has just as much proof as me. So I ask you the question - Where's your proof?


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

proof of what? Once again, it is not up to athiests to prove there isn't a god, it's up to religious people to prove there is.

I could also make up some random unbelievable story and say until you prove that I'm wrong that my mythological tale could very well be true.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.


----------



## Nitemare (Nov 30, 2001)

If you're so worried about people believing in a God, if they're so worried about you not believing in a God -- you're both fucking stupid.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

because a thief isn't a complete moron and knows that finding the policeman would be retarded and illogical?


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

MacDanny 6 said:


> The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.


Couldn't have said it better myself. That really is the bottom line.


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

Nitemare said:


> If you're so worried about people believing in a God, if they're so worried about you not believing in a God -- you're both fucking stupid.


 
Honestly, this is probably the best statement of the entire thread. After almost sixty pages of this shit, both sides are simply trolling now.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Berringer said:


> Honestly, this is probably the best statement of the entire thread. After almost sixty pages of this shit, both sides are simply trolling now.


"Trolling" is used too loosely on this forum.


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> "Trolling" is used too loosely on this forum.


 
Yeah, so's the idea of common sense. People on both sides have been arguing until they're practically blue in the face on this subject. It's one thing to voice an opinion (or even a string of opinions that form your personal ideal), but if you're simply going to beat a dead horse...there's no point anymore. There comes a time when you need to realize you've hit the overkill button. It's quite obvious that those posters on the forum who have been "brainwashed by religion" will never give up the ghost (to coin a phrase) and those who have becoming "Godless heathens" will never "see the light". Not only is the horse dead...it's been mutilated beyond all form of recognition!


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Berringer said:


> Yeah, so's the idea of common sense. People on both sides have been arguing until they're practically blue in the face on this subject. It's one thing to voice an opinion (or even a string of opinions that form your personal ideal), but if you're simply going to beat a dead horse...there's no point anymore. There comes a time when you need to realize you've hit the overkill button. It's quite obvious that those posters on the forum who have been "brainwashed by religion" will never give up the ghost (to coin a phrase) and those who have becoming "Godless heathens" will never "see the light". Not only is the horse dead...it's been mutilated beyond all form of recognition!


I couldn't focus on reading your post, because your signature was too distracting


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> I couldn't focus on reading your post, because your signature was too distracting


You're going to hell for looking at his sig. Bye.


Anyways, thread should be closed. After I stopped posting, everyone started to run in circles. It'll never end. On another forum, we had a similar discussion. It went on for nearly a year. A thread that isn't stickied was active for nearly a year. It would've gone on for longer if the mods didn't close it. 

LOCK.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

I love how the brits are the atheists posting in this thread.

We won't be brainwashed lol.


----------



## God™ (May 26, 2008)

Theism is not a problem - religion is.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

God has spoken. ^^


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

Thos of you who have watched BSG should know that he doesn't like that name.


----------



## Big Wiggle (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm in complete favor of people believing whatever they want (as long as they don't try and impose it on others and/ or use it as an excuse for violence). No human being really has the answers to the 'big questions' in life. If they truly believe they know everything about this universe they're either ignorant, arrogant, stupid or a combination of the three.

*However*, if you're going to argue in favor of the theory of a 'higher power', do it properly. Sorry OP, but your post is one of the most nonsensical pieces of drivel I've ever had the misfortune of reading. I'm hoping it was a troll?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Cliffy Byro said:


> I love how the brits are the atheists posting in this thread.
> 
> We won't be brainwashed lol.


Wasn't rammed down our throats as children like it is in most other counties so we were able to make rational, logical decisions as adults. 










Atheists in blue. God Squad in red. 

I'm done in this thread though. Can't argue with delusion. 

Been fun, g'day.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

That's true. Cannot argue with delusion. (Y)


----------



## Andre (Jul 17, 2011)

Threads like this make my sig incredibly appropriate. It's good to know that this years internet special olympics will have a high level of competition.



Nitemare said:


> If you're so worried about people believing in a God, if they're so worried about you not believing in a God -- you're both fucking stupid.


I'd actually lost faith (see what I did there!) that you had anything worthy to say in general, my opinion has now changed. The most sensible post in this thread by far.


----------



## Emperor Palpatine (Aug 2, 2003)

My school was a Church school (from age 4-11), man did that suck. I didn't even believe in a god as a kid, but I had to sit and listen to my teachers going on and on and on every day for 7 years about it all . Plus we had to do plays every year; one at Christmas and another at Easter, all about... you guessed it, Jesus. Boy was that fun. The same fecking play about stuff I didn't believe in. For 7 years. AAARRRGGGHHHH.

Anyways... believe in a god, don't believe in a god. Just don't bother me about it. The whole faith part of it is perfectly fine with me. Having faith in something/someone can legitimately make a difference in people's lives. Can stop them drinking, taking drugs, being bad people in general. If that's the thing that can do that, then great. Religion is where the problem lies. A bazillion different religious, and 9/10 of them are the same with some minor changes to make them "different". And a few of those religions decide to use those "differences" to kill people. Yeah, great, your god is slightly different to their god. Make them believe in your version... or kill them. Because that's what god wants apparently. Moronic fuckers.


----------



## Choke2Death (Jul 26, 2011)

Lol, these threads never go anywhere. It's just a couple of nonbelievers and a couple of believers going back and forth about why God exists vs. why it's all fantasy.

This is a topic that people should just keep to themselves. I have done my research and I prefer to be more allied with 'spirituality' than any specific religion.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Just had an argument with a girl; she said all people deserve to be eternally tortured, and said the holocaust wasn't such a bad thing.


Yeah, Christians are great people.


----------



## Kincaid (Mar 31, 2011)

I always liked a line Chris Hitchens said on religion.

"Name me one provable, good act a religious person couldn't do without their religion. Now, name me an evil act they couldn't do without it. The second one is far easier."


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

Hiplop said:


> Just had an argument with a black girl; she said all people deserve to be eternally tortured, and said the holocaust wasn't such a bad thing.
> 
> 
> Yeah, blacks are great people.


See what I did there?


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

she was white.

I should have put all behind christians, but ya


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

Hiplop said:


> she was white.
> 
> I should have put all behind christians, but ya


You know how many times I've been walking down the street, minding my won business and heard colored gentleman say "Kill all whiteys"?... Probably over 100 times, and you don't see me going around saying all ******** are horrible people.

Man, ya gotta be trollin... There's no way ya aint.


----------



## heyimthemiz (Jan 4, 2011)

God is far fetched IMO
just to think there is man above us and a man below us just sounds too made up


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

99FELONIEZ said:


> Im agnostic. I have my doubts about the god from the bible...But I do believe in extradimensional beings and an afterlife.


Doesn't belief in an afterlife contradict the nature of agnosticism? You're basically saying you believe in a sky wizard, just not the Christian sky wizard. Which is fine if that's what you think, I just don't personally understand how you can quantify one without the other.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Mithro said:


> You know how many times I've been walking down the street, minding my won business and heard colored gentleman say "Kill all whiteys"?... Probably over 100 times, and you don't see me going around saying all ******** are horrible people.
> 
> Man, ya gotta be trollin... There's no way ya aint.


Just because you may not believe in you religion's hell doesn't mean that your religion stops having the concept. It's like belonging to the KKK but you think that blacks are your equal.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Hiplop said:


> Just had an argument with a girl; she said all people deserve to be eternally tortured, and said the holocaust wasn't such a bad thing.
> 
> 
> Yeah, Christians are great people.


You realize even Adolf Hitler claimed to be a Christian, right?

Doesn't mean he WAS one.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> You realize even Adolf Hitler claimed to be a Christian, right?
> 
> Doesn't mean he WAS one.


Adolf hitler was christian. 

This girl goes to church everyweek and lives for jesus. Shes pretty damn devoted.

I dont think you got my sarcasm, other guy. The stigma that all christians are good peopleis untrue, thats all i was saying.


----------



## haribo (Feb 4, 2005)

Hiplop said:


> The stigma that all christians are good peopleis untrue, thats all i was saying.


You don't say.


----------



## wrestlingfan91 (Aug 16, 2006)

I do believe in god, just not in religion i dont believe god lives in a house, i think there has to be a god, something like it, and i dont mean a beardy guy with long white hair, just something gotta be there, i sometimes wonder, and sometimes i know but at the end i believe, thats what god is about, if it would be about facts and numbers it would be called facting not faith.


----------



## Chismo (Nov 7, 2009)

I believe in God, but organized religions suck. They are no good. They are not God's, no matter what they say.


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

Big Wiggle said:


> I'm in complete favor of people believing whatever they want (as long as they don't try and impose it on others and/ or use it as an excuse for violence).


That form of religion doesn't exist. Religion is designed to be forced upon others and designed to incite acts of violence. 

Religion is already being imposed on everyone, and is having a negative affect on the world around us, even if we're not always aware of it. 

Contrary to what you said, the moderate people, who delude themselves into thinking that they have "personal beliefs", are actually the biggest problem in all of this. The major religions use their sheep-count as a justification for the depraved shit that they do. If the Catholic church was a personal loan firm, it's slogan would be "over a billion people can't be wrong".


----------



## Choke2Death (Jul 26, 2011)

It's hilarious how much atheists exaggerate the "negatives" of religion. You make it sound like it's some kind of hate group that's designed to get people together to kill each other. C'mon now, don't be so silly, there are also a lot of positive things within religion and any open minded atheist would tell you that. One of the main things within most religions is that if you kill, you go to hell. Most of them also strongly suggest marriage and only sex within that zone. Tell me, how is that exactly an "excuse for senseless violence"?

I don't agree with everything religions offer, but let's be a bit open minded and stop focusing on one extreme end of it.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

So a cop that kills to save innocent civilians will go to hell just because he killed?


----------



## Choke2Death (Jul 26, 2011)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> So a cop that kills to save innocent civilians will go to hell just because he killed?


There's a difference between killing somebody in an act of self-defense compared to killing just for the hell of it.


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

Choke2Death said:


> It's hilarious how much atheists exaggerate the "negatives" of religion. You make it sound like it's some kind of hate group that's designed to get people together to kill each other.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity#Enforcement_of_Church_policy


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Choke2Death said:


> There's a difference between killing somebody in an act of self-defense compared to killing just for the hell of it.


Is there? I highly doubt god cares if there is a difference, everyone that kills would go to hell since it is one of the worst sins, isn`t that right?


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> So a cop that kills to save innocent civilians will go to hell just because he killed?


god has no problem with brutal murder, so likely the criminal would go to heaven - the cop and the kids go to hell


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Hiplop said:


> god has no problem with brutal murder, so likely the criminal would go to heaven - the cop and the kids go to hell


If the kids weren't Christian, they would go to hell. If the cop just killed for the hell of it but repented afterwards sincerely, ITZ ALL GEWD!!!!!!!!!!

Being a good person and being a good Christian/Muslim/etc. are two different things.


----------



## Shining_Wizard1979 (Sep 8, 2009)

Cerbs said:


> In fact,most atheists I know, REAL atheists anyways, wouldn't care enough about the topic of religion to argue about it to the extent some people have gone embarrassing lengths to in this thread. For people that claim to have "no beliefs", Jesus fuck they sure have a lot to say.


You'll notice I bowed out early, despite pursuing a post-secondary degree with a focus on evolutionary theory (I left the program to pursue a different career path, but I got pretty far in my studies).



Mithro said:


> -Own religious behaviour is positively correlated with individual life satisfaction. More unusually, average religiosity in the region also has a positive impact: people are more satisfied in more religious regions. This spillover holds both for those who are religious and for those who are not. The flipside of the coin is that a greater proportion of “atheists” (those who say they do not currently belong to any religious denomination) has negative spillover effects, for the religious and atheists alike.
> 
> halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/61/20/PDF/wp200901.pdf
> 
> ...


I haven't read through all of these, but with the bullet points, I already have questions or have identified potential issues. . . I'd have to read through all of this to see whether they even bear mentioning specifically. I won't get to that any time soon, unfortunately.


----------



## Olympus (Jan 3, 2011)

What I don't understand is how is it that you can go out and sin like a motherfucker, but come back and essentially say "I'm sorry" and everything be good. Then go out and do the same shit. Seems useless to even have commandments or rules or whatever they have nowadays.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> So a cop that kills to save innocent civilians will go to hell just because he killed?


*I hear it's not supposed to be Thou Shall Not Kill but Thou Shall Not Murder... but who knows. 

I don't really care either way though... just throwing that out.

King James really fucked over alot of the bible, for whatever it's worth.*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Scorpion said:


> What I don't understand is how is it that you can go out and sin like a motherfucker, but come back and essentially say "I'm sorry" and everything be good. Then go out and do the same shit. Seems useless to even have commandments or rules or whatever they have nowadays.


No. Someone who goes out and "sins like a mfer" is basically what every person on Earth has done. Yes there are those who have committed more sins, but the fact is nobody on Earth is sinless and we all deserve eternal torment. That is why God loved us so much that he came to Earth in the flesh as Jesus Christ to pay the price so that we would be saved. 

Jesus did his part on the cross, all you have to do is your part by accepting him as your savior. The thing you need to understand is that as soon as you've done that, you are essentially "born again". It's a re-birthing of your soul. Even though you still have to contend with the flesh (sinful nature), you are more reluctant to engage in sin naturally. 

Being saved does not give one the "license to sin". Anyone with that attitude has not been saved, because it even says in the Bible you'll know them by their fruits, and that faith without works is dead.



Panther said:


> If the kids weren't Christian, they would go to hell. If the cop just killed for the hell of it but repented afterwards sincerely, ITZ ALL GEWD!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Being a good person and being a good Christian/Muslim/etc. are two different things.


Most people believe there is an "age of accountability". It's a bit in depth but it's supported by this verse (Numbers 14:29). If true, this would mean persons aged 19 and under are considered "children" and are saved by default upon death.
Now, keep in mind this was in the Old Testament so I can't tell you if this applies to us today as I'm not an expert on theology.



LadyCroft said:


> *I hear it's not supposed to be Thou Shall Not Kill but Thou Shall Not Murder... but who knows. *


Correct. Thou shalt not murder. This means killing someone out of hate or retribution. Killing someone out of self defense or in a military conflict does not apply.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Hiplop said:


> Adolf hitler was christian.


No, he wasn't. He claimed to be but was not "Christian".


He was actually brought up as a Catholic and and believed in a God, but was not 'born-again'. 

"Christian" means Christ-like. You can only become "Christ-like" by being born-again (saved).


Hitler was not saved.


----------



## seleucid23 (Mar 11, 2008)

Poltergeist said:


> No, he wasn't. He claimed to be but was not "Christian".
> 
> 
> He was actually brought up as a Catholic and and believed in a God, but was not 'born-again'.
> ...


However you want to define it, I think most people would consider someone who is Catholic and believed in God as Christian.


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

No, christian means;



Merrium-Webster said:


> Definition of Christian
> 1
> a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

The bottom line is you can't pin the Holocaust on Christianity since Hitler was not part of the "Body of Christ". He wasn't a "true Christian".

The Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Christian. Doesn't mean they are.

Some random guy's definition doesn't mean much.


(Faith without works is dead, as seen in the Bible. Hitler's actions were very representative of where he stood in his religious beliefs, and a Christian he was not.)


----------



## Rush (May 1, 2007)

Poltergeist said:


> The bottom line is you can't pin the Holocaust on Christianity since Hitler was not part of the "Body of Christ". He wasn't a "true Christian".
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Christian. Doesn't mean they are.
> 
> Some random guy's definition doesn't mean much.


Not saying you can. Just saying that Hitler was a christian. Westboro is a christian church holding to conservative Baptist beliefs. 

The fact that they're absolute scum, doesn't mean they're not Christian. In a less extreme example look at this thread, you get extremes in belief and how people express it. Not all atheists are moaning cunts, yet some are. Not all christians are bible bashing, fear mongering brainwashed twats, but some are. You get variations in everything, trying to lump everyone into the same category is asinine, just like trying to exclude people from a classification due to their different interpretation (eg Westboro) is asinine.


----------



## Kalashnikov (Dec 30, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> The bottom line is you can't pin the Holocaust on Christianity since Hitler was not part of the "Body of Christ". He wasn't a "true Christian".
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Christian. Doesn't mean they are.
> 
> Some random guy's definition doesn't mean much.


You're just that, a random guy with a definition molded to your liking...


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

When arguing the case of 'True Christian' it should be noted that Jesus stated that people should still follow the rules of the old testament. That was one of his teachings so you have to just accept that. The 'No True Scotsman' arguement doesn't stand here.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> No, he wasn't. He claimed to be but was not "Christian".
> 
> 
> He was actually brought up as a Catholic and and believed in a God, but was not 'born-again'.
> ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VFFW0sbF4

Peace out.

Nobody cares what religion it is - it's still religion. 

Want some Crusades education next?

(Tried to stay away).


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Poltergeist said:


> Miracles happen every day. I read about it all the time. People dying of cancer and other illnesses that are supposed to kill them with no chance of survival have spontaneously disappeared with no medical explanation. The reason doctors won't talk about alot of this stuff is because they put their reputation as a doctor on the line, fearing most people would think they are incompetent.


The body is extremely complex. There was a story of a man who woke up out of a coma while on life support. Here's the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/arizon...s-coma-poised-donate-organs/story?id=15208351

Stories like this really make you think.



TheCelticRebel said:


> I thought Christians were bad until I ran into edgy, militant, internet Atheists.


Those are the most annoying people around. A lot of them are hypocrites because they claim to hate other religious people who impose their beliefs on others yet atheists do the same thing.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

^^^^^^

LOL


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> The bottom line is you can't pin the Holocaust on Christianity since Hitler was not part of the "Body of Christ". He wasn't a "true Christian".
> 
> The Westboro Baptist Church claims to be Christian. Doesn't mean they are.
> 
> ...


*Westboro Baptists are just as Christian as anyone else. They base their (ridiculous) beliefs off of what they read in the bible.*


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

LadyCroft said:


> *Westboro Baptists are just as Christian as anyone else. They base their (ridiculous) beliefs off of what they read in the bible.*


A lot of what they read in the Bible is intentionally misinterpreted and taken out of context to support their crazy beliefs. They're always protesting someone's funeral. They even protested Steve Jobs' funeral and posted about their protest on an iPhone on Twitter. LMAO. They're a bunch of nutjobs who are just a bunch of extremists.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Saved is a Protestant concept, so of course since Hitler was Catholic he wasn't saved.

To say a Christian can't be a Christian without being saved is wrong. Catholics invented the religion.

Nice to see Hitler finally brought up in this thread btw.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Atheist Panda said:


> Why does it deserve respect? Believing and endorsing various religions that have been the _direct_ cause of more murder, rape, torture, pain, misery, slavery and fundamental evil than anything else in the history of mankind is to be respected? Sorry, no. I don't subscribe to that nonsense.


People will always find a reason to conquer others and commit horrible acts of violence. Religion or not.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

I thought Nazis liked that religion where you worship the sun?

And i'm pretty sure being born again is catholic. I doubt Daredevil was protestant


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

miracles happen then some kid in some African country dies of diarrhoea.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

UNDERMINES THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY!



redeadening said:


> I thought Nazis liked that religion where you worship the sun?
> 
> And i'm pretty sure being born again is catholic. I doubt Daredevil was protestant


Protestants and Catholics have different beliefs on what it means to be a Christian, born again, and saved. Saved is always a Protestant term.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

I believe in God. 

I definately don't fall under a specific religion and their concept of God, but I do believe that there is a being out there responsible for existance as we know it. To anyone out there that says a Big Bang created the Universe, I say God is responsible for the Bang.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> A lot of what they read in the Bible is intentionally misinterpreted and taken out of context to support their crazy beliefs. They're always protesting someone's funeral. They even protested Steve Jobs' funeral and posted about their protest on an iPhone on Twitter. LMAO. They're a bunch of nutjobs who are just a bunch of extremists.


*Well actually they take the bible quite literally. They just seem to use the Old Testament views more than the new. And I guess that's their prerogative. As extreme and terrible as they are, their leader *the mom* is a very smart woman. Law school graduate actually. Which explains why they never get arrested. She knows exactly what she can do legally. I love listening to their rhetoric. It's hilarious. Especially when they start singing. Highly entertaining. 


The "born again" stuff is associated with Baptists and Pentecostals as well. You hear that stuff around here all the time. 
*


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

Amsterdam said:


> I believe in God.
> 
> I definately don't fall under a specific religion and their concept of God, but I do believe that there is a being out there responsible for existance as we know it. To anyone out there that says a Big Bang created the Universe, I say God is responsible for the Bang.


read my posts son

Who the fuck created god then? If you work under the philosophy that everything needs a creator, which you clearly do - god too needs a creator. And so does that guy, and its a neverending circle.

Change your philosophy a bit to say the universe simply began, directly getting rid of any need for a god.


Also, Hitler was most definitely christian, a pretty devoted one too.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

LadyCroft said:


> Well actually they take the bible quite literally. They just seem to use the Old Testament views more than the new. And I guess that's their prerogative. As extreme and terrible as they are, their leader *the mom* is a very smart woman. Law school graduate actually. Which explains why they never get arrested. She knows exactly what she can do legally. I love listening to their rhetoric. It's hilarious. Especially when they start singing. Highly entertaining.


Just because someone has a degree that doesn't make them intelligent. Anyone with proper diligence and enough money can get a degree. Two of the most influential people in the computer industry don't have a college degree.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> Just because someone has a degree that doesn't make them intelligent. Anyone with proper diligence and enough money can get a degree. Two of the most influential people in the computer industry don't have a college degree.


*And just because people can buy a degree doesn't mean she did. She's obviously intelligent enough to never get arrested for what they do. She knows the law.*


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> Just because someone has a degree that doesn't make them intelligent. Anyone with proper diligence and enough money can get a degree. Two of the most influential people in the computer industry don't have a college degree.


Maybe so, but believing in God shows a real lack of intelligence.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> Just because someone has a degree that doesn't make them intelligent. Anyone with proper diligence and enough money can get a degree. *Two of the most influential people in the computer industry don't have a college degree*.


and even more of them do have a degree.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*btw this is awesome.







I just wanna sing along
*


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Poltergeist said:


> Most people believe there is an "age of accountability". It's a bit in depth but it's supported by this verse (Numbers 14:29). If true, this would mean persons aged 19 and under are considered "children" and are saved by default upon death.
> Now, keep in mind this was in the Old Testament so I can't tell you if this applies to us today as I'm not an expert on theology.


Every time the "age of accountability" comes up, it varies. Some Catholics I know say it's 7. Others have said it's 13 but none of this matters because there isn't any mention of any "age of accountability" in the Bible. It's a made up concept to fit Christians idea of a just and loving god. Just like how purgatory isn't mentioned in the Bible but people believe it anyway.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Cerbs said:


> People like Panda are the reason I dislike atheists more than religious people.


This.



LadyCroft said:


> *And just because people can buy a degree doesn't mean she did. She's obviously intelligent enough to never get arrested for what they do. She knows the law.*


You can't "buy" a degree. By pay I meant the ability to pay tuition with or without financial aid. 

There's nothing intelligent about her rants and her protests. They are clearly irrational and contradictory.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

"It's the half *** show!"

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!! Obama hates you song is omg fuckin hilarious!!! :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> There's nothing intelligent about her rants and her protests. They are clearly irrational and contradictory.


*Of course they are! That's the point. She's a fucking troll and she makes a shit load of money off of people that buy into that shit. And for her to get the money from those people she has to act just the way she does. It works. It's pretty fucking genius. 

She acts like an idiot and money rolls in. I wish I would have thought of it first. 



Oh yeah, the "half a *** show" is brilliantly awesome.*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Put that crazy broad on Bill Maher's show and the results would be EPIC.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

LadyCroft said:


> *Of course they are! That's the point. She's a fucking troll and she makes a shit load of money off of people that buy into that shit. And for her to get the money from those people she has to act just the way she does. It works. It's pretty fucking genius.
> 
> She acts like an idiot and money rolls in. I wish I would have thought of it first.
> *


That's not really intelligent because she's making herself look like a fool along with her followers. Anyone with a conscience wouldn't go to such great lengths just to make some money.

No one is calling Vanilla Ice a genius for pretending to be street and making a lot of money. He still is a fool.



UnDeFeatedKing said:


> So a cop that kills to save innocent civilians will go to hell just because he killed?


Hell doesn't exist. Hell is on Earth and it is supposed to be a metaphor. People who do bad things will live a difficult life and they will endure mental torture that is similar to living in Hell.


----------



## Deadman™ (Feb 9, 2004)

Westboro Baptist Church and child molesting priests are the lunatic fringe. Unfortunately they get more press than the Christians that feed the poor in Africa, build orphanages in central America, or run countless homeless shelters and soup kitchens across the US. The ratio of Christians that are missionaries to other countries helping their communities and helping the poor in the just North America to people that believe in the warped teachings of WBC is easily hundreds to one, if not thousands to one. That isn't counting Christians that don't believe in their crap AND don't volunteer in those specific ways. But you get the one idiot who beats their drum the loudest and off beat, they get all the attention and make everyone look bad.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> That's not really intelligent because she's making herself look like a fool along with her followers. Anyone with a conscience wouldn't go to such great lengths just to make some money.
> 
> No one is calling Vanilla Ice a genius for pretending to be street and making a lot of money. He still is a fool.


*She's still laughing all the way to the bank. And that's her purpose. It's the way the carny and rube business works. Carnies prey on rubes. She's mastered it.*


----------



## Cerbs (Feb 11, 2008)

kobra860 said:


> Those are the most annoying people around. A lot of them are hypocrites because they claim to hate other religious people who impose their beliefs on others yet atheists do the same thing.


No, atheists are a thousand times worse.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Deadman™ said:


> Westboro Baptist Church and child molesting priests are the lunatic fringe. Unfortunately they get more press than the Christians that feed the poor in *Africa*, build orphanages in central America, or run countless homeless shelters and soup kitchens across the US. The ratio of Christians that are missionaries to other countries helping their communities and helping the poor in the just North America to people *that believe in the warped teachings of WBC is easily hundreds to one, if not thousands to one*. That isn't counting Christians that don't believe in their crap AND don't volunteer in those specific ways. But you get the one idiot who beats their drum the loudest and off beat, they get all the attention and make everyone look bad.


Wanted to bold these parts specifically. In many countries in Africa the WBC views are the law. Homosexuality is illegal and can be met with the death penalty. And countries such as Uganda have these views due to their Christian faith.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

kobra860 said:


> Hell doesn't exist. Hell is on Earth and it is supposed to be a metaphor. People who do bad things will live a difficult life and they will endure mental torture that is similar to living in Hell.


I'd agree most of the Bible is metaphorical. Very little is supposed to be literal. Shit, Jesus even taught/preached using mostly allegory.

However, plenty of bad men live very easy lives. A sociopath and a psychopath do no endure mental torture for the bad things they do. It doesn't really work as metaphor either. Plenty of innocent children are suffering severely as I type this.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

MrMister said:


> I'd agree most of the Bible is metaphorical. Very little is supposed to be literal. Shit, Jesus even taught/preached using mostly allegory.
> 
> However, plenty of bad men live very easy lives. A sociopath and a psychopath do no endure mental torture for the bad things they do. It doesn't really work as metaphor either. *Plenty of innocent children are suffering severely as I type this.*


Well what do you expect? God's busy helping Tebow.


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

Proud Christian all my life. Horrible temper though, but I'm getting there. I really don't like how so many people are down with these tolerance programs but they only pick and choose who they wanna like. People are different. Deal with it. You wanna be an atheist, it's whatever but don't treat others like lesser humans because of what they believe in. I really hate people like that.


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

kobra860 said:


> Just because someone has a degree that doesn't make them intelligent. Anyone with proper diligence and enough money can get a degree. Two of the most influential people in the computer industry don't have a college degree.


Depends what degree. You can get a top grade without anything close to resembling a unique opinion in some subjects (usually the arts) which is why so many schools are so uninspiring and why most grades are so consistent among pupils because it is extremely limited in scope. From my own experience schools do not teach a love for learning which is kind of backwards seeing as 99% of top people in their fields are there because of their talent and because they love what they do. Primary school teaches kids to fuel their dreams, secondary school strategically crushes them.


----------



## Amsterdam (Mar 8, 2010)

Atheist Panda said:


> Maybe so, but believing in God shows a real lack of intelligence.


Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with it. The smartest man on the planet could be religious, while the dumbest man on the planet is an atheist. Vice-versa as well. I've seen both sides at college campuses AND at trailer parks.


----------



## Henry Hill (Jan 6, 2011)

> What I don't understand is how is it that you can go out and sin like a motherfucker, but come back and essentially say "I'm sorry" and everything be good. Then go out and do the same shit. Seems useless to even have commandments or rules or whatever they have nowadays.


This is what makes the concept of Heaven flawed. If it's a single place, then you could have a tyrant catholic whose repented like Vlad the Impaler in there with the person he left to die on a stick for twelve agonizing hours. Luckily it would be so crowded that they probably wouldn't spot one another but the point remains that certain people are going to be pissed to see certain other people there. One man's laughter is another man's pain, one man's loyalty, anothers betrayal etc... one moral doesn't fit the other.


----------



## scrilla (Jan 18, 2008)

Cynic said:


>


this.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Cerbs said:


> No, atheists are a thousand times worse.


lol...

Look at who made this thread. Was it an atheist? No. It was a christian, trying to push his beliefs. I don't really care about religious folk in general, have a couple of close friends that Christian, but if they're going to make a retarded thread like this then yeah, I will shit on their ridiculous religions and way of thinking and their "god".


----------



## scrilla (Jan 18, 2008)

the whole atheists are worse than christians thing is bullshit. I never heard of atheists going to abortion clinics and killing doctors.


----------



## Hiplop (May 12, 2006)

yeah, honestly is silly cerbs. We defend ourselves, they attack.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> lol...
> 
> Look at who made this thread. Was it an atheist? No. It was a christian, trying to push his beliefs. I don't really care about religious folk in general, have a couple of close friends that Christian, but if they're going to make a retarded thread like this then yeah, I will shit on their ridiculous religions and way of thinking and their "god".


this


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-Steven Weinberg

Faith is the poison to logic and reason and logic and reason is the antidote to faith. Believing anything without proof can make a good yet gullible person think they are doing good in the name of their religion or by orders from their god. It can be dangerous.


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

I haven't read all of the thread, but LOL @ Atheists being worse than Christians. Silly. Actually this whole thing is fucking pointless since no one in this thread is going to have their opinion changed no matter what is said.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Maybe. You have to try, though.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

this is a good video. please watch the whole thing. it's not a criticism of Christianity at all, but a criticism of Christians.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

You atheists are just bitter towards God.

If you truly believe a God doesn't exist, you wouldn't be here spewing your hatred towards him. You'd be out and about living your lives to the fullest.

Deep down you know God exists and you can't stand the fact that you'll face judgement one day so you vehemently fight tooth and nail against him.

Laughable.


*Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God. -- Tom Stoppard*


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> You atheists are just bitter towards God.
> 
> If you truly believe a God doesn't exist, you wouldn't be here spewing your hatred towards him. You'd be out and about living your lives to the fullest.


Eugh you are deluded. No I'm not 'angry at God.' I'm angry at the people who beleive him restricting others and forcing their pseudo-science over accepted facts. I don't hate something I dont even believe exists that would be nonesensical.

People always say "why talk so much about religion, if you aren't religious?" Because whether you like it or not the religious views of others affect you. My friends cant get married because of the christian religion within our country. There are priests who should be in jail but won't be due to the catholic religion. There are women killed because of the islamic religious views.

We don't hate God, you only say that because you can't comprehend someone not believing in him.

Not to mention is it not justifiable to be offended by the belief that since I and many others dont believe in a specific God then apparently I and those many others deserve eternal punishment?


----------



## Mithro (Oct 14, 2011)

Some funny Atheism related images



The average Atheist online



The average religious argument


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> My friends cant get married because of the christian religion within our country.


Yes they can. Everyone has the right to be married, to the opposite sex.




> Not to mention is it not justifiable to be offended by the belief that since I and many others dont believe in a specific God then apparently I and those many others deserve eternal punishment?


You shouldn't be offended. Everyone, including Christians deserve eternal punishment. I deserve it. My mother deserves it. My whole family deserves it.


The difference is, I've accepted what Jesus did on the cross. He died for everyone. He died for *YOU* so that *YOU* wouldn't have to suffer eternal punishment. 
We've earned death as a result of our sinful nature. God has given us the gift of eternal life. Will you accept it or reject it? That is up to you my friend.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Mithro said:


> Some funny Atheism related images


Atheism isn't a religion.

Anyway since we're posting humour.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Yes they can. Everyone has the right to be married, to the opposite sex.


Dont think you understand what homosexuality is then buddy. The religious view that Homosexuality is immoral not only doesnt affect marriage but is logically flawed.





Poltergeist said:


> You shouldn't be offended. Everyone, including Christians deserve eternal punishment. I deserve it. My mother deserves it. My whole family deserves it.


I shouldn't be offended because everyone deserves eternal punishment? I'm sorry bullshit. When a child in Africa is born and dies almost immediately they deserve eternal punishment. That's pathetic, the idea that someone who couldn't even move their arms let alone talk and compose thought deserves eternal punishment is sickening. Where was this childs sinful nature I ask? What if someone doesn't live a sinful nature? 

Also are we really going to be using Jesus as proof? There's more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

fergieska said:


> yone deserves eternal punishment? I'm sorry bullshit. When a child in Africa is born and dies almost immediately they deserve eternal punishment. That's pathetic, the idea that someone who couldn't even move their arms let alone talk and compose thought deserves eternal punishment is sickening. Where was this childs sinful nature I ask? What if someone doesn't live a sinful nature?
> 
> Also are we really going to be using Jesus as proof? There's more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster.


I wasn't referring to children.

It's widely believed that there is an "age of accountability". This is the age that one reaches when they are fully capable of rejecting or accepting Christ whilst having a full understanding of good and evil. (That's the jist of it.)

Basically, children that die do not go to hell.

And EVERYONE lives a sinful nature because it's in our nature to sin. The Bible teaches ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. Have you ever lied? Stolen something? Looked at another person with lust? Fornicated? These are all very common sins. that pretty much everyone has done throughout their lives. Others but not all have committed rape, murder, abortion, cheated on their spouse, etc. 

All of this and more is the reason why the world is so screwed up. People are driven by greed to attain their desires. We live in a fallen world, and it all started in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned against God. This world has been declining ever since. War, famine, disease, children dying, children being raped and murdered, earthquakes, monster storms, tsunamis, etc. are all the result of sin.

And by the way, most historians agree a man named Jesus Christ did in fact live. It's pretty much a fact that Jesus existed, so your argument against it is pretty much non-existent.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> I wasn't referring to children.


Everyone includes children.


Poltergeist said:


> It's widely believed that there is an "age of accountability". This is the age that one reaches when they are fully capable of rejecting or accepting Christ whilst having a full understanding of good and evil. (That's the jist of it.)


Yes I'm aware of this 'belief'. But out of everything in the religious texts this has got to be the most ridiculous yet. It doesn't state anywhere in the bible that there is an age of accountability this is a cop-out to a difficult question.


Poltergeist said:


> Basically, children that die do not go to hell.


Based on a massive assumption. And lets go away from kids for a second. Say a 30 year old man who lives a good life, helps his fellow man and doesn't sin. But he doesn't know of religion either due to the area he lives, he lives in isolation only travelling by foot to to see other people. He doesn't accept Jesus because he hasn't even heard of him. He has no idea who he is. He apparently deserves eternal punishment.


Poltergeist said:


> And EVERYONE lives a sinful nature because it's in our nature to sin. The Bible teaches ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. Have you ever lied? Stolen something? Looked at another person with lust? Fornicated? These are all very common sins. that pretty much everyone has done throughout their lives. Others but not all have committed rape, murder, abortion, cheated on their spouse, etc.


I have never stolen. But here's the thing. Lying, lust, fornication. All these have no reason to be considered sinful at face value. Oh sure lying to someone can be bad, but there's no denying it can be good too. I (like most of the world) don't take things at face value, my morals are reasoned, thought out and designed intelligently.



Poltergeist said:


> All of this and more is the reason why the world is so screwed up. *People are driven by greed to attain their desires*. We live in a fallen world, and it all started in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned against God. This world has been declining ever since. War, famine, disease, children dying, children being raped and murdered, earthquakes, monster storms, tsunamis, etc. are all the result of sin.


Like forcing others to commit to a specific life style so that they themself can get into heaven. What you described such as war and famine and natural disasters can all be explained and each explanation doesn't involve 'sin', earthquaks occurred before man even walked the earth. Also the Garden of Eden didn't exist, which is a fact.



Poltergeist said:


> And by the way, most historians agree a man named Jesus Christ did in fact live. It's pretty much a fact that Jesus existed, so your argument against it is pretty much non-existent.


Actually most biblical historians aree, seeing as they believe in him that's rather biased. Most neutral parties accept it as a possibility at best since all we have to go on are eye witness accounts which were written at least 100 years after the man apparently died.


----------



## Silver C (Mar 8, 2005)

Poltergeist said:


> All of this and more is the reason why the world is so screwed up. People are driven by greed to attain their desires. We live in a fallen world, and it all started in the garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned against God. This world has been declining ever since. War, famine, disease, children dying, children being raped and murdered, earthquakes, monster storms, tsunamis, etc. are all the result of sin.
> 
> And by the way, most historians agree a man named Jesus Christ did in fact live. It's pretty much a fact that Jesus existed, so your argument against it is pretty much non-existent.


I admire your courageous adherence to orthodoxy in the face of arguments (really, no double meaning intended!), but you have to accept logic. Whether Jesus existed or not is not really an issue. Nobody would mind accepting that he indeed did exist, much like Plato, Buddha or Zoroaster. 

The real issue is reconciling your beliefs with perception and logic. You say God exists because a holy book says so, and the holy book exists because God gave it. Each is dependent on the other, with no way to prove the validity of either independently.

This is the 'fallacy of mutual dependency' and it is applicable to all religions, not just christianity. Your beliefs are rendered illogical even before you can put them forward. 

The first thing you have to grasp is that when perception and beliefs clash, the belief needs to be interpreted in *accordance* with perception, since the latter is an established fact. And it must not contradict logic as well. Most religions need to get this fundamental step right before formulating theories on the ultimate reality. 

A man who renounces logic and perception for belief is like a blind person set loose in a forest - he has no true knowledge of what is around him, no matter how good or innocent his beliefs are.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> You atheists are just bitter towards God.
> 
> If you truly believe a God doesn't exist, you wouldn't be here spewing your hatred towards him. You'd be out and about living your lives to the fullest.
> 
> ...


This is just hilarious. :lmao

The people in here are not spewing hatred towards "him." They would have to believe the fairy tale first before they could hate the god. What they are really doing is spewing hatred towards *YOU* and your fellow christian nut jobs.



fergieska said:


> Say a 30 year old man who lives a good life, helps his fellow man and doesn't sin. But he doesn't know of religion either due to the area he lives, he lives in isolation only travelling by foot to to see other people. He doesn't accept Jesus because he hasn't even heard of him. He has no idea who he is. He apparently deserves eternal punishment.


This is the point I was going to make. There are plenty of isolated places in the world that have never even heard of the god myth. They live and die a normal life and never once commit any evil. _BUT THEY ARE GOING TO HELL OMG OH NOEZ!!!!!!!!!_ Christians can and will actually attempt to take their religion to these parts of the world and convince these otherwise good people that they are going to burn in hell if they do not start believing in the magical mystery man in the sky.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Kabuto420 said:


> enty of isolated places in the world that have never even heard of the god myth. They live and die a normal life and never once commit any evil. _BUT THEY ARE GOING TO HELL OMG OH NOEZ!!!!!!!!!_ Christians can and will actually attempt to take their religion to these parts of the world and convince these otherwise good people that they are going to burn in hell if they do not start believing in the magical mystery man in the sky.


I once asked a priest this when I was catholic and it was a rather funny momment, probably the momment I became an atheist:

Me: Father if I didn't know about Jesus and God and I died would I go to hell?
Priest: No my child, our God is all loving and kind. If you were ignorant to the teachings of Christ you would be judged in Heaven while meeting God himself.
Me: Wow that's rather fair of him.
Priest: It is indeed.
Me: One more question though.
Priest: Oh what is it?
Me: If being ignorant to it guaranteed me heaven; then why are you telling me this?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Mithro said:


> Some funny Atheism related images


Isn't that closer to Nihilism though?


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Hey look, I can post pictures as well.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

fergieska said:


> I once asked a priest this when I was catholic and it was a rather funny momment, probably the momment I became an atheist:
> 
> Me: Father if I didn't know about Jesus and God and I died would I go to hell?
> Priest: No my child, our God is all loving and kind. If you were ignorant to the teachings of Christ you would be judged in Heaven while meeting God himself.
> ...


:lmao that is _awesome_!

So what Christians are really doing is trying to introduce Christ to ignorant aborigines so hell gets more souls.


----------



## Cliffy (Mar 31, 2011)

How can homesexuals enter marriage ?

i thought marriage was a religous affair and all religions were anti-homosexuality ?

can anybody clear this up ?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Some cultures allow the dissolution of marriage through divorce or annulment.

Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group or local community. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Cliffy Byro said:


> How can homesexuals enter marriage ?
> 
> i thought marriage was a religous affair and all religions were anti-homosexuality ?
> 
> can anybody clear this up ?


You get tax benefits and other perks if you're married in the US. The US govt doesn't give a fuck about the religious ramifications. At least it shouldn't. That's why gay marriage has to be legal here in the US.



virus21 said:


> Isn't that closer to Nihilism though?


This is what I was going to say. Whoever made that ATHEISM poster needs some learnin.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Cliffy Byro said:


> How can homesexuals enter marriage ?
> 
> i thought marriage was a religous affair and all religions were anti-homosexuality ?
> 
> can anybody clear this up ?



Yes I can clear this up.

Marriage predates all reliable history records and thus predates religion. The earliest examples of marriage were used as bargaining tools between tribes and featured polygamy.

Not all religions are anti-homosexuality just the big ones.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

There is no way to know how old marriage and religion are since these concepts predate history most likely.

Bottom line is there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the US. You get civil benefits from being married, thus gays should be able to be married.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

MrMr you were the 666th poster, DEVIL.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Cover blown. I guess my trick of convincing the world I don't exist wasn't actually my greatest trick. Back to the drawing board. I really don't look forward to that lake of fire.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

So MrMister is Tom brady?

i knew it


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MrMister said:


> Cover blown. I guess my trick of convincing the world I don't exist wasn't actually my greatest trick. Back to the drawing board. I really don't look forward to that lake of fire.


*I wonder if that's a good fishin' lake.*


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

I'm Jesus and MrMr and I are fighting on Dec. 21st on the Armageddon PPV.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

McQueen said:


> I'm Jesus and MrMr and I are fighting on Dec. 21st on the Armageddon PPV.


I still think the John Cena vs Carlito feud from 2004 was absurd

So, Debut, this apple eating guy appears and cheats Cena out of the US title. Then Calito gets popular backstage. then John Cena gets stabbed outside a nightclub by Calito's bodyguard Jesus. Then a month later, Cena fights Jesus in a street fight (with the WWE completely ignoring the stabbing) over the US title at Armageddon.

Thats right, John Cena beat Jesus at Armageddon


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

I remember the angle but did that really happen? :lmao


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

> A secondary feud heading into Armageddon was between John Cena and Carlito over the WWE United States Championship. The feud started four nights after No Mercy, when Cena was interrupted by Carlito. Carlito stated that he wanted a United States title shot, which Cena agreed to. Later that night, Cena lost the United States title after being hit in the head with his signature chain.[12] One week later on SmackDown!, General Manager Therdore Long, announced that Cena had been involved in an after hours bar fight. Long said that Cena had been (kayfabe) stabbed in the kidney by Carlito's bodyguard, Jesús.[13] The feud restarted on the November 18, when Cena returned from his injury. Cena stated that he wanted revenge on Carlito and he wanted his United States Championship back. Cena won the United States Championship from Carlito, but after the match Carlito's bodyguard Jesús attacked Cena in the kidney, which forced Cena to be taken out on a stretcher.[14]
> 
> The next match was a Street Fight for the WWE United States Championship between John Cena and Jesús. The match started with Cena getting the upper hand. Jesús then hit Cena in the head with a cane, but Cena then hit Jesús in the head with a cane. Cena took Jesus out with a shot to the back with a kendo stick. Cena then delivered a weapon shot with a trashcan. Cena then executed an FU to Jesús and pinned Jesús to retain the WWE United States Championship.


When i saw this I was still very young, and confused. This only made me more so


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

SuperCena can even no sell being stabbed by a knife. That was such a bad angle.


----------



## reDREDD (Oct 12, 2008)

correction. Cena can so sell being stabbed in the kidney.....BY JESUS


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Tebow stabbed Cena! Go Broncos!


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

I'm curious to know about Poltergeist's views towards other religions. But the bastard keeps ignoring me.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

McQueen said:


> I'm Jesus and MrMr and I are fighting on Dec. 21st on the Armageddon PPV.


Have you given more thought to those deals I offered in the desert?


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Dad says no.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> I'm curious to know about Poltergeist's views towards other religions. But the bastard keeps ignoring me.


What do you want to know specifically?

I don't believe other religions have the truth and not because I just randomly assume it, but because there is a whole heap of evidence supporting the Bible and what it says over Islam or any other religion.

In Islam for example, they teach things such as your seed is in your chest. We know this is not true. Your "seed" is obviously located in the testicles. Just one example but there are many more.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

MrMister said:


> There is no way to know how old marriage and religion are since these concepts predate history most likely.
> 
> *Bottom line is there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the US.* You get civil benefits from being married, thus gays should be able to be married.


I wish that someone told the Republicans that.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> What do you want to know specifically?
> 
> I don't believe other religions have the truth and not because I just randomly assume it, but because there is a whole heap of evidence supporting the Bible and what it says over Islam or any other religion.
> 
> In Islam for example, they teach things such as your seed is in your chest. We know this is not true. Your "seed" is obviously located in the testicles. Just one example but there are many more.


A lot of factually incorrect information is in the bible too. However chances are you'd say "that's just a metaphor." So you need to give reason as to why it's ok to state the biblical nonesense as a 'metaphor' but not the islamic nonesense.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

MrMister said:


> There is no way to know how old marriage and religion are since these concepts predate history most likely.


Marriage does, religion not so much. Religion was noted around the time of human civilization, before then there was no such thing just small tribes. Marriage however did exist during these tribe times.


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

fergieska said:


> Marriage does, religion not so much. Religion was noted around the time of human civilization, before then there was no such thing just small tribes. Marriage however did exist during these tribe times.


How do you know there was no religion?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

P.Smith said:


> How do you know there was no religion?


Because religion requires civilization in order to work and in our records there's no sign of specifc doctrines before civilization. To put it in one line would you consider a very small group of people who belive in one exclusive thing a religion? Because if so then a lot of religious people are locked up in specific hospitals right now then.

At the very least it's definite that marriage exited before our major religions of today as we can summarise when they began.


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

fergieska said:


> Because religion requires civilization in order to work and in our records there's no sign of specifc doctrines before civilization. *To put it in one line would you consider a very small group of people who belive in one exclusive thing a religion? * Because if so then a lot of religious people are locked up in specific hospitals right now then.
> 
> At the very least it's definite that marriage exited before our major religions of today as we can summarise when they began.


Yes, that's where christianity and all other religions came from.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

P.Smith said:


> Yes, that's where christianity and all other religions came from.


I think you're misunderstanding here since Christianity came about during human civilization not before. A civilization is needed for a religion to be recognised as such.


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

fergieska said:


> I think you're misunderstanding here since Christianity came about during human civilization not before. A civilization is needed for a religion to be recognised as such.


But weren't humans created just a few days after the universe was?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

P.Smith said:


> But weren't humans created just a few days after the universe was?


......You're kidding right?


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

fergieska said:


> ......You're kidding right?


That's what the bible says so it must be true.


----------



## DR JUPES (May 21, 2009)

it's common for P.Smith to try and troll his way out of a situation he puts himself in.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

fergieska said:


> Because religion requires civilization in order to work and in our records there's no sign of specifc doctrines before civilization. To put it in one line would you consider a very small group of people who belive in one exclusive thing a religion? Because if so then a lot of religious people are locked up in specific hospitals right now then.
> 
> At the very least it's definite that marriage exited before our major religions of today as we can summarise when they began.


Religion is simply an attempt to answer the unanswerable. This is done with myth/legends/stories, symbols, and rituals. We have evidence of what could be ritual burial of prehistoric humans. If you have ritual, you have religion most likely. It's also pretty easy to get that around the time the human light turned on, we wanted to know why our light was on, how our light was on, what turned on our light etc. Once those questions were asked, they were shared with others, thus religion was born. It's definitely a social phenomenon, something that is shared among a certain group of people. 

Now I do agree that organized religion started with/around civilization. Perhaps that's what you mean. Christianity hasn't even been around half the time writing has. 

Religion itself most certainly predates civilization though. Ritual marriage may or may not have come before or after religion. I don't know. I would think after though.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

MrMister said:


> Now I do agree that organized religion started with/around civilization. Perhaps that's what you mean. Christianity hasn't even been around half the time writing has.
> 
> Religion itself most certainly predates civilization though. Ritual marriage may or may not have come before or after religion. I don't know. I would think after though.


I'd imagine marriage came before due to our early examples of it used as a bargaining tool between tribes. Generally a family would use their daughter in exchange for land/supplies so that the other tribes son could have a family.

I don't really know how we can seperate religion from orgranised religion when the former is usually considered madness.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It doesn't really matter which came before the other. There's no way to know either unless we can build that time machine. Both started in prehistoric times, long before Christianity.

Organized religion is just more influential since it affects a larger number of people. It's still essentially religion so yeah it doesn't actually differ at all.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

starship.paint said:


> I'm curious to know about Poltergeist's views towards other religions. But the bastard keeps ignoring me.





Poltergeist said:


> What do you want to know specifically?
> 
> I don't believe other religions have the truth and not because I just randomly assume it, but because there is a whole heap of evidence supporting the Bible and what it says over Islam or any other religion.
> 
> In Islam for example, they teach things such as your seed is in your chest. We know this is not true. Your "seed" is obviously located in the testicles. Just one example but there are many more.


Wow ok let's see... three other religions... elaborate more on Islam, how about Judaism? and how about Buddhism?

okay you see you say Islam says the seed is in chest but the Bible says the Earth is flat. We know this is not true. The Earth is obviously spherical. Just one example but there are many more. Hmm?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> Wow ok let's see... three other religions... elaborate more on Islam, how about Judaism? and how about Buddhism?
> 
> okay you see you say Islam says the seed is in chest but the Bible says the Earth is flat. We know this is not true. The Earth is obviously spherical. Just one example but there are many more. Hmm?



*Isaiah 40:22 

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"*

This was written before scientists had access to telescopes, etc. and actually believed the Earth was flat.

Any more questions?


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> Isaiah 40:22
> 
> "It is he that sitteth upon *the circle of the earth*, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"
> 
> ...


Circle, not sphere. *Circles are flat*.

Now, moving on to how Poltergeist proves Islam, Judaism and Buddhism are wrong while Christianity is right.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> Circle, not sphere. *Circles are flat*.
> 
> Now, moving on to how Poltergeist proves Islam, Judaism and Buddhism are wrong while Christianity is right.


"Circle" is another way of saying it's round lol.

People at the time didn't even believe it was a flat circle.

You can't take everything the Bible says literally.

We use expressions today such as "the Sun sets" or "the four corners of the Earth", yet we know the Sun doesn't move, it's Earth's rotation that makes the Sun "set". 

It's pretty obvious that the context "circle" is being used in is stating the Earth is round (sphere).


I don't have hours to state why other religions are wrong. The thing is, even if I did, it's not going to change your opinion. You're not REALLY interested in seeing if Christianity is true, you've already decided Atheism is the way to live life and that the Big Bang really happened, and that we arose from inanimate matter.

The fact that no other "holy" book in the world has more accurate prophecies than the Bible is an amazing testament in itself. Humans can barely predict the weekend weather with great accuracy but predictions made hundreds of years ago with great accuracy is, and should be, viewed by most people as a sign of supernatural origin.

Anyway, I really hope you'll open your eyes to the truth. I was JUST like you and so many other Atheists who said (oh it's just a book of fairy tales or lawl you really believe in a magical man in the sky?) but I was completely ignorant to the facts.

*God IS Real, Whether You Believe In Him Or Not Doesn't Change It.*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Oh by the way, I've just been informed.

*The word "circle" is translated from the Hebrew word "chawg" (pronounced "khyoog" -- which ALSO means "sphere".*


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> People at the time didn't even believe it was a flat circle.


Statement without proof.



Poltergeist said:


> You can't take everything the Bible says literally.


oh really?



Poltergeist said:


> I don't have hours to state why other religions are wrong. The thing is, even if I did, it's not going to change your opinion. You're not REALLY interested in seeing if Christianity is true, *you've already decided Atheism is the way to live life* and that the Big Bang really happened, and that we arose from inanimate matter.


Oh, but I'm not an atheist. So funny of you to assume that. I am a Buddhist.



Poltergeist said:


> The fact that no other "holy" book in the world has more accurate prophecies than the Bible is an amazing testament in itself. Humans can barely predict the weekend weather with great accuracy but predictions made hundreds of years ago with great accuracy is, and should be, viewed by most people as a sign of supernatural origin.


Oh? Like what? How about religions which don't really deal with prophecies? Perhaps these are the most accurate of all religions.



Poltergeist said:


> Oh by the way, I've just been informed.
> 
> *The word "circle" is translated from the Hebrew word "chawg" (pronounced "khyoog" -- which ALSO means "sphere".*


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2328&t=KJV

חוּג
chuwg

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/mathematics/a/061210EtymologyGeometryTerms.htm

circle*

from a Greek verb meaning to hoop around or from a diminutive of the circular Roman circus, circulus


----------



## Harriston (Apr 10, 2011)

After 23 years on this planet... a lot of thinking, religion studying, and some meditation/astral travelling have taught me a few certainties... we are all aspects (not parts.. parts are too independent from each other) of one state of consciousness. Frame it scientifically if you want, drain all spiritual symbolism from truth and there it is... matter breaks down into, and therefore *IS* mind. Hinduism refers to it has Brahman, some call it omnipresence. As aspects of a greater consciousness we wish to be whole (on a smaller scale we act out these desires through romantic love)... the slice of pie wants to become the pie. To become the pie as a whole we must care for the whole... unconditional love. Jesus said love thy enemy, Buddha said never harm other beings and control desires (ie. the pitfalls that turn one away from unconditional love roughly outlined in the middle way and seven sins)... it's amazing after you look past the petty crap of what "he said she said", bible this koran that, religious messages morph into one phenomenally beautiful message that most people completely miss.


----------



## Xander45 (Aug 6, 2010)

I am not a religious person, I don't believe in a god or an afterlife.

But I do think I wouldn't get as depressed as I do sometimes if I was, always thought it would be nice to really believe in it all but I just can't. 

All i see in it is a lot of very good sentiments mixed in with some fearmongering that some people take the wrong way.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Harriston said:


> After 23 years on this planet... a lot of thinking, religion studying, and some meditation/astral travelling have taught me a few certainties... we are all aspects (not parts.. parts are too independent from each other) of one state of consciousness. Frame it scientifically if you want, drain all spiritual symbolism from truth and there it is... matter breaks down into, and therefore *IS* mind. Hinduism refers to it has Brahman, some call it omnipresence. As aspects of a greater consciousness we wish to be whole (on a smaller scale we act out these desires through romantic love)... the slice of pie wants to become the pie. To become the pie as a whole we must care for the whole... unconditional love. Jesus said love thy enemy, Buddha said never harm other beings and control desires (ie. the pitfalls that turn one away from unconditional love roughly outlined in the middle way and seven sins)... it's amazing after you look past the petty crap of what "he said she said", bible this koran that, religious messages morph into one phenomenally beautiful message that most people completely miss.


It's a pretty simple message - be a good person. If everyone followed that I don't think any religious figure would even care about whether people believe in their religion.

It's not about whether God exists. It's whether you are a good person.

It's also why I think Christianity is terribly flawed - _apparently_ if you're a good person but you don't believe in Christ, you're going to hell forever. That seems damn unfair if it was true (because I'm a Buddhist). I'd be damn pissed - for eternity.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

Hey Starship, as a Buddhist, do you consider yourself a Theist? One of my Buddhist friends says that they are an Atheist because of the absence of a creator god in Buddhism although being an Atheist doesn't mean that you aren't religious as is the case with some Buddhists. 

On another note, I found out that it's possible to be an Atheist AND believe in Creationism. It's called Raelieism. A whacky UFO religion. Real crazy shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelians


----------



## RoadDoggJJ (Apr 2, 2008)

starship.paint said:


> It's also why I think Christianity is terribly flawed - _apparently_ if you're a good person but you don't believe in Christ, you're going to hell forever. That seems damn unfair if it was true (because I'm a Buddhist). I'd be damn pissed - for eternity.


This is not true in all Christian theology. Catholicism teaches that people of all religions can be saved, but if one knowingly and obstinately rejects Christ, that person will likely not be saved. But someone who is invincibly ignorant of Christ can still be saved, albeit through Christ (even though that person wouldn't know it).

And re: interpreting everything in the Bible literally, the Bible is not one really long book. It is an anthology, and different portions were written for different purposes. For instance, the Creation account in Genesis wasn't intended to be a geology textbook, but to emphasize that God is the ultimate author of creation.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> Statement without proof.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The context it's used in at the time it was written meant "sphere" though.

They didn't really have a word for "sphere" back then. If the Bible taught the earth was flat, surely they wouldn't have used a word to describe a "circle".

Buddhist eh? Sure you are.

Anyway like I said I'm not really going to debate you here as doing so would be pointless. I can only show you the right way and it's up to you to either accept it or reject it.


----------



## heyimthemiz (Jan 4, 2011)

People still going about a "man" in the sky , really?


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Panther said:


> Hey Starship, as a Buddhist, do you consider yourself a Theist? One of my Buddhist friends says that they are an Atheist because of the absence of a creator god in Buddhism although being an Atheist doesn't mean that you aren't religious as is the case with some Buddhists.


mm. I've never really thought about whether I'm theist or atheist... though, I usually think of atheists as nonreligious, so thanks for enlightening me on that point. I believe in evolution, though I somehow keep science apart from religion... The subject about theism or atheism.... I don't really bother about it >_>

I've just did some research on Wikipedia, here's some interesting stuff.

The Buddha neither denies nor accepts a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.

fourteen unanswerable questions (Avyakrta in Sanskrit), in Buddhism, refers to fourteen common philosophical questions that Buddha refused to answer

Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in time
Is the world eternal?
or not?
or both?
or neither?

Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in space
Is the world finite?
or not?
or both?
or neither?

Questions referring to personal experience
Is the self identical with the body?
or is it different from the body?

Questions referring to life after death
Does the Tathagata exist after death?
or not?
or both?
or neither?

The Buddha remained silent when asked these fourteen questions. He described them as a net and refused to be drawn into such a net of theories, speculations, and dogmas. He said that it was because he was free of bondage to all theories and dogmas that he had attained liberation. Such speculations, he said, are attended by fever, unease, bewilderment, and suffering, and it is by freeing oneself of them that one achieves liberation.





Poltergeist said:


> The context it's used in at the time it was written meant "sphere" though.


No, the context used didn't mean sphere, as you've seen in the BlueLetterBible link, the meaning is clearly circle. 

_"Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle
a) (Qal) to encircle, encompass"_

You just say the word means sphere when it means circle... *and you don't provide any proof.* I have provided proof. You talk as if you were the actual writer of Isaiah.



Poltergeist said:


> They didn't really have a word for "sphere" back then. If the Bible taught the earth was flat, surely they wouldn't have used a word to describe a "circle".


They didn't have a word for sphere, but they had a word for ball, which is always by definition a sphere. The word for ball, *duwr*, was used in numerous passages in the bible to describe a sphere, notably, in *Isaiah *22:18 it describes Yahveh ”will turn and toss you like a ball…” Wasn't that "circle" word from Isaiah as well?

Frankly your response will be the same I prove that it's a circle and you'll just say again "I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A SPHERE, THEREFORE IT IS"


----------



## 99FELONIEZ (Jul 26, 2011)

if i saw anybody preaching about god on the streets. id kick their ass lol... jus sayin'


----------



## Cynic (Jan 31, 2010)

One of my personal highlights of atheism is that I get to have a sense of humor and post shit like this:


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

My brother was pretty big in the whole Flying Spagetti Monster stuff a few years ago, and to be fair that makes as much sense as christianity to me.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I love Jesus humor.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Christianity in a nut shell.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

A pastor put sanitary hot air hand dryers in the rest rooms at his church and after two weeks took them out.

When asked why, he confessed that they worked fine but when he went in there he saw a sign that read:

"For a sample of this week's sermon, push the button."


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> You just say the word means sphere when it means circle... *and you don't provide any proof.* I have provided proof. You talk as if you were the actual writer of Isaiah.


Ever heard of colloquial language?

Apparently not 

Anyways I'll just say this, the Bible doesn't 'teach' the Earth is flat.

Please visit this page for more information:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> It's a pretty simple message - be a good person. If everyone followed that I don't think any religious figure would even care about whether people believe in their religion. It's not about whether God exists. It's whether you are a good person.


In a perfect world bro. Let's be real, we don't live in a perfect world. Why? Because of Adam and Eve's *Original Sin*.
God gave Adam and Eve the opportunity to not obey because if they weren't given the ability to choose(free will) then it wouldn't be real. Much like a person asks their girlfriend "Will you marry me?" That other person has the choice to say no. 

God has given us free will to choose how to live our lives. The sin that we commit in our everyday lives had not only earned us a place in hell, but is also the reason there are really bad things happening in the world everyday. Sin was "introduced", if you will, by Adam and Eve's rebellion.

Sexual sin, in particular, is extremely destructive. Fornication and Adultery? STD's, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, jealousy, envy, murder, depression, suicide, etc.

The thing is, it *isn't* about whether or not you are a "good person". Firstly, because where are you getting your morals from? Yourself? If a moral standard comes from the individual in question, then that means morality is *subjective* not *objective*. That also means that someone else, like Hitler, can say that it's OK to murder millions of Jews, and guess what, if that being the case, you're no more right than Hitler is. Because there would be no *objective moral standard*.

There *IS* an *objective moral standard* and to deny so is ludicrous. 






> It's also why I think Christianity is terribly flawed - _apparently_ if you're a good person but you don't believe in Christ, you're going to hell forever. That seems damn unfair if it was true (because I'm a Buddhist). I'd be damn pissed - for eternity.


The Bible says *NOBODY* is without sin (except Jesus, since he is God in the flesh, which means he cannot sin). *We've ALL *fallen short of the glory of God. Even if you consider yourself a reasonably good person, you've still sinned against a God that is *Eternal* (keyword here). Since the authority of God is *Eternal*, the punishment of sinning against such an authority is *Eternal*. 

Think of it like this: When you were a kid, if you disobeyed your Dad or Mom you were likely punished, which could be receiving a spanking, "timeout" in the corner, or no video games, etc. If you disobeyed your school's rules, you may receive detention or suspension. If you disobeyed the law, you may receive a speeding ticket for speeding, or you could go to prison for whatever reason. *Now pay attention because this is important.* These are ALL *finite* (another keyword here) consequences because you've rebelled against a *finite* authority figure.

God is not *finite* he is *Eternal*, so the punishment is *Eternal*. 

The good news? God loved *YOU* so much that he came to Earth in the flesh as Jesus to die for your sins. Since he's *Eternal*, the price he paid was more than sufficient to save you from *Eternal* punishment and give you *Eternal Life*.

God's already done his part, now you have to step out in faith and accept what Christ did on the cross. I'm pleading that you will accept him as your savior today. 

*"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, - Ephesians 2:8"*

Grace is what he did on the cross at Calvary. Faith is your part in believing.

*"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16"*

Please understand it's not that God is "sending" people to hell, it's your refusal to accept him which is essentially sending yourself to hell. If I was terminally ill and you offered me the cure for my disease, I'd have to accept that cure to be saved. If I rejected it I would die.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Anyone retarded enough to believe the planet is only 6000 years old deserves to be mocked. :lmao


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

i like your use of bold and underlined words


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Kabuto420 said:


> Anyone retarded enough to believe the planet is billions of years old deserves to be mocked. :lmao


Fixed.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Fixed.


Yeah... the planet is only 6000 years old and God put dinosaur fossils in the ground to test your faith.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Kabuto420 said:


> Yeah... the planet is only 6000 years old and God put dinosaur fossils in the ground to test your faith.


No, dinosaurs were killed by the world-wide flood. The fossils are from the rapid burial that took place.

Try again.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> *Original Sin*. choice *isn't* *subjective* *objective*. *objective moral standard*.
> 
> *IS* *objective moral standard*
> 
> ...


*OK I've had enough with this. I'm a Buddhist, I don't give a damn whether your God exists, I'm going to be a good person whether your God exists or not that does not matter because the world will be better and if your God exists I bloody well hope good people are going to heaven.

Now you just run along and be a good person however you define it, however you want it. Peace, health and happiness to you.*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> No, dinosaurs were killed by the world-wide flood. The fossils are from the rapid burial that took place.


You... think... _dinosaurs_... were alive... as recent as a few thousand years ago.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Kabuto420 said:


> You... think... _dinosaurs_... were alive... as recent as a few thousand years ago.


Is he saying God didn't save the dinosaurs?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> *OK I've had enough with this. I'm a Buddhist, I don't give a damn whether your God exists, I'm going to be a good person whether your God exists or not that does not matter because the world will be better and if your God exists I bloody well hope good people are going to heaven.
> 
> Now you just run along and be a good person however you define it, however you want it. Peace, health and happiness to you.*


Alright dude, you're free to believe what you want. I just want you to know that I truly care about you (I care for people).

I wish you the best as well.



> You... think... dinosaurs... were alive... as recent as a few thousand years ago.



You... think... dinosaurs... were alive... as long as a few billion years ago.

fpalm


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

starship.paint said:


> Is he saying God didn't save the dinosaurs?


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

I'm quite interested in hearing Poltergeist's explanation for this. Sure, dinosaurs *could *have been killed by a flood because they were well, land-based animals which could not fly or swim.

However how about the ancient animals which could fly or swim? Seems like they should have been able to survive the flood. Stuff like giant whales, giant sharks, pilosaurs, plesiosaurs, sea scorpions, trilobytes, I'm sure they could swim. Flying animals like pterosaurs should have survived as well.

I'm also interested - were there water-dwelling creatures (fish? molluscs? crustaceans? aquatic mammals?) on the Ark? If they weren't on the Ark, they must have survived the flood by being in the water. How about microorganisms?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

starship.paint said:


> Perhaps the dinosaurs didn't believe in God. Kabuto, you'll be seeing them in Hell.
> 
> I'm quite interested in hearing Poltergeist's explanation for this. Sure, dinosaurs *could *have been killed by a flood because they were well, land-based animals which could not fly or swim.
> 
> However how about the ancient animals which could fly or swim? Seems like they should have been able to survive the flood. Stuff like giant whales, giant sharks, pilosaurs, plesiosaurs, sea scorpions, trilobytes, I'm sure they could swim. Flying animals like pterosaurs should have survived as well.


I wanna hear the explanation too. This is some entertaining stuff.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> Is he saying God didn't save the dinosaurs?


From http://nwcreation.net/dinosaurs.html




> The fossil record is filled with large reptiles called dinosaurs that are typically found in the section of the geological column known as the Mesozoic (seen at left). They are believed to have gone extinct from the earth about 65 million years before the first humans lived. However, according to the Biblical account of earth's early history, God created all the land animals and humans on exactly the same day. The Bible also says there was a great devastating flood that covered the highest mountains by 20 feet, and was only survivable through divine intervention. The scientific community does not recognize this devastating global flood, and therefore if the Bible is true, the fossils and rock layers that blanket the world have been misinterpreted.
> 
> Fossil Evidence of Creation - The Footsteps of Leviathan. Documentary reveals fossil evidence of creation. The discovery of unfossilized dinosaur bones suggests dinosaurs died out recently. Fossil graveyards, petrified forests and the rapid formation of coal all speak of the Genesis Flood. By American Portrait Films. 1996. 27 minutes.
> The fossiliferous layers of rock are assumed to have accumulated at a rate the animals alive today could have survived naturally, and are therefore believed to have accumulated through repeated local floods and gradual buildup over millions of years. According to this interpretation, animals such as the dinosaurs are believed to have lived on the earth for 200 million years. It is thought they went extinct long before humans evolved because they are not typically found in the same layers of strata. However, if indeed the fossil record is instead a history of Noah's flood, the animals died at different times, but separated by weeks perhaps instead of millions of years.
> ...


And from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark



> Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults.
> 
> Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals as a maximum number. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind,” Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind,” so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.
> 
> ...


So, yes, God saved every "kind" of animal. Doesn't mean he literally saved every single one.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> From http://nwcreation.net/dinosaurs.html
> 
> And from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark
> 
> So, yes, God saved every "kind" of animal. Doesn't mean he literally saved every single one.


That is an interesting explanation indeed. Thank you, Poltergeist.

Now, how about the marine and flying animals? Were they on the Ark?


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> From http://nwcreation.net/dinosaurs.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dinosaurs on the ark and living with man! This keeps getting better and better!


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

starship.paint said:


> That is an interesting explanation indeed. Thank you, Poltergeist.
> 
> Now, how about the marine and flying animals? Were they on the Ark?


As for the marine animals, no they weren't on the ark (obviously). Consider this however, how do you know these marine "dinosaurs" aren't alive today? Look up "living fossils".

In 1977, a recently deceased plesiosaur was caught by a Japanese fishing boat. The famous explorer Marco Polo wrote in his journal about his encounter with a T-Rex, also Egyptians and Mayans have drawings and stuff showing humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

Also, from http://toptenproofs.com/article_dinosaurs.php



> The evidence that dinosaurs lived with man in recent history is staggering and overwhelming due to the countless artifacts, drawings, carvings, statues, mosaics and depictions throughout history of Brachiosaurus, Stegosaurus, Plesiosaur, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, T-rex and more. If man didn't live with these creatures, how did artists throughout ancient history and in cultures all over the world happen to re-create these beasts, thousands of years ago, to “coincidentally” look identical to what we see in the dinosaur books and museums today? Some may say “well, they must have seen dinosaur skeletons back then too”. Not so. Here's why.
> 
> Dinosaur skeletons aren't found just lying on the ground intact, so someone walking by can look down and see what the dinosaur looked like. The bones are separated, fragmented and embedded deep within the ground, mountains and rock with most of them missing. Occasionally, you might find a piece of a single bone sticking out of a rock here or there, but that's pretty much all we find today. Logic dicates that's all anyone in ancient history would ever have found as well. They would not have been able to create the image of the entire beast without the entire skeleton, yet the science of Paleontology did not develop until the early 1800's. The process of digging out and excavating dinosaur bones from rock didn't begin until then. Consequently, the first complete skeleton of a dinosaur was not constructed until the 1800's.
> 
> ...


As for flying

From http://www.icr.org/article/did-dinosaurs-survive-flood/



> Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
> 
> The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
> 
> But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe.


Hope that helps.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Here's another interesting website if you wanna check it out

http://www.dinotruth.com/article13.html


I also highly recommend you watch some of the creation seminars on this website (http://www.creationtoday.org/category/type/video/creation-seminars/)

Make sure you have time though, as they are quite time consuming lol xD.


----------



## Silver C (Mar 8, 2005)

starship.paint said:


> I've just did some research on Wikipedia, here's some interesting stuff.
> 
> The Buddha neither denies nor accepts a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.
> 
> ...


Wiki is the worst possible source for eastern thought. So inaccurate in all respects.

Buddhism, in its true form, consisted of 4 sects. These 4 sects were headed by the 4 prime disciples of Buddha. The tenets common to all 4 sects are:

1) All entities are impermanent, transitory and in a continuous state of change.
2) Apart from the flow of cognitions (consciousness), *there is no Atma (Self) as the seat of consciousness*.
3) Liberation is tranquility (Nirvana).

Point 2) is the reason why Buddhism is termed a 'nastika' school of thought (as opposed to 'Astika' schools). In sanskrit, 'nastika' = na-asti = not-'vedic'. I refuse to call 'asti' as 'theistic' (as interpreted by some) because some Astika (vedic) schools are also atheistic.

This much was Buddha's philosophy. Now, the 4 disciples of Buddha developed their theories based on these two tenets as follows:

1) *The School of Madhyamika* - Denies the reality of everything. Even consciousness is unreal. Nothing comes into existence and nothing perishes. If asked, what is the basis for unreality, it is answered that unreality needs no basis. The Universe cannot be classified as truly existing, or as non-existent or as a mixture of real and unreal, or as neither real nor unreal.

This is buddhist atheism in its most philosophical and extreme form. Possibly the Buddha himself favored this.

2) *The School of Yogacharan* - A more liberal school. Yogacharan denies the difference between substance and attribute, but stated that a thing is permanent if it never undergoes change in past, present or future. If something changes, it means that thing has ceased to exist and a new thing has arisen. In other words, transient nature of everything is established. The existence of three different entities - knowledge, object of knowledge and the knower is denied. Such a perception is due to illusion. All three are unreal.

3) *The School of Southranthika* - He accepts that external objects are real, but none of them can be apprehended directly. If you see a pot, you are not actually seeing the pot, but only inferring it by the perception that bears a likeness of its form. In other words, you can't see anything 'really', only an image of things constitutes what you see. 

In other words, an object causes perception, which causes a succeeding perception to perceive the previous perception in the presence of external factors like light and sense-organs. This is also the way by which internal cognitions such as pain, pleasure etc. occur.

A unique and rather untenable philosophy. Even the other schools of Buddhism refute this idea.

4) *The School of Vaibhashika* - He, like the Southranthika, accepts the reality of all external and internal objects and that these objects can be cognised by the senses. But he attributes consciousness to the mind and acknowledges the lack of a Self (Atma). In addition, while space and Nirvana are eternal, matter and mind are transient, ie, non-eternal.

A weird idea of this school is that groups of non-eternal microscopic things make up an eternal thing. Eg: small sparks, which lack eternal existence, make up an eternally existing flame. 

----

(Source: Traditional books on Indian philosophical dialectics)

Anyway, this is Buddhism. All 4 schools accept the lack of a creator, lack of the individual Self and the transient nature of things. Its just that the first two schools are sarva-shUnya vAdins (denying the reality of everything), but the last two schools are sarva-asti-vAdins (accept reality of external things). And all 4 have their weaknesses.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

I'd like an explaination of how you are able to not only have 2 of every species on a single boat, one that would have to be so massive remains would have been found by now and not have creatures higher up the food chain like Lions eat everything else on the ark like a southern baptist at an old country buffet on a sunday.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Cynic said:


> One of my personal highlights of atheism is that I get to have a sense of humor and post shit like this:


You can still post that as a Christian too. Nothing YOU do is gonna get you into heaven. It's what Jesus did. We're all in the same boat. Post away!


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> Christianity in a nut shell.


What's your story? We came from monkeys? Yeah makes perfect sense.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

McQueen said:


> I'd like an explaination of how you are able to not only have 2 of every species on a single boat, one that would have to be so massive remains would have been found by now and not have creatures higher up the food chain like Lions eat everything else on the ark like a southern baptist at an old country buffet on a sunday.


Correction if I may, it's two of every "kind", not two of every species.

For Noah's Ark remains: http://noahsarksearch.com/ararat.htm

For animals co-existing on the ark: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Kabuto420 said:


> You... think... _dinosaurs_... were alive... as recent as a few thousand years ago.


I bet if the fossils never surfaced and we told you dinosaurs lived on the earth before us you would have the same reaction to that as you do to Christianity now. Lol. You guys use irony against us but it can go both ways, and only one of these sides is the truth. God either does or doesn't exist. Let's see what happens after death. Only way for proof right?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> I bet if the fossils never surfaced and we told you dinosaurs lived on the earth before us you would have the same reaction to that as you do to Christianity now. Lol. You guys use irony against us but it can go both ways, and only one of these sides is the truth. God either does or doesn't exist. Let's see what happens after death. Only way for proof right?


*But the fossils did surface and can't simply be ignored.*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *But the fossils did surface and can't simply be ignored.*


Creationists don't ignore the fossils,


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *But the fossils did surface and can't simply be ignored.*


 And I suppose nothing in the bible came to surface as true..


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Creationists don't ignore the fossils,


*Nor do they explain them. 

MacDanny, I'm sure alot of the stuff that is in the bible is true. Most of it is not to be taken literally though. *


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Wait people think Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark too? :lmao


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Noah's Ark is one of the most absurd stories to come out of the bible. That and Adam and Eve and the virgin birth. *


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Listen, there is only One Creator, he instructed us, we chose to disobey him, do our own thing, and sin entered into the world. Now is God held accountable for making man a free will being, not as a robot, and that being choosing wrong? If you do something bad who's held accountable? Your mom? No You are..so first of all get in your place and realize God is above you and has more knowledge of what is good and what is just and you don't know shit. Not only do we deserve whatever we get, but God actually made a way of escape (through Jesus) and we still as humans choose to ignore it and pretend like we have a clue about how this place came about. Like we know better than God. Hey It is what it is..


----------



## Walls (Apr 14, 2004)

Noah's Ark is full of plot holes:

1. How big was this fucking boat?
2. How he he manage to wrangle up 2 of every animal when most of the world is covered with water?
3. For the sake of argument, what did all the animals on the boat eat, considering animals eat other animals?

Etc, etc

Adam And Eve story is complete BS too. If that story is true, then that means they fucked their kids in order to make new ones. Also, if that story is true, where do black people come from? It baffles me that in this day and age religion still exists with all the information we have. We're monkeys, simple as that. I've used this Rogan bit in this situations before, and I will use it again: "We are 96% the same genetically as monkeys. If I handed you a sandwich that was 96% shit and 4% ham, would you be willing to consider that a ham sandwich?".


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Listen, there is only One Creator, he instructed us, we chose to disobey him, do our own thing, and sin entered into the world. Now is God held accountable for making man a free will being, not as a robot, and that being choosing wrong? If you do something bad who's held accountable? Your mom? No You are..so first of all get in your place and realize God is above you and has more knowledge of what is good and what is just and you don't know shit. Not only do we deserve whatever we get, but God actually made a way of escape (through Jesus) and we still as humans choose to ignore it and pretend like we have a clue about how this place came about. Like we know better than God. Hey It is what it is..


*Praise the lord! *high five**


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *Nor do they explain them.
> 
> MacDanny, I'm sure alot of the stuff that is in the bible is true. Most of it is not to be taken literally though. *


You're on the right track. His words are not literal their spiritual. "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The body is dead without the spirit. The spirit is not dead without the body." When we die our body dies but our spirit does not. Even in sleep we still dream. Something is still on even though our bodies are off. Our spirit will never die. It will continue on forever. And if you know what the penalty for sin is you will get right with the Lord. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." "Fear the Lord." "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> You're on the right track. His words are not literal their spiritual. "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The body is dead without the spirit. The spirit is not dead without the body." When we die our body dies but our spirit does not. *Even in sleep we still dream. Something is still on even though our bodies are off.* Our spirit will never die. It will continue on forever. And if you know what the penalty for sin is you will get right with the Lord. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." "Fear the Lord." "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."


*That, "something" would be the brain, btw. Just sayin' *


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *That, "something" would be the brain, btw. Just sayin' *


Yeah that brain that came from monkeys. Cause they so smart.


----------



## Myers (Jan 19, 2004)

so where are we at in this debate? It's probably got far away from the OP.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Monkeys are pretty smart. Just saying.


----------



## Walls (Apr 14, 2004)

Monkey's are smart, btw.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

You wont believe in bible stories but you'll look at a monkey and say what up grandpop. Ugh.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I'm not an atheist but monkeys are actually quite intelligent, comparatively speaking.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

McQueen said:


> Monkeys are pretty smart. Just saying.


You have the mind of a monkey. I expect a thank you


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Yeah that brain that came from monkeys. Cause they so smart.


*Whoah, calm down holy man. I didn't say anything about monkeys. I'm not going to fuck with a monkey, I saw Planet of the Apes.*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Bro you need to stop disparaging monkeys they never said God doesn't exist.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Monkeys are probably the closest thing to us, that doesnt mean they are us or we came from them. Its called various creations.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> You have the mind of a monkey. I expect a thank you


You mad bro?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

LadyCroft said:


> *Whoah, calm down holy man. I didn't say anything about monkeys. I'm not going to fuck with a monkey, I saw Planet of the Apes.*


Did you see Rise of the Planet of the Apes from last summer? That movie was awesome. Caesar one of the most compelling characters in a while IMO.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *Whoah, calm down holy man. I didn't say anything about monkeys. I'm not going to fuck with a monkey, I saw Planet of the Apes.*


Fictional movie dont take it so seriously. Think of it as the bible. That should help.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

CamillePunk said:


> Bro you need to stop disparaging monkeys they never said God doesn't exist.


You talked to one? What'd he say?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Fictional movie dont take it so seriously. Think of it as the bible. That should help.


*Yeah I hear ya, but fuck, I'll just keep my distance from monkeys if you don't mind. I was raised Pilgrim. *


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

McQueen said:


> Wait people think Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark too? :lmao













THAT explains it!


Anyway this is what worries me about religion. Religion teaches people that it's ok to be ignorant about things while being defiant in said ignorance. Instead of asking why something is the way it is, it just fills that gap of knowledge with "God did it!"

And due to the high influence of religion in some places they can't move on from clearly established facts to help further advance their community. I'm glad here in the UK Creationism is banned from being taught in schools because it is nothing but childish nonesense that overlooks established facts. The idea that the earth is 6000 years old is wrong, we have root systems in current existing trees that are older than that for fuck sake.

I hate how science is judged as just "another opinion." It most certainly isn't, science is researched, observed and came to a conclusion. People treat science as some anti-religious process but the thing is it isn't; it has nothing to do with religion. Science adjusts it's view based on what is found while people like creationists do not adjust their view but instead try to look for anything which can help said view.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

This gives new meaning to the pun Jurassic Ark.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

MacDanny 6 said:


> You talked to one? What'd he say?


He asked me if I've ever talked to a monkey and if so, what it said to me.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

CamillePunk said:


> He asked me if I've ever talked to a monkey and if so, what it said to me.


So what'd you answer?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I'm pretty sure this was his answer.*



CamillePunk said:


> He asked me if I've ever talked to a monkey and if so, what it said to me.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

So Im the monkey? The creature you just boasted up as full of intelligence and wisdom? You use it as a joke against me? If you're not gonna believe in God and call us Monkeys 2.0, dont use them to insult other people. It's very foolish. Very unmonkey like.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> So Im the monkey? The creature you just boasted up as full of intelligence and wisdom? You use it as a joke against me? If you're not gonna believe in God and call us Monkeys 2.0, dont use them to insult other people. It's very foolish. Very unmonkey like.


*Hang on a minute holy man. I didn't boast about monkeys. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one that said she'll stay away from monkeys. Remember? I fear for the statue of liberty, truth be known.*


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *Hang on a minute holy man. I didn't boast about monkeys. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one that said she'll stay away from monkeys. Remember? I fear for the statue of liberty, truth be known.*


Oh you're the one who doesn't believe in the bible but fears an attack on the world by monkeys. Hey whats up


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Oh you're the one who doesn't believe in the bible but fears an attack on the world by monkeys. Hey whats up


*Hey! How are ya? You know how you can tell us Pilgrims from everyone else? We have buckles on our hats.
*


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

I recognize you as a pilgrim by the scarlet letter hanging from your neck Crofty.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm out this bitch. Ill check back on this thread later to see if it evolved.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*As long as it's not a noose, McDreamy.*



MacDanny 6 said:


> I'm out this bitch. Ill check back on this thread later to see if it evolved.


*I see what ya did there!*


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

The "A" is for DAT *A*SS.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*How about a T for turkey and a C for corn... you know, the stuff I'm going to share with the Indians. *


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

B for Bananas because you and me girl are nothing more than a couple evolved monkeys flinging poop at our computer screens.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Damnit, stop scaring me with this monkey shit. I'll eat stuffing with an Indian but I'm not getting close to a fucking monkey. Soul stealers are what they are. *


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

That one lady got her face ripped off by a monkey and it was the scariest thing i've ever seen.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Oh fuck here come the nightmares now... you had to bring monkey lady up!

I just know I'm going to end up in some cage being taunted by apes that speak English.*


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

A cage? Thats kinky.

And that my cue to exit this thread.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Sorry about this cowgirl.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*yeah, laugh it up furball. 












Holy fuck CP you're cruel! 

*


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

That was a pretty epic movie moment.

Estella Warren in the cage too.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> 2. How he he manage to wrangle up 2 of every animal when most of the world is covered with water?


Oh the irony. Where do you think all that water came from? (whisper: the flood)



> 3. For the sake of argument, what did all the animals on the boat eat, considering animals eat other animals?


They ate hay, grains, etc. They were fed by the humans on the ark, so they didn't feel the need to kill the other animals, etc.




> Adam And Eve story is complete BS too. If that story is true, then that means they fucked their kids in order to make new ones.


They married their sisters. You have to understand this was in a different age way before it was morally wrong to do so, and before genetic factors were an issue. As far as I know they didn't reproduce with their kids, however.



> Also, if that story is true, where do black people come from? It baffles me that in this day and age religion still exists with all the information we have.


1. The first-named son of Ham and father of six sons: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabteca, and Nimrod. (Ge 10:6-8; 1Ch 1:8-10) Cush and his named descendants are included among those from whom “the nations were spread about in the earth after the deluge.” (Ge 10:32) Thus, while no details are given concerning Cush as an individual in the Genesis account, his name is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as representing his descendants and the land or regions that they settled, as described in No. 2.

It may here be noted, however, that Cush is very evidently a principal progenitor (perhaps along with Put) of the dark-complexioned branch of the human family (Jer 13:23), as is indicated by the areas of settlement of certain of his descendants. This disproves the theory advanced by those who incorrectly endeavor to apply to the ***** peoples the curse pronounced on Canaan, for Canaan, the brother of Cush, did not produce any ***** descendants but, rather, was the forefather of the various Canaanite tribes of Palestine. (Ge 9:24, 25; 10:6) There is, therefore, no Scriptural connection whatsoever between the dark complexion of certain descendants of Cush and the curse pronounced on Canaan.

When God created Adam God gave Adam the ability to produce all the races of man we see today. This is something even we can do on a small scale. If a black person and a white person marry and have a child that child has the ability to produce a white or a black child. The shades can vary between the two colors. If we can do it certainly God would have no problem begining the human race that way.



> We're monkeys, simple as that.


fpalm


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Oh the irony. Where do you think all that water came from? (whisper: the flood)


That's...not how floods work.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *Nor do they explain them.
> *


Sorry, but, you're wrong.

99% (not an exact figure but just to say that the vast majority) of fossils are from Noah's Flood.

Fossilization happens when an organism is buried rapidly.

There is so much evidence to support Noah's Flood, please look it up on google.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

CamillePunk said:


> That's...not how floods work.


It's how Noah's Flood worked.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> They ate hay, grains, etc. They were fed by the humans on the ark, so they didn't feel the need to kill the other animals, etc.


Impossible. Obligate Carnivores depend solely on the nutrients found in animal flesh for their survival, they could not live off of hay and grains they would die.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Watch this video, please. You'll understand why there are so many lies in so-called "science" today. 

Our children our being exposed to lies in the textbooks at school.

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

fergieska said:


> Impossible. Obligate Carnivores depend solely on the nutrients found in animal flesh for their survival, they could not live off of hay and grains they would die.


You missed the "etc."

I'm short on time and I can't elaborate much. I apologize for that.

I'm sure they had some form of meat for carnivores.

**EDIT** Here's a link for ya

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

This is really stupid, I didn't think anybody actually believed in that Noah's Ark story.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

P.Smith said:


> This is really stupid, I didn't think anybody actually believed in that Noah's Ark story.


You thought wrong.

You've been deceived into believing that the Bible is full of "fairy tales".

It's simply not true. Bible is full of facts and mountains of evidence supports the flood.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> You missed the "etc."
> 
> I'm short on time and I can't elaborate much. I apologize for that.
> 
> I'm sure they had some form of meat for carnivores.


Your link is nonesensical. Dried meat could not last that long in an environment which contained high humidity (a world wide flood would inevitabley cause this). Slaughtering animals would be breaking the two of every kind rule, and to fish for that many fish would take so long that some species would starve to death. There would have been millions of species on that ark, it would be impossible to feed them all within a time limit of them not starving without millions of humans on board and millions of supplies that convienetly keep regenerating.


----------



## P.Smith (Jan 24, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> You thought wrong.
> 
> You've been deceived into believing that the Bible is full of "fairy tales".
> 
> It's simply not true. Bible is full of facts and mountains of evidence supports the flood.


Thank god I was 'deceived', otherwise I would sound like a crazy fool.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

fergieska said:


> Your link is nonesensical. Dried meat could not last that long in an environment which contained high humidity (a world wide flood would inevitabley cause this). Slaughtering animals would be breaking the two of every kind rule, and to fish for that many fish would take so long that some species would starve to death. There would have been millions of species on that ark, it would be impossible to feed them all within a time limit of them not starving without millions of humans on board and millions of supplies that convienetly keep regenerating.


Man you really don't read do you?

There were two of each "kind", not species.

The very most amount of animals that were on that ark is 16,000.

Slaughtered animals isn't breaking any rule. They could have been slaughtered beforehand or an extra amount of animals that wasn't included in the 2 of each for survival could've been brought on solely for food.

The ark was afloat for roughly a year so yes it was probably one hell of a job taking care of all those animals but it was very possible.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Man you really don't read do you?
> 
> There were two of each "kind", not species.
> 
> ...


You do realise that to claim for kinds of animals "(vague term of the year award here) then evolution would inevitabley have to exist in order for the millions of species we have now to exist, your only other option (which is the usual creationist drivel) is to state that there was a perfect kind and the current forms are mutations, but if that is the case then were are the fossils of these perfect kinds? All fossils show creatures which were less able than that currently. Not to mention it doesn't account to the transition of animals within the world. Why did Marsupials all go to Austrailia? Not to mention the gene pool would be much too small meaning it would be impossible to have different races of humans within the world. Ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time.

The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic, and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties , would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.

If you allowed beneficial mutations to produce the thirty different antigens of the A and B series in the HLA region, it would still not solve their problem. Individuals are only heterozygous at a fairly low percentage of loci (5 to 20 percent), while the population could be polymorphic at nearly half the loci. It's questionable how viable an individual would be with a high percentage of heterozygosity.

Not to mention it's impossible for our current population to exist from a bottleneck of such few people consider just one family, which we will call Ya5. Members of this family have been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If all humans descended from a single pair of individuals, all humans would have each of the 57 elements in pretty much the same locations, since individual members of the family almost never move. However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest.

Also your claim doesn't answer how exactly dried meat could not go off in that environment. Take note that meat going off would cause infection which would kill many of the animals.

Not to mention the starvation problem still exists. To work with 16000 among 8 people would involve an animal being fed every minute of one day in order to feed every animal on board once. This is just feeding which means not including the humans eating, waste disposal or collection of any food or preperation of any food nor does it include the walking of animal to animal nor anything else. It would be fundamentally impossible to prevent a 'kind' of animal from dying while on the ark.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

fergieska said:


> You do realise that to claim for kinds of animals "(vague term of the year award here) then evolution would inevitabley have to exist in order for the millions of species we have now to exist, your only other option (which is the usual creationist drivel) is to state that there was a perfect kind and the current forms are mutations, but if that is the case then were are the fossils of these perfect kinds? All fossils show creatures which were less able than that currently. Not to mention it doesn't account to the transition of animals within the world. Why did Marsupials all go to Austrailia? Not to mention the gene pool would be much too small meaning it would be impossible to have different races of humans within the world. Ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time.
> 
> The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic, and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties , would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I won't get into drawn out debate. Please read over the past 5-10 pages. Your heart is too hardened to see the truth and I pray God will soften it towards the truth.

God is real and he's coming back very soon. Please, I urge you to accept the free gift of salvation. 

Even though you don't know him, Jesus still very much so loves you.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> I'm sorry, but I won't get into drawn out debate. Please read over the past 5-10 pages. Your heart is too hardened to see the truth and I pray God will soften it towards the truth.
> 
> God is real and he's coming back very soon. Please, I urge you to accept the free gift of salvation.
> 
> Even though you don't know him, Jesus still very much so loves you.


----------



## haribo (Feb 4, 2005)

fergieska said:


>


Maybe it was like The Dark Knight's social experiment. Humans & animals were handed the detonator to a bomb, so were the dinosaurs.


----------



## dan the marino (Oct 22, 2006)

What about the fish? All the saltwater fish couldn't have survived a flood like that. They would need their own boat too. But the boat would also need to be filled with seawater... maybe this is where mermaids come in.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

LadyCroft said:


> MacDanny, I'm sure alot of the stuff that is in the bible is true. *Most of it is not to be taken literally though.*


That's a key point. Too many people take the wrong message from the Bible. The Bible is supposed to teach tolerance and respect yet there are Christians out there bothering gay people and other groups. Plus in the past we know that people tried to use the Bible to justify slavery and other terrible things but the Bible's overall message would never condone unfair treatment to others.



Poltergeist said:


> You thought wrong.
> 
> You've been deceived into believing that the Bible is full of "fairy tales".
> 
> It's simply not true. Bible is full of facts and mountains of evidence supports the flood.


Mountains of evidence? Let's not go too far. I'm sure that there may be some evidence out there but it's not overwhelming.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

MacDanny 6 said:


> I bet if the fossils never surfaced and we told you dinosaurs lived on the earth before us you would have the same reaction to that as you do to Christianity now. Lol. You guys use irony against us but it can go both ways, and only one of these sides is the truth. God either does or doesn't exist. Let's see what happens after death. Only way for proof right?


Gosh golly darn... the nerve of these people believing in proven scientific facts!



MacDanny 6 said:


> Even in sleep we still dream. Something is still on even though our bodies are off.


This is one of the funnier statements made so far. Our bodies turn "off" when we go to sleep. :lmao



Poltergeist said:


> When God created Adam God gave Adam the ability to produce all the races of man we see today.














Poltergeist said:


> 99% (not an exact figure but just to say that the vast majority) of fossils are from Noah's Flood.














Poltergeist said:


> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals


Honestly, where do they come up with this shit?! :lmao



Poltergeist said:


> The ark was afloat for roughly a year so yes it was probably one hell of a job taking care of all those animals but it was very possible.


A whole year!











Poltergeist said:


> I'm sorry, but I won't get into drawn out debate. Please read over the past 5-10 pages. Your heart is too hardened to see the truth and I pray God will soften it towards the truth.
> 
> God is real and he's coming back very soon. Please, I urge you to accept the free gift of salvation.
> 
> Even though you don't know him, Jesus still very much so loves you.


I love how this is the response to all the facts fergieska presented. Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts! Jesus loves you!



























Christians carry a certain kind of crazy around with them simply by the nature of what they believe in. But most of them don't completely try to ignore scientific facts. Oh but these Creationists... you gotta be a special kind of bat shit crazy to believe dinosaurs lived side by side with man and the planet is only 6000 years old. Even the freakin' Vatican tries to incorporate real scientific facts into their beliefs.

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism

Of course, they're still crazy too but they're not completely stupid either. The Vatican figured out that if they continued trying to deny proven scientific facts, people would stop believing in their bullshit stories. So what they do now is they try to incorporate these facts into their beliefs. I've got a whole different problem with that approach but that's a separate argument. For the sake of this point, at least they aren't retarded enough to continue denying what science has proven.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Kabuto420 said:


> Christians carry a certain kind of crazy around with them simply by the nature of what they believe in. But most of them don't completely try to ignore scientific facts. Oh but these Creationists... you gotta be a special kind of bat shit crazy to believe dinosaurs lived side by side with man and the planet is only 6000 years old.


They took the Flintstones far far too literally.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

As stated already in this thread, it's funny how atheists quickly change their tune the moment they are faced with death.

You might not believe in God, but that still doesn't change the fact that *he DOES exist*.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

God existing isnt a fact.
You have provided no evidence of such a statement.
Anyone that believes in Adam and Eve has to be a troll because you legit have to be a retard to believe that story.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> As stated already in this thread, it's funny how atheists quickly change their tune the moment they are faced with death.


Humans are at their least rational on their death bed and what you said is generally for those not atheist but those with doubt.



Poltergeist said:


> You might not believe in God, but that still doesn't change the fact that *he DOES exist*.


Saying something won't make it true. You need proof. And so far all you've shown is that proof and evidence means nothing to you.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> God existing isnt a fact.
> You have provided no evidence of such a statement.
> Anyone that believes in Adam and Eve has to be a troll because you legit have to be a retard to believe that story.


God is such a dick in the Garden of Eden story. 

You can also look at it as God representing the burden and consequences of free will. I don't even think the original authors consciously meant for this to be the case, but it's the only sane way of looking at it. Or God is just a dick.


----------



## Emperor Palpatine (Aug 2, 2003)

MrMister said:


> God is such a dick in the Garden of Eden story.
> 
> You can also look at it as God representing the burden and consequences of free will. I don't even think the original authors consciously meant for this to be the case, but it's the only sane way of looking at it. *Or God is just a dick.*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qNrgQbOE60


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> *Humans are at their least rational on their death bed* and what you said is generally for those not atheist but those with doubt.


I didn't mean on their death bed, I meant like if they are in any situation where death is imminent. And you contradict yourself in your next quote when you say this -



> *Saying something won't make it true. You need proof.* And so far all you've shown is that proof and evidence means nothing to you.


Wow. just wow.

No, I don't need proof. The God of the Bible can't be proven. But with the mountains of evidence pointing towards it and my faith, not to mention my own personal experiences, I *know* the God of the Bible exists. Millions of people can't be wrong about what they experience. What can be proven is there is a creator, however. Because we can disprove the contrary. It's *impossible* for there not to be a creator.

There is no proof for macro-evolution. There is no proof for organic evolution. There is no proof for stellar evolution. We don't even see stars being formed, but if the big bang is true, we would see millions of stars being formed per minute. (The math has already been done on that, look it up please.)

I *dare* you to watch this video, because it will show you that almost everything that supports Evolution in school textbooks is an outright lie.

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Millions of people can't be wrong about what they experience.


Millions of people are wrong about a lot of things every single day.



Poltergeist said:


> There is no proof for macro-evolution. There is no proof for organic evolution. There is no proof for stellar evolution.


Kind of like you are wrong about your facts right here. Even the Vatican admits that evolution is a fact.



Poltergeist said:


> We don't even see stars being formed, but if the big bang is true, we would see millions of stars being formed per minute. (The math has already been done on that, look it up please.)


fpalm

_Some_body doesn't understand physics and astronomy very well. Since you wanna bring up stars though... if the planet was only 6000 years old, we would not be able to see stars more than 6000 light years away. Which means, we would not even be able to see all of our own galaxy, much less the rest of the universe. You might wanna study your facts a bit more.



Poltergeist said:


> I *dare* you to watch this video, because it will show you that almost everything that supports Evolution in school textbooks is an outright lie.
> 
> http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/


No one here is going to be stupid enough to watch your nearly 3 hour video.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> Millions of people are wrong about a lot of things every single day.


Millions of people feeling the same exact thing can't be wrong. It's not just that, but a combination of many things that leads to their faith in Christ.

And since millions of people can be wrong, don't you think scientists are susceptible to error as well? They don't have facts, just forensic evidence, which is based on assumptions. That is why Evolution is and always will be a *theory*.





> Kind of like you are wrong about your facts right here. Even the Vatican admits that evolution is a fact.


I'm not wrong bud, watch the video if you think you're so smart. The Vatican is not part of the body of Christ. Catholics will not inherit the kingdom of heaven unless they accept Jesus Christ as their savior.






> _Some_body doesn't understand physics and astronomy very well. Since you wanna bring up stars though... if the planet was only 6000 years old, we would not be able to see stars more than 6000 light years away. Which means, we would not even be able to see all of our own galaxy, much less the rest of the universe. You might wanna study your facts a bit more.


Somebody doesn't understand that he's been lied to in school. If you watch the video you'll see that I'm right and you're wrong bud. And of course God made the stars that way, otherwise what would've been the point in making them if we couldn't see them? Duh.





> No one here is going to be stupid enough to watch your nearly 3 hour video.


LOL! I dare you to watch even just 30 minutes of it. Of course your arrogance won't let you watch it. 

Owned.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Millions of people feeling the same exact thing can't be wrong. It's not just that, but a combination of many things that leads to their faith in Christ.
> 
> And since millions of people can be wrong, don't you think scientists are susceptible to error as well? They don't have facts, just forensic evidence, which is based on assumptions. That is why Evolution is and always will be a *theory*.


This is some funny shit. First, your logic dictates that because millions of people "feel" something, they can't be wrong. Then you follow up by saying that since people can be wrong, all the scientists must be wrong.

To reiterate, the _feelings_ must be right and the _scientific evidence_ must be wrong.

Dude, you should be a fuckin' comedian. :lmao 



Poltergeist said:


> I'm not wrong bud, watch the video if you think you're so smart. The Vatican is not part of the body of Christ. Catholics will not inherit the kingdom of heaven unless they accept Jesus Christ as their savior.


Damn! Someone alert the pope! :lmao



Poltergeist said:


> Somebody doesn't understand that he's been lied to in school. If you watch the video you'll see that I'm right and you're wrong bud. And of course God made the stars that way, otherwise what would've been the point in making them if we couldn't see them? Duh.


Because, you know... the laws of physics do not apply. 



Poltergeist said:


> LOL! I dare you to watch even just 30 minutes of it. Of course your arrogance won't let you watch it.
> 
> Owned.










@ Owned. I am tellin' ya, you should look into a career in comedy. You crack me up.

I actually watched the first few minutes and it was quite hilarious. Maybe I'll watch a little more of it later for a good laugh.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Kabuto420 said:


> This is some funny shit. First, your logic dictates that because millions of people "feel" something, they can't be wrong. Then you follow up by saying that since people can be wrong, all the scientists must be wrong.
> 
> To reiterate, the _feelings_ must be right and the _scientific evidence_ must be wrong.
> 
> ...



Why are you still arguing with him? It's obvious that he's not going to change his beliefs.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

kobra860 said:


> Why are you still arguing with him? It's obvious that he's not going to change his beliefs.


Who's arguing? This is for entertainment value! :lmao


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> This is some funny shit. First, your logic dictates that because millions of people "feel" something, they can't be wrong. Then you follow up by saying that since people can be wrong, all the scientists must be wrong.
> 
> To reiterate, the _feelings_ must be right and the _scientific evidence_ must be wrong.
> 
> Dude, you should be a fuckin' comedian. :lmao


Nice straw-man buddy. I said that what they feel AND a combination of many factors such as mountains of evidence supporting what the Bible says is true, miracle healings, etc.





> Because, you know... the laws of physics do not apply to God.


Fixed.  Glad you can comprehend at least that.






> @ Owned. I am tellin' ya, you should look into a career in comedy. You crack me up.
> 
> I actually watched the first few minutes and it was quite hilarious. Maybe I'll watch a little more of it later for a good laugh.


First few minutes? Aww, poor baby scared of the truth? Watch 30 minutes and you'll realize the truth.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Nice straw-man buddy. I said that what they feel AND a combination of many factors such as mountains of evidence supporting what the Bible says is true, miracle healings, etc.
> 
> Fixed.  Glad you can comprehend at least that.
> 
> First few minutes? Aww, poor baby scared of the truth? Watch 30 minutes and you'll realize the truth.





kobra860 said:


> Why are you still arguing with him? It's obvious that he's not going to change his beliefs.


See what I mean? This guy is a riot. :lmao


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Kabuto420 said:


> See what I mean? This guy is a riot. :lmao


Funny how all you've done in this whole thread is laugh at facts and evidence that contradicts your fantasy world-view.

You obviously aren't interested in learning on whether or not Evolution is true.

Your own loss I suppose. Have fun while you can, because in life there are many choices. In eternity, there are only two.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Funny how all you've done in this whole thread is laugh at facts and evidence that contradicts your fantasy world-view.
> 
> You obviously aren't interested in learning on whether or not Evolution is true.
> 
> Your own loss I suppose. Have fun while you can, because in life there are many choices. In eternity, there are only two.


Wait wait wait... _I'm_ the one with the "fantasy" world-view? Ahhhhhahahahahahaha!!!!!









Actually, if you read back, I've posted a lot of facts in this thread that point out how ridiculous creationism is. I love to learn about physics and astronomy. It is some fascinating stuff; learning why and how things function as they do. Of course, you conveniently ignore all the facts that make your claims look silly. But that's part of the fun.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Kabuto420 said:


> Wait wait wait... _I'm_ the one with the "fantasy" world-view? Ahhhhhahahahahahaha!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You believe that everything came from nothing and after billions of years, life arose from inanimate matter.

Yerp. Makes perfect sense.


*Fantasy.*


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> You believe that everything came from nothing and after billions of years, life arose from inanimate matter.


I never said I believe everything came from nothing. I've never even claimed to know the truth of the universe.

Matter of fact, *you* are the one who claims everything came from nothing. God said "poof" and everything magically appeared is what you've been preaching. You ignore proven scientific facts. You ignore the laws of physics. I find it hilarious that no matter how much you are proven wrong, you always pull "_the God magic_" card to explain everything you can't.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Kabuto420 said:


> I never said I believe everything came from nothing. I've never even claimed to know the truth of the universe.
> 
> Matter of fact, *you* are the one who claims everything came from nothing. God said "poof" and everything magically appeared is what you've been preaching. You ignore proven scientific facts. You ignore the laws of physics. I find it hilarious that no matter how much you are proven wrong, you always pull "_the God magic_" card to explain everything you can't.


No. Everything comes from God. God has always existed so before you try to ask "who created God?" the answer is nothing and no-one. He ALWAYS existed. The laws of physics were created by him, don't you get it? God isn't affected by the laws that HE created.

Scientific facts? Like what? If your speaking evolution, it's almost complete garbage because it's supported by lies, as you'll see in the video I provided. 

So if your not talking about evolution, what are you talking about regarding so called 'facts'? Because guess what? Anything that we can't test, repeat, and observe is not fact, it's religious because it requires you to believe it's true.

It's not proven the universe is billions of years old. It's not proven that stars are formed from dust/gas clouds. Hell, black holes aren't even proven. We can't prove them.

Yet you insist that there are so called "facts" that exist. Well what are they? If they can't be tested, repeated, or observed, don't even waste your time because your going to make yourself look even more ignorant than you already have.

Peace.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

1) A global flood, if it did occur, would have left fossils of every species in every strata as it laid down sediment. We should find all over the world, the same species in the same strata. No where on Earth do you find fossils of dinosaurs, mastodons, Precambrian shellfish and primates in the same strata. The flood was thought to have been extremely violent; churning up huge volumes of water this would have mixed the carcasses of species into one homogenous layer, advanced creatures with less advanced all whirling around in the cacophony of death together. While heavier species would have sunk faster, we should see more or less homogenous strata all over the Earth. This occurs nowhere on the planet.

2) The global flood should have left homogenous sediment layers across the world, similar to the Iridium layer that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs left on the Earth. No such layer of sediment exists for that time period.

3) The necessary water to cover the Earth would have been astronomical. The oceans cover roughly 2/3rds of the Earth. That is sea level, to cover the highest point, Everest (29,028 feet feet above sea level), would require JUST to raise sea level, 756,821,205 Cubic miles of water.

The fundemental problem is that the Oceans, seas and bays make up 96.5% of total water on the Earth and they only have 321,000,000 cubic miles. That leaves a huge amount of water that would need to come from somewhere.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml

There's simply isn't that much water on Earth to allow such a flood.

Some argue that the mountains weren’t that tall yet. That makes no sense whatsoever given the rates of tectonic plate drift. Plates move at 1 inch a year. That’s 500 feet over 6,000 years. Everest is by far taller then that. Some argue that plates moved faster. To create Everest in 6,000 years would mean plates would have to move almost five feet every year in the same direction. While plate movements are related to the Earth’s core heat, the necessary heat to have that much movement would mean the Earth’s core would have to be hundreds of times hotter. That’s way more then the surface of the Sun.

4) The global flood says that the world was covered by water. The problem with that is such an infusion of water would have created brine. As the water receded and evaporated, huge amounts of salt would have remained on the land. Very few plants can grow on salted Earth, and those who can are not agricultural crops. Virtually every creature in the oceans has a low tolerance for salinity change. A slight change can result in massive dieoffs. That would mean, as the salinity rapidly changed, that many creatures, if not virtually all would have died from osmosis. That means Noah would have had to keep two of every species of oceanic creatures onboard the ship. Given the measurements, the boat cannot hold two of every whale and shark. Even worse, as most of the oxygen comes from algea and seaweed, the change in salinity and pressure would have killed off the producers of oxygen. Life simply couldn't exist after a flood of such proportions. While some modern species can survive in salinity conditions very different then their norm, most cannot survive for extended periods of time, such as 40 days. Furthermore, their prey sources often cannot survive that long as well. Even more alarming is that if the alga managed to survive, the death of billions of life on Earth would have resulted in decay which results in nutrients which would have resulted in alga explosions like no other, removing oxygen from the oceans, suffocating every living thing left.

5) Some say that the water came from underground, a mile to be percise. The problem with that is the water would be superheated. Releasing 756,821,205 cubic miles of superheated water would have boiled everything to death almost instantly. The oceans would have also boiled away, killing all marine life, fresh water lakes would have done the same. The mantle of the Earth is 100 Celsius. Therefore the steam would be roughly that hot. That’s 212 degrees Fahrenheit. 756,821,205 cubic miles of 212 degree Fahrenheit water in a world that is typically no hotter then 80 degrees average would be instant death to everything.

6) Finally, flood geology requires the compaction of 4.5 billion years of comet, asteroid and meteor strikes into a single year. The problem with that is the energy from such impacts would have to be compacted as well, and we all know that the energy is converted into heat.

3 x 107 kg x 4.5 x 109 years worth of meteorite flux
=1.35 x 1017 kg of meteoritic material fell during the flood year.

The energy imparted by this amount of material is equal to:
1/2 M V2, where M is the mass of the extraterrestrial material, and V is the velocity at which it falls to the Earth (equal to the escape velocity, or 11200 m/s). This gives:
1/2 (1.35 x 1017 kg) * (11200 m/s)2
= 8.5 x 1024 Joules.

So the Earth's atmosphere would have had to accomodate 8 x 1024 J of energy from this falling meteorite matter. We can do a quick calculation to determine the amount of heating this would cause:

Energy = Matmo * Cp *(T), where Matmo is the mass of the atmosphere (5 x 1018 kg), Cp is the pressure constant for air (about 716 J/kg * K for N2), and T is the temperature change of the atmosphere. Solve for T:
T = Energy/ (Matmo * Cp)
= 8 x 1024 J / ((5 x 1018 kg) *716 J /kg * K)
= 2,400 K.

So the temperature change of the Earth's atmosphere would be about a 2,40 K increase in a single year. That's over 3860 Fahrenheit.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> A global flood, if it did occur, would have left fossils of every species in every strata as it laid down sediment.


I stopped reading there...

Please please please, just watch this video

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/

I understand your time is probably very valuable and I'm not asking you to watch the whole 3 hours, but I promise you you'll have a difference perspective if you watch even an hour of it.

I'm done arguing with you. There are other videos on that same website you should check out.

I hope you'll come to the realization that there is a God and that you'll accept Christ.

Peace be with you.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Scientific facts? Like what?.





Poltergeist said:


> I stopped reading there...


You asked for facts. I gave them to you. You ignored them.


----------



## Wolfgang Frost (Jan 10, 2012)

Poltergeist said:


> Before becoming a Christian, I was into the whole Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution argument, and constantly mocked religious folks for believing in a "magic man in the sky".
> 
> I just want to share with you my two main reasons why I believe a creator exists. And trust me me, I have more reasons than I can count for believing in one. But for the sake of time and because most of you probably don't love reading *THAT* much, I'll give you my two top reasons. (Also note there are far better arguments for a creator but I wanted to share mine.)
> 
> ...


 I believe in Santa


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> I didn't mean on their death bed, I meant like if they are in any situation where death is imminent.


That would be implied with my statement, my statement doesn't state that what you said wouldn't happen. Another common problem here is that if people ask God for help, that specific God would not guaranteed to be the Christian God but instead the one that their society holds up.


Poltergeist said:


> And you contradict yourself in your next quote when you say this -


Actually no I don't. Using reasoning you can conduct the hypothetical mind set of a person. I'm not talking about any specific person so require no proof. If I was then I would but I'm talking purely hypothetical.



Poltergeist said:


> No, I don't need proof.


Yes you do. Extrodinary claims need extrodinary proof. You aren't dealing in the hypothetical here, you are stating that the God of the Christian bible exists and that's a fact. There are no mountains of evidence, but instead mountains of contradictions and false logic. Personal expierences mean jack shit, one man thought that by reading a book he needed to kill John Lennon. The human mind isn't always rationale.

To say millions of people can't be wrong is also bullshit. Millions of people have been wrong before, millions of people believed the world was flat. What you're using is collective reasoning, which is in other words "eat shit, 12 trillion flies can't be wrong."

You can't prove a creator either. This is a complete hypothetical, a scenario where any answer holds just as much credit as any other answer. In other words a situation where the chance of it being true is so small that you are more likely to win the lottery every time for the rest of your life.

There is proof for Macro-Evolution and organic evolution. All that has been proven here is that you don't understand them and claiming that you do will not make that true (you don't even know what the word Macro means by the look of it). You're just using cliche creationist drivel that has been disproven millions of times.

Also it's rather funny that you expect people to watch a 3 hour video yet you yourself can't read 3 paragraphs explaining why human geneology explains how you are incorrect. It really sums up the creationist view point quite nicely in that you ignore facts but shove your views down the throats of others.


----------



## starship.paint (Sep 27, 2010)

You know what? We're all wasting our time here. We all just post stuff and laugh at how we think the other guy is stupid. It's not really doing anyone any good. Nobody is being persuaded here. So if you're posting a lot of shit (that means any arguments) then I'd advise you to stop wasting your time.


----------



## HeliWolf (Oct 25, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> As stated already in this thread, it's funny how atheists quickly change their tune the moment they are faced with death.


No, it's not funny. It's horrifying and barbaric.


Human kind are at their least rational at the point of death, it is at that point that the individual human feels absolutely every range of fear possible as it tries to prepare itself for death. Naturally, a human is going to look for comfort in times of stress, so it turns to this ridiculous concept of "God" (meaning a singular creator entity) for answers. An atheist is going to be screaming for any help it can get in that situation.


And it doesn't get any.


You're clearly comfortable in your beliefs, well done. Enjoy your life. But you're wrong. Human history has been spent proving that you and all your ilk are wrong.


Facts > Opinions. And that's just the way it is.


----------



## punx06 (Sep 12, 2006)

I am one hundred percent agnostic. I can't say there is no God, and I can't say that there is. I am perfectly happy not knowing and I have zero interest in organised religion. I am actually pretty anti-religion, I don't need to go into it but there are too many things wrong with organised faith that I wouldn't want any part of. If it helps people then great, but it's not for me at all. I don't really think about the existence of a higher power, I just get on with life.

I also really dislike militant atheists. They go on and on about how they hate it when religious people try to force their beliefs on others, but they are doing exactly the same thing by trying to pass off opinions as facts. They are just as bad as the religious fanatics. Can't we all just get along with each other instead of arguing about which faith has the "one true God".


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

starship.paint said:


> You know what? We're all wasting our time here. We all just post stuff and laugh at how we think the other guy is stupid. It's not really doing anyone any good. Nobody is being persuaded here. So if you're posting a lot of shit (that means any arguments) then I'd advise you to stop wasting your time.


I agree with this. That's why all religious debates are pointless.


----------



## billiam86 (Jan 14, 2012)

starship.paint said:


> You know what? We're all wasting our time here. We all just post stuff and laugh at how we think the other guy is stupid. It's not really doing anyone any good. Nobody is being persuaded here. So if you're posting a lot of shit (that means any arguments) then I'd advise you to stop wasting your time.


and this is why I never get into this debate with people...just both of us running around in circles


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man sees, why does it yet hope for it? Niice


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Prepare to die atheists. Literally.


----------



## Choke2Death (Jul 26, 2011)

starship.paint said:


> You know what? We're all wasting our time here. We all just post stuff and laugh at how we think the other guy is stupid. It's not really doing anyone any good. Nobody is being persuaded here. So if you're posting a lot of shit (that means any arguments) then I'd advise you to stop wasting your time.


I said that about 25 pages ago. I remember the first forum I registered to had religious discussions banned. I wondered to myself why they would do that but when I went to other forums that allowed it, I understood that fully. That's a topic that never reaches a closing point. It's each side going back and forth recycling the same opinions with different words and at worst, it can sink as low as name calling with no substance anymore.


----------



## GuruOfMarkness (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm under too much stress with the state of Monday night Raw, I finally decided to check back with this thread just for the heck of it, and so far the only rational decision anyone has made so far is agreeing to disagree. Starship paint is right. But really, if the bigotry on this thread is any indication of how you act in real life, you need to re evaluate yourself. I'm going to church tomorrow. You're going to hang with friends. We're all different. Live with it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)




----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

We all know now that god is not real, Tebow got his ass handed to him by Brady. End of story.

I am agnostic and have plenty of friends of varying religious beliefs and we all have a mutual respect for each other and don't berate and belittle each other about our fates. However, if a douchie kid can't keep his mouth shut about what I should believe in then I'm gonna try to prove him wrong, but I inevitably get proved wrong for thinking I could use logic against his claims, like many of you all have done with the OP here. Some of you even provided great information and awesome FACTS, but no mater you can't win. It's like an argument between two kids on who is the better superhero Batman or Superman.

BTW I'll watch that 3 hour video if the OP will read my 1200 page college physics book.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

HardKoR said:


> BTW I'll watch that 3 hour video if the OP will read my 1200 page college physics book.


:lmao


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Well the thing is in the end of the day it's all about big ego when it comes to these discussions. 

Atheist are no more right than hardcore Christians. Lack of respect can be seen of both sides just like anything else. 

What happened with respecting your fellow man?

These kind of discussions always lacks respect.


----------



## Bouma (Jul 3, 2006)

I only just stumbled upon this very very long thread, and forgive me for not being bothered to read through every post. However from what I have read, Poltergeist I find your argument to be very troubling. I don't wish to deny your right to believe in God, however to criticize atheists for being emphatic in denying his existence and then declaring with certainty that it is "fact" that he does exist, a word that connotes evidence and unambiguous proof, it's a bit hypocritical. Part of the reason that I find debates such as this tiresome, is because of exactly this, there isn't much reasoned argument going on. Your first post is testament to this, posting a link to a website. It's already sketchy, not a peer-reviewed journal or a scholarly text and what referencing there is, is often to out-dated texts dating back to the 60s (Not to suggest their age inevitably undermines their research). So many of these claims are absurd, namely "There is no history to indicate that humans existed prior to 4,000 B.C." Something I find difficult to accept after just viewing a documentary about the Chauvet Cave in Southern France, which contains artwork dating back 30,000 years. This isn't a new discovery, they found it back in 1994. Things such as this make it difficult for me to take this person seriously, and by extension you, for endorsing it. It's unreasonable to call someone arrogant for not believing in God and then post what you think is "proof", when it is not, that my friend is arrogant.

I'm sure, I like many others who have read and may have already posted in this thread could exchange endless arguments, however I refuse to even debate (and that is what you want right? Why else post something so inflammatory? What else would you get?) with someone who isn't going to be reasonable or logical both in their appreciation of others arguments or construction of their own.


----------



## adam527 (Jan 16, 2012)

No proof, it's hard to believe for me.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Well proof might be hidden in the shadows. 

That's how God operates.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> We all know now that god is not real, Tebow got his ass handed to him by Brady. End of story.


I suspect sarcasm, but Brady and Tebow are never on the field on the same time, lol. You mean Patriots defense .

Besides, many athletes are Christian. Tebow isn't the only one lol.





> BTW I'll watch that 3 hour video if the OP will read my 1200 page college physics book.


Deal.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*bump*


----------



## Mani-Man (Nov 19, 2003)




----------



## dlb223 (Jan 10, 2012)

I believe in God, but God is not an immortal man in heaven. God is just energy. God is good energy, God can be bad energy. God is everywhere, all the time, and God is in all of us and helps us do the things we do because God is energy. Here are my claims:

- Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Neither can God, since God was not really "created" and is considered immortal.
- Energy has always been here, and to support the theory of a Big Bang that created the universe, you must say that the Big Bang was created by energy. What created energy? If you're a scientist, nothing. Therefore, it may as well have just been God that created the Big Bang.
- We all use energy in our day-to-day lives. God created us in "his" own image. Therefore, God created us as energy.

God is just another word for energy. That's it. And I believe in it and I put my faith in It, but It is not a Him. My father who conceived me is Him, and my mother who birthed me is Her.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

dlb223 said:


> I believe in God, but God is not an immortal man in heaven. God is just energy. God is good energy, God can be bad energy. God is everywhere, all the time, and God is in all of us and helps us do the things we do because God is energy. Here are my claims:
> 
> - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Neither can God, since God was not really "created" and is considered immortal.
> - Energy has always been here, and to support the theory of a Big Bang that created the universe, you must say that the Big Bang was created by energy. What created energy? If you're a scientist, nothing. Therefore, it may as well have just been God that created the Big Bang.
> ...


PRAISE ELECTRICITY! OFFER IT YOUR VIRGIN DAUGHTERS!


----------



## Hennessey (Jan 1, 2012)

I believe in God, but I am not too religious. Both sides are not perfect.

Question for Religious people.
If God created everything, then who created God? How could he always have been there? 

Question for Atheist people.
Your theory is that there was a small ball of energy (big bang) that created the entire universe. But, how did that ball of energy that created the universe even start to exist?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Sparta101 said:


> Question for Atheist people.
> Your theory is that there was a small ball of energy (big bang) that created the entire universe. But, how did that ball of energy that created the universe even start to exist?


Do you at all understand that atheism is just not believing in a god? Seriously that's it, nothing to do with theories on the start of the universe or on creation at all. It just means not believing in God.

As for the universe, I don't know if we find out I'll be amazed but I'm not going to take any guesses and I'm certainly not going to base my life on a guess too. There is an infinite amount of possibilities for the start answer. The one that sounds like the most sense to me personally is the Cyclic Model theory. But to apply once again, atheism doesn't have anything to do at all with any of this. A baby would technically be an atheist and have no view on your question.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

dlb223 said:


> I believe in God, but God is not an immortal man in heaven. God is just energy. God is good energy, God can be bad energy. God is everywhere, all the time, and God is in all of us and helps us do the things we do because God is energy. Here are my claims:
> 
> - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Neither can God, since God was not really "created" and is considered immortal.
> - Energy has always been here, and to support the theory of a Big Bang that created the universe, you must say that the Big Bang was created by energy. What created energy? If you're a scientist, nothing. Therefore, it may as well have just been God that created the Big Bang.
> ...


This is more or less my personal belief system. I don't believe any of the so called religions have got it right and as mere mortals I don't think its our place to understand completely how the universe works. I understand accepting religion but I do find the people who find literal interpretation of biblical stories being complete fact rather amusing though.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Panther said:


> PRAISE ELECTRICITY! OFFER IT YOUR VIRGIN DAUGHTERS!


Electricity is a big deal Panther. I'm a fan at least.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm an alectriest.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Watch it Panda. It might just smite thee.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Electricity? Must be a Sqwatch around.*


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

dlb223 said:


> I believe in God, but God is not an immortal man in heaven. God is just energy. God is good energy, God can be bad energy. God is everywhere, all the time, and God is in all of us and helps us do the things we do because God is energy. Here are my claims:
> 
> - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Neither can God, since God was not really "created" and is considered immortal.
> - Energy has always been here, and to support the theory of a Big Bang that created the universe, you must say that the Big Bang was created by energy. What created energy? If you're a scientist, nothing. Therefore, it may as well have just been God that created the Big Bang.
> ...


Where do you stand on morality? Are there objective standards for morality set by a superior being or "energy" or is morality a machination of man influenced by your cultural and genetic make-up? I've personally always found it weird how I know things like animal abuse and incest are wrong yet nobody's ever taken me aside to say "DON'T KICK THE DOG OR FUCK YOUR SISTER, VICE VERSA", and these topics certainly weren't covered on Sesame Street.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Fucking your sister would be bad for the advancement of humans because we would stop adapting and evolving and would be more susceptible to diseases because we would all be so similar in our genetic makeup. 

We've established that hurting animals is wrong for whatever reason and treat as a culture, which is why different cultures have no different views on the matter.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The classic God invented morals fallacy.


----------



## haribo (Feb 4, 2005)

Electricity puns? Shocking, positively shocking.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

LadyCroft said:


> *Electricity? Must be a Sqwatch around.*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Sparta101 said:


> I believe in God, but I am not too religious. Both sides are not perfect.
> 
> Question for Religious people.
> If God created everything, then who created God? How could he always have been there?


Let me ask you a question.

If God was created, would that make him God?

The answer is obvious.

You must understand that God is not bound by matter, space, and time. Three dimensions which essentially are what the universe are made of.

The Bible states he is eternal. He has no beginning or end. In other words, outside of our Universe, there is no such thing as "x amount of years ago". It's a constant state that has ALWAYS existed. God exists in this "realm".


----------



## eddiefan (Dec 17, 2010)

Poltergeist said:


> The Bible states he is eternal. He has no beginning or end. In other words, outside of our Universe, there is no such thing as "x amount of years ago". It's a constant state that has ALWAYS existed. God exists in this "realm".


Haven't read most of the this thread, only the OP, and I'm not trying to annoy any religious folk who believe in the Bible or any other Holy Books, but why exactly do we use them to support the idea of God? They were all works compiled by human beings. I understand that Jesus Christ in Christianity and Muhammad in Islam are considered as Prophets who brought the words of God to humans, but the books were brought together by their followers or disciples.


----------



## SES Soldier (May 25, 2010)

I usually don't get involved in these things but...




Poltergeist said:


> I was saying that I think the universe being so vast that our minds can't comprehend it is big evidence of a creator. When you look at the cosmos don't you see a beauty you can't explain? This is God's creation. It wasn't an accident.


The problem with what you're saying is... we can explain it. If you put all the physics we know about into a supercomputer simulation including all the physics we are aware of but can't explain yet (Dark Matter/Dark Energy/Higgs) the output is actually very very very similar to what you see when you look at the Universe. Stars, Galaxies, Planets, Black holes and so on are all there.

I'm Agnostic, so I can't say a God does or does not exist. It'd be just as ignorant for a Athiest to say "God does not exist" than a Creationist saying "God exists"... it is impossible to prove or disprove without evidence either way.

Belief and miracles however are not evidence for a deity. Seeing things and feeling "The power of God" have actually been tested in labs by turning on/off certain parts of the brain by "sparking" it. Shockingly people DO see things and feel things, however this can be explained by Biology.

What came before the Big Bang or made it happen is pure speculation. Perhaps a God did start everything, but perhaps not? Just enjoy the Cosmos.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

SES Soldier said:


> I usually don't get involved in these things but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do realize that most Atheists are Agnostic too right?


----------



## SES Soldier (May 25, 2010)

Panther said:


> You do realize that most Atheists are Agnostic too right?


Yes, even Richard Dawkins who is probably the most famous "Athiest" is an Agnostic. I'm talking about those who are full blown Athiests and say God simply does not exist.


----------



## dlb223 (Jan 10, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Where do you stand on morality? Are there objective standards for morality set by a superior being or "energy" or is morality a machination of man influenced by your cultural and genetic make-up? I've personally always found it weird how I know things like animal abuse and incest are wrong yet nobody's ever taken me aside to say "DON'T KICK THE DOG OR FUCK YOUR SISTER, VICE VERSA", and these topics certainly weren't covered on Sesame Street.


My morality is based on how I was raised, and I was raised on the Bible. My morality is based on how Jesus Christ lived, so I believe it's moral to protect the lives of others even if they're total assholes that want to crucify you, it's moral to give to those less fortunate, and it's moral to try your very best to have a pure and clean soul (meaning try your best not to break any of the ten commandments or commit any of the seven sins, and there's a reason I say "try").

This is just my morality, though. I'm unique, just like everyone else. In some cultures, it's morally right for an older man to have sex with a younger boy (even when the younger boy is related). I understand that I follow one religion, and everyone follows it differently. Because I understand this, I don't force my beliefs down other people's throats. I love to have religious debates with people because I can gain a lot of perspectives on religion.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

SES Soldier said:


> Yes, even Richard Dawkins who is probably the most famous "Athiest" is an Agnostic. I'm talking about those who are full blown Athiests and say God simply does not exist.


Dawkins himself has said that he is as agnostic about God as he is about fairies existing at the the bottom of the garden. He is most certainly not an agnostic in the way that most people in this thread are talking about. Being open to new evidence is not the same as sitting right in the middle and giving equal weight to athiesm and thiesm (an undue respect).


----------



## SES Soldier (May 25, 2010)

Atheist Panda said:


> Dawkins himself has said that he is as agnostic about God as he is about fairies existing at the the bottom of the garden. He is most certainly not an agnostic in the way that most people in this thread are talking about. Being open to new evidence is not the same as sitting right in the middle and giving equal weight to athiesm and thiesm (an undue respect).


You're right. In The God Delusion I believe in the scale of Atheism he ranks himself a 6/7 (Although later says he's more a 6.9 XD) because he won't say for sure there wasn't a creator because there isn't any evidence to prove or disprove it. From what I can gather he just believes it's highly unlikely and creation can be explained without a deity.


----------



## holycityzoo (Aug 14, 2011)

Religion, in my opinion, is just a big waste of time.


----------



## #1Peep4ever (Aug 21, 2011)

well i do believe in god 
simple as that
its just me


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

TheCelticRebel said:


> I thought Christians were bad until I ran into edgy, militant, internet Atheists.


Yep. Now, imagine taking that same hateful, militant attitude, and giving it to someone with ruling power over a large group of people. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, doesn't it?

Sadly, you don't have to imagine it, as it's happened, time-and-time-again, throughout history.

From chapter XIII (_The Red Hand of Atheism_) of Vox Day's _The Irrational Atheist_:



Vox Day said:


> As for Dawkins, the Oxford scientist deals with the matter by engaging in his customary bait-and-switch. The seven pages of the section entitled “What About Hitler And Stalin? Weren’t They Athiests?” is almost entirely dedicated to Hitler, with only a single paragraph addressing the uncomfortable fact of Stalin’s atheism. While Dawkins manfully confesses that the Soviet dictator was without question an atheist, he does not neglect to mention Stalin’s seminary training and equates the significance of the incorrect presumption that Hitler and Stalin were both atheists with the fact that they, like Saddam Hussein, both also possessed mustaches.
> 
> _What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does._
> 
> ...


The above *historical facts* are why the atheist meme that religion is the root of all the world's ills, and that atheism is the way to a Utopian society, is so laughable. It completely flies in the face of reality and is a level of history denial that makes Holocaust deniers and moon landing hoaxists look sane by comparison.

We don't need to imagine an atheistic society; we've seen plenty of them throughout history. The end result, more often than not, is crimes against humanity so severe that they're almost unimaginable.

If atheism ever did take hold, worldwide, I don't believe society would last for more than a century afterward. Morality would crumble, and the our own sense of the value of humanity would plummet. Combine those two factors with the continually increasing power of weapons of mass destruction (including bio-weaponry), and humanity wouldn't stand a chance.


----------



## $id (Jan 20, 2006)

You have high level people fighting for religion but if religion was not present then all the way down a host of people will not have a conciouss(alot,trust me) and wars would start downard rather than upward....so war is unexcapable in my opinion

I do believe in a creator due to incidents in my own life


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

fergieska said:


> Do you at all understand that atheism is just not believing in a god? Seriously that's it, nothing to do with theories on the start of the universe or on creation at all. It just means not believing in God.


Atheism may not require a belief in any _specific_ origin of existence, sure, but in not believing in (any) God (i.e., an intentional first cause of existence), atheism logically entails that existence formed absent any intent or purpose. That's the positive aspect of atheism, and it requires positive evidence.

There are three possibilities:

(i) I believe the evidence and arguments most strongly supports an intentional, purposeful root of existence (God [theism, deism, etc.]).

(ii) I believe the evidence and arguments most strongly supports a non-intentional, purposeless root of existence (atheism).

(iii) I don't believe there's sufficient evidence or arguments to strongly support an intentional, purposeful root of existence, or a non-intentional, purposeless root of existence, therefore, I have no opinion (agnosticism).

The atheist has as much a responsibility to prove his position as does the theist in proving theirs. Simply saying "there's no evidence for God" doesn't prove atheism any more than me saying there's no evidence for a "non-God" (read: any non-intentional, purposeless explanation for existence) proves theism.

It's not about proving A by disproving B. It's about weighing the totality of the evidence and arguments for and against both A and B, and using that to decide which one, if either, makes the most sense.




fergieska said:


> As for the universe, I don't know if we find out I'll be amazed but I'm not going to take any guesses and I'm certainly not going to base my life on a guess too. There is an infinite amount of possibilities for the start answer. The one that sounds like the most sense to me personally is the Cyclic Model theory. But to apply once again, atheism doesn't have anything to do at all with any of this. A baby would technically be an atheist and have no view on your question.


Ah, but in claiming to be atheist, rather than simply agnostic, you are taking a guess about the origin of existence. You may not be saying _it happened *exactly* this way_, but you are making a very critical guess about the nature of how existence formed. See above to understand why.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

starship.paint said:


> You know what? We're all wasting our time here. We all just post stuff and laugh at how we think the other guy is stupid. It's not really doing anyone any good. Nobody is being persuaded here. So if you're posting a lot of shit (that means any arguments) then I'd advise you to stop wasting your time.


I'm not sure about that. Most wont be swayed, I agree, but you have to consider the fact that there are hundreds, possibly thousands (I'm unsure of this website's traffic-level), of lurkers, and many of them are likely on-the-fence. A strong argument, one way or the other, could sway any of those fence-sitters towards that side.

Irrational dogmatists, of which a few exist in this thread (they know who they are), can't be reasoned with, but that type makes up only a small percentage of the overall population. I believe the majority of people can be swayed by an excellent argument.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

fergieska said:


> You do realise that to claim for kinds of animals "(vague term of the year award here) then evolution would inevitabley have to exist in order for the millions of species we have now to exist, your only other option (which is the usual creationist drivel) is to state that there was a perfect kind and the current forms are mutations, but if that is the case then were are the fossils of these perfect kinds? All fossils show creatures which were less able than that currently. Not to mention it doesn't account to the transition of animals within the world. Why did Marsupials all go to Austrailia? Not to mention the gene pool would be much too small meaning it would be impossible to have different races of humans within the world. Ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time.
> 
> The human genetic pool was reduced to five individuals—Mr. and Mrs. Noah and their daughters-in-law (the three sons don't count because they only carry combinations of the genes present in Mr. and Mrs. Noah, unless creationists are willing to admit to beneficial gene mutations). And even if, by some freak coincidence, the five people never had a variant in common, there would still be far too few alleles to account for humankind's diversity. Nearly a third of human genes are polymorphic, and some, such as the two controlling A and B antigens, with thirty varieties , would require substantially more people than Genesis makes available.
> 
> ...


While I, myself, am not a Biblical creationist, the "kind" argument does fit in remarkably well with what science has demonstrated. Allow me to explain.

The key thing that must be understood is that "kind" refers to the taxonomic rank of _family_, rather than the far more broad ranking of _species_. In other words, the dog "kind" wouldn't refer to every breed of dog, but to the entire canine family; dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.

We know from direct observation that evolution has the creative power to explain cosmetic changes, i.e., superficial changes in appearance. You look different your parents; I look different from mine, etc. An accumulation of these minor, cosmetic changes could very easily explain the variation amongst the different subfamilies of the original "kinds." Dog breeding is a perfect example of this.

What hasn't been directly observed is that evolution has the creative power to explain fundamental changes via creating novel traits. In other words, evolution hasn't been shown to be able to break the family barrier. This is where the true controversy lies, as it's the demarcation line that separates _microevolution_ from _macroevolution_ (which, contrary to popular belief, is a legitimate demarcation, and not something invented by "creationists").

This is why other lines of evidence, rather than direct observation, such as the fossil record and genomics, are so crucial. They can help us understand historical events (events that cannot be observed in real-time). It has to be understood, though, that indirect inferences are far more subjective than direct observations. While the Darwinist may interpret a fossil sequence as evidence of macroevolution, a Biblical creationist would interpret that sequence as nothing more than variation within a preexisting "kind."


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> proof of what? Once again, it is not up to athiests to prove there isn't a god, it's up to religious people to prove there is.


It's up to the atheist to provide a more coherent explanation for existence than God.

We know the _crème de la crème_ of atheists, Richard Dawkins, can't do this, which is why he ran like a little bitch from William Lane Craig last October.

If the pope of atheists knows his arguments wont measure up against the arguments of a top-tier theist, why should anyone be an atheist?


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Mithro said:


> See what I did there?


An excellent "owning." Kudos.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I love the delicious irony of a poster called 'Mr. High IQ' talking utter shit.


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

I thought you were done with this thread, i$e?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm done debating with the mentally ill, but I still pop in to take a few swipes every now and then.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Hiplop said:


> a religious person then would have to say something created god. Otherwise they have no point in "something cant start out of nothing", and then the spiral is too long for it to have any value (creator of the creator etc) Much easier to believe it did it by itself.
> 
> Didn't mean it to be pretentious, I realize it sounded that way; sorry, cerbs. I mean it makes sense, when you learn about it.


You misunderstand the cosmological argument for God.

It isn't that everything must be created out of something, it's that everything that has a beginning must have a cause for that beginning. Thus, if the universe had a beginning, as is the case with bang bang cosmology, then the universe is not the root of existence.

The way I always explain it is like this: Think of existence as a long chain of cause-and-effect (which, by the way, is what makes up time):










The question is: What is the *first* link on this chain? In other words, what is the very root of existence?

For centuries, atheists asserted that the universe, itself, comprised the first link on the chain of existence. Their view was that universe was eternal and infinite, thus nothing preceded it.

Big bang cosmology changed all of this. Suddenly, the universe was shown to have a beginning, which meant that it couldn't be the first link on the chain; something had to precede it. The current-day debate is over just what that _something_ is. Theists say God; atheists say a multiverse.

Two things to remember: (i) The big bang was originally formulated by the Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître, and (ii) it was atheists, not theists, who opposed the big bang, as they realized the implications of the universe having a beginning (read: it had a beginning-er). The late, great NASA legend Robert Jastrow wrote a book about this called _God and the Astronomers_



Amazon Book Preview said:


> *If every effect in science has a cause, what caused the birth of the Universe? Have scientists brought themselves face to face with the possibility of God?*
> 
> In _God and the Astronomers_, Dr. Robert Jastrow, world-renowned astrophysicist, describes the astronomical discoveries of recent years and the theological implications of the new insights afforded by science into mankind's place in the cosmos. He explains the chain of events that forced astronomers, despite their initial reluctance ("Irritating," said Einstein; "Repugnant," said the great British astronomer Eddington; "I would like to reject it," said MIT physicist Philip Morrison) to accept the validity of the Big Bang and the fact that the universe began in a moment of creation.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Hiplop said:


> a religious person then would have to say something created god. Otherwise they have no point in "something cant start out of nothing", and then the spiral is too long for it to have any value (creator of the creator etc) Much easier to believe it did it by itself.
> 
> Didn't mean it to be pretentious, I realize it sounded that way; sorry, cerbs. I mean it makes sense, when you learn about it.


Again, working with the analogy of existence being a chain of cause-and-effect, the sequence of which represents time (MSPaint, FTW):

*Atheistic View, Pre-Big Bang*










*Theistic View, Pre-Big Bang*










*Atheistic View, Post Big Bang *










*Theistic View, Post Big Bang*










Notice that the big bang not only didn't refute theism, but it was actually correctly predicted by it (that our universe isn't the root of existence; something exists beyond it).

It's the atheist position that was forced to change. The atheist position went from believing that our universe was the end all, be all of existence, to believing that our universe is just a subset of a much greater infinite multiverse.


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

Fuck off with your bullshit lecture type posts Mr. Shit for brains.


----------



## Mark Henry's Son (Jan 24, 2012)

i dont mind god, religion, etc, to each their own, i just wish that the pope to realize that religion and birth control are more compatible than he may think, since very time a condom breaks, someone learns to pray.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Mr. High IQ said:


> *Irrational dogmatists, of which a few exist in this thread (they know who they are), can't be reasoned with*, but that type makes up only a small percentage of the overall population. I believe the majority of people can be swayed by an excellent argument.


Hmm...



Atheist Panda said:


> I love the delicious irony of a poster called 'Mr. High IQ' talking utter shit.





Bubz said:


> Fuck off with your bullshit lecture type posts Mr. Shit for brains.


I rest my case. :no:


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

Mr. High IQ said:


> I rest my case. :no:


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/10930010-post885.html

In addition, there are 800+ posts in this thread, many of them explaining exactly why you _have_ no case. 

You cannot be serious with your 'dogmatic' jibes either, unless your hypocrisy is intentional.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Mr. High IQ, go to the first couple of pages and find a list of questions that a poster named Rush posted. Answer all those questions with supporting evidence and you may have a case.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

UnDeFeatedKing said:


> Mr. High IQ, go to the first couple of pages and find a list of questions that a poster named Rush posted. Answer all those questions with supporting evidence and you may have a case.


Most of Rush's questions are Christianity -themed.I haven't espoused support for Christianity, especially not a literal interpretation of the Bible, thus the majority of his interrogation is irrelevant to me. I will answer his non-Christianity-themed questions later on, though.


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

Mr. High IQ how high is your IQ?


----------



## JigsawKrueger (Sep 9, 2010)

Never have understood staunch believers/disbelievers. Following any organised religion is pretty scary too. Who gives a shit! Everybody dies and then you find out whether there is something or nothing.

Until then believe in basic karma and you won't go wrong...


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Mr. High IQ said:


> Most of Rush's questions are Christianity -themed.I haven't espoused support for Christianity, especially not a literal interpretation of the Bible, thus the majority of his interrogation is irrelevant to me. I will answer his non-Christianity-themed questions later on, though.


I had a hunch Rush's questions were copy-and-pasted, and sure enough, a quick Google search reveals that they've been taken from the propaganda website Talk Origins.

I'll answer the relevant questions, anyway.



Rush said:


> 1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?


My theory conforms to the physical evidence better than any competing theories do. Does this prove my theory true? Not conclusively, no.

When talking of the origin and subsequent diversification of life, we're talking about events that happened in the deep past, thus there will always be somewhat of a sense of mystery to them. The best we can do is collect as much data about both events as possible, and use this data to piece together the most coherent explanations possible.




Rush said:


> 2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)


The realization in the mid-20th century that life was controlled by DNA, which is a semiotic language. Semiotic languages have been observed to be *solely* the products of intentionally-acting intelligence causes, thus the most logical inference is that life, too, was produced by an intentional, intelligent cause.

Furthermore, my theory has been strengthened by the continual flow of discoveries that life is chock full of design principles, processes, and nano-technology─all *exactly* what would be expected if life were an engineered process.




Rush said:


> 2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?


See above. Two prominent predictions: (i) Natural laws and chemistry, undirected by an (observable) intelligence will never be shown to be capable of creating a semiotic language, and (ii) the more we discover about life, the greater the level of sophistication and complexity of said life will become. Things that were once thought to be junk, vestigial, or "badly designed" due to ignorance will continually be revealed as not junk, not vestigial, and not badly designed.

For example, the eye is one of the most infamous examples of allegedly bad design in the living world. It's been used by people such as Richard Dawkins as surefire evidence again the intelligent design of the biological world.

Yet, modern science has discovered that the eye is not only poorly designed, but is brilliantly designed, so much so that the next major advancements in cameras will come via copying the design.

*Salvo Magazine - Eyeballing Design*



Casey Luskin said:


> In 2010, two eye specialists made a remarkable discovery that showed the elegant mechanism found in vertebrate eyes to solve the problem of any blockage of light due to the position of the optic nerve. Special "glial cells" sit over the retina and act like fiber-optic cables to channel light through the optic nerve wires directly onto the photoreceptor cells. According to _New Scientist_, these funnel-shaped cells prevent scattering of light and "act as light filters, keeping images clear."
> 
> Ken Miller acknowledges that an intelligent designer "would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality." _Yet that seems to be exactly what we find in the vertebrate eye._ In fact, the team of scientists who determined the function of glial cells concluded that the "retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images."
> 
> ...


So, as we see, the "bad design" argument against the vertebra eye turned out to be nothing more than an argument from ignorance. They didn't fully grasp the functions of the eye, and they used that ignorance as an argument against it's intelligent design. As our knowledge increased, the brilliance of the design was revealed, and that argument from ignorance crumbled. My theory predicts that these sort of "junk-to-brilliance" revelations will be commonplace in the coming years.

If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then great design must be evidence for it. If one qualifies the entire sum of biology, the brilliance outweighs the so-called bad by a huge margin, thus, using the quality of design as a measuring stick, my theory passes with flying colors.





Rush said:


> 3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)


These questions are starting to feel very redundant...

My theory states that the original lifeforms were designed based on the discovery that life operates under a semiotic language (Craig Venter, the world's leading bio-engineer, calls DNA "software"), which overwhelmingly points toward an intelligent designer.

Once we accept that life was designed, the entire evolutionary process is looked at in an entirely different light. It's no longer viewed as an ateleological (goal-less, non-intentional, design-free) process, but teleological (goal-oriented, intentional, designed). The entire concept of random mutation goes out the window. Chance is gone, too. They're replaced with design principles and deterministic processes.

Basically: Life's evolution happened for the same reason Windows XP started when I booted my PC: The intelligently designed software directed it.

Another way of looking at my incredibly brilliant and modern view of evolution is to look at the evolution (development) of an individual organisms, like a human being. At conception, a newly formed human being contains all of the genetic information and internal information processing systems to change _drastically_. From fetus, to infant, to toddler, to child, to teen, to adult, to senior, to death─the changes of the fully-developed human being are not only drastic, but they're produced entirely by internal processes. Chance and randomness play little-to-know role; the entire process is deterministic and (apparently) goal-oriented.

My view is that the development of the entire biological world, commonly referred to as biological evolution, is controlled in a similar, but far more advanced manner. Modern biology is nothing more than the piecing together of the entire process.




Rush said:


> 3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)


My theory follows the well-accepted scientific methodology known as an "inference to the best explanation." It's a form of abductive reasoning that's been called "the lynchpin of scientific method," and is especially prominent in historical sciences, like geology, archaeology, and, yes, origins of life research and evolution. Ironically, it was probably used most prominently by Charles Darwin himself.

To sum it up, an inference to the best explanation is when one studies an event/effect, and then uses their observations to abduce the best explanation for that event via pleading to causes that have been known to produce identical, or very similar, events/effects.

Let me give you an example to make what I'm trying to say a little clearer: The discovery of hieroglyphics.

Q: How do we explain the existence of hieroglyphics when we weren't there to directly observe the formation of those hieroglyphics?

A: By inferring to the best explanations, of course.

In this case, the best explanation would be human design. Why? Because hieroglyphics are a semiotic language (sounds familiar, huh?) and semiotic languages are produced solely by intelligence. Couple this with supporting evidence of a a race of people, the Egyptians, and it becomes a rather easy inference.

Another example of using an inference to the best explanation in historical science is geology, where it's used very prominently to explain the formation of the Earth's various features which predate mankind, and are, thus, unobservable.

It should be noted that an inference to the best explanation is used in every branch of science, I'm only using historical sciences as that's what we're dealing with when it comes to origins and evolution.




Rush said:


> 4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.


The fossil record shows a stasis followed by rapid change. In other words, the fossil records show organisms remaining unchanged for millions of years, before disappearing from the fossil record and being replaced by new organisms. This is the complete opposite of what Darwin's tediously slow, gradualist theory predicted, and is exactly what an engineered theory of evolution would expect. Think of how your P.C. operates. Is it gradually, or suddenly?

The Cambrian explosion needs mentioning here. As the more educated members here will know, the Cambrian explosion is the most notable period in life's history, post-origin. It comprised a time-span of no more than 5-10-million-years (and possibly much, much less; it was so brief that it appears in a single strata, which means no lower-age-limit can be placed on it).

5-10-million-years represents just *two-tenths of a single percentage point* of a 3.7-billion-year history. Yet in this tiny fragment of life's history, roughly 95% of it's development took place.I forget the exact numbers, but I believe something like 22 of the 23 known phyla appeared, with no precursors, during this period. For those that don't know, phyla is the taxonomic rank which means, basically, body-plan. It's a very broad category, which is why thousands-upon-thousands of different groupings of animals can be placed in just 20-something categories. Yet all but one of these appeared suddenly, in as little as the blink of an eye. This is the strongest piece of evidence for some type of special creation, wherein the organisms are already formed.

Yet, despite being such a major event in life's history, it's also been rarely talked about by Darwinists. Why is that? Well, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's quite obvious why: It contradicts their theory to an amazing degree.

Perhaps the author of these questions would mind giving his own answer for why the Cambrian explosion is avoided like the plague by Darwinists?




Rush said:


> 5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?


Show that nature, in and of itself, with no observable intelligence directing the process/chemistry, can create a semiotic language. making an intelligence-free origin of life plausible. By show that an intelligence was not needed for the formation of life, you'll not only answer the origin of life question, you'll also radically alter my view of evolution.

Likewise, demonstrate that random variation can create the functioning proteins required for new cellular complexity (read: *not* degenerative modifications of previously existing complexity), that results in entirely new and unique physical traits. Such a discovery would demonstrate random variation showing a level of creative power it's never shown before, which would make extrapolating from it to macroevolution plausible, which it currently is not.

Good luck.




Rush said:


> 5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?


No. My theory is based on modern-evidence and current observation, rather than the idiotic ramblings of a mid 1800 ignoramus, views that, might I add, preceded the electron microscope by 80-years. Let that sink in. Darwin formed his views while having virtually no idea of molecular biology. Is it any wonder his views, and the views of the 19th centuries' so-called neo-Darwinists, have been such epic failures?

No. No it is not.




Rush said:


> 5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


A theory which is open to too much "change" is ultimately unfalsifiable (see: the constantly changing history of evolution).

My theory, unlike other people's theories *wink, wink*, is open to falsification, thus it can only embrace a certain degree of change before the whole show goes kaput. Any change that shows life to be more complex, with a higher degree of sophistication, than previously thought would be an acceptable degree of change.





Rush said:


> 6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)


What the author is describing here is what's known as biogeography. The idea is that various organisms, which are thought to have developed in isolated places, will be limited to those places.

The problem with biogeography is that it's hit-or-miss. Sometimes animals and plants are exclusive to regions which makes sense from a Darwinian point of view... and sometimes they're not.

Some examples:
*Biogeography -- Where Darwin Does Theology (Poorly): Why Darwinism Is False*
*Fossils Don't Lie: Why Darwinism Is False*
*Testing Common Descent via the Continuity Between Biogeography and Evolution*
*Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution*
*Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism*
*The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again*

Is there are examples where biogeography fails from a Darwinian point of view, and there are plenty, then it's hard to see how biogeography could support Darwinian evolution.

Some of the _ad hoc_ explanations for why Darwinism is still true despite the discrepancies in biogeography data are quite comical. For example, the sea monkey hypothesis, where monkeys which should be exclusive to Africa are found thousands-of-miles-of-ocean away in South American. The hypothesis is that these monkeys built rafts, stored enough food for the trip, then sailed off to South America. They did this either multiple times, or at least once with both female and male monkeys along for the ride.

The justification for this wacky belief? "Well, it has to be true, or else Darwinism is false!" 


These questions...



Rush said:


> 1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
> 
> 1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?
> 
> ...


...are irrelevant to my theory, thus I haven't bothered with them.

I will point out, however, that the author of said questions seems to be making the same mistake that made earlier: He's confusing Biblical "kinds" with the classification of species, when it's actually family. This dramatically reduces the number of animals that would've been placed on the Ark.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Who keeps bumping this thread?


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

The idiot above you.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Atheist Panda said:


> The idiot above you.


Your trolling isn't exactly helping things either.


----------



## Bubz (Jul 19, 2007)

He wasn't trolling, just stating the truth.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. High IQ said:


> Atheism may not require a belief in any _specific_ origin of existence, sure, but in not believing in (any) God (i.e., an intentional first cause of existence), atheism logically entails that existence formed absent any intent or purpose. That's the positive aspect of atheism, and it requires positive evidence.


Not true even slightly. What you are implying is that atheists *need* to have an answer on this specific issue, as if there is some rule that states this as a view needed by a human being. In reality it isn't. Anyone can throw their hands up and claim not to know. I ask, why is it that we require an answer to this question? Why do we not require answers for similar but difficult questions like those based on medicine? I don't know and thus I don't fill this gap of knowledge with a guess unlike theists. Also you're making a big jump here that by stating you dont believe in God that you dont believe in something that created existence. As stated this is a complete hypothetical. There are infinite possiblities. Who are you to state that out of these infinite reasons only this one is right?

There is no positive aspect of atheism, that's just a feautre you've assumed to be the case using faulty reasoning. Any positive aspects about the creation of everything goes outside of atheism and into the theory of creation. As stated atheism is just not beleiving in a god, anything else is something you've added on.

There is no responsibility on the atheist to prove how it all started because they have made no claim to how it all started. What you're doing is a very typical theist logic which places theistic views on atheists because you can't comprehend how someone would act without theistic views. We don't have these views, it's that simple.





Mr. High IQ said:


> Ah, but in claiming to be atheist, rather than simply agnostic, you are taking a guess about the origin of existence. You may not be saying _it happened *exactly* this way_, but you are making a very critical guess about the nature of how existence formed. See above to understand why.


Nope you are wrong. The term atheism has more than one definition to it, it can be to claim that there is no god or a simple disbelief. You are wrong on this very basic level.

To quote the OED on the term:
"_atheism - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god._"

These are generally viewed as weak atheism and strong atheism.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Mr. High IQ said:


> While I, myself, am not a Biblical creationist, the "kind" argument does fit in remarkably well with what science has demonstrated. Allow me to explain.


No lets not because this is ridiculous beyond all recognition as I already explained. If you're going to blatantly ignore all the points already made why should I give you the time of day to explain your points (which have already been disproved).

You like poltergeist have shown a lack of understanding on evolution by trying this pathetic micro vs macro debate. You don't understand either and that's quite clear. To claim micro can exist but not macro is to claim that inches exist but not miles. THAT is the definition, not the one you and poltergeist keep applying to it. It IS a term created by creationists due to their lack of understanding on evolution and trying to call it something else. The fact is you dont understand it and your ridiculous example of cosmetic difference shows this.

We know birds evolved from avian dinosaurs, we can genetically retro-engineer a bird with the same genes as a dinosaur. 

Also on 'Kind' can we throw this pathetic excuse out now? Really it's arguing semantics because the term 'species' was not around during the writing of the bible. Prove to me that this is what they meant by kind, stop trying to use a cop-out to avoid the problem.


----------



## SandyRavage (Nov 11, 2011)

I'm an atheist but not proud of it. Why would I be? Im proud of the way I live my life but not my beliefs, they are just my beliefs and I can't help that. Nothing to be proud of in that so why be christian and proud. Suggests to me a severe amount of doubt and insecurity


----------



## AzureShark (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm agnostic. I have no problem with people expressing their religion, but I don't like it when I get pressured into believing in something I don't want to believe in. I've had people lecture me about Christianity before and it annoys me how you talk to some of them and their reply has to relate to Christianity. Only because it's totally irrelevant to what I was talking to them about. My friend is a classic example. I talk to him about sport and somehow he changes the subject and rants about spirituality. He is an awesome guy and all, but it's like he won't take no for an answer when I tell him to shut up about it. I have another friend that has changed dramatically ever since he became a Christian. Right now, he is creeping me out. Trying to pressure me into becoming a Christian and planning things ahead. I'm going to a friend's birthday party in late February, which is on a Sunday and he just blankly stared at me and said "So, you're not coming to church on Sunday then?". I never had any intention of going, since I don't enjoy it at all. Back on point, it's all confusing for me and I prefer not to deal with stuff I don't get the concept of.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Bubz said:


> He wasn't trolling, just stating the truth.


By insulting people and calling them names? Plus his gimmick is an atheist panda? That's trolling if I've ever seen it.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

kobra860 said:


> By insulting people and calling them names? Plus his gimmick is an atheist panda? That's trolling if I've ever seen it.


I don't think trolling means what you think it means.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Atheist Panda said:


> I don't think trolling means what you think it means.


"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory [2] messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response"

That's what it means.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm not trying to provoke anyone into an emotional response. I have, however, tried hard to provoke some people into a _rational_ response. That didn't work too well, so I've decided to periodically openly mock you guys. I'm not sorry if that offends you.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Atheist Panda said:


> I'm not trying to provoke anyone into an emotional response. I have, however, tried hard to provoke some people into a _rational_ response. That didn't work too well, so I've decided to periodically openly mock you guys. I'm not sorry if that offends you.


It doesn't offend me. It just makes you look like a jerk. I don't really care either way. You don't provoke someone into a rational response with name calling. We all know that.

Any topic involving religion will bring in trolls from both sides. Both people are posting links and they both aren't giving definitive answers so that's why these threads are pointless and never lead to anything.


----------



## i$e (Dec 5, 2006)

I like how you ignore the 90% of serious posts I've made in the thread (because you have no answer) and try and act the white knight because I called someone an idiot (which is true).

Besides, I'd rather look like a jerk on an internet forum than think a sky wizard made everything.


----------



## kobra860 (Jan 29, 2005)

Atheist Panda said:


> I like how you ignore the 90% of serious posts I've made in the thread (because you have no answer) and try and act the white knight because I called someone an idiot (which is true).


Who ever said that I don't have an answer or that I want to answer? The logical thing to do would be to stop posting in the thread if people still aren't getting it. Some people are just too stubborn to see the other side.


----------



## bjnelson19705 (Jul 14, 2008)

Punk29 said:


> Well, i don't need any proofs, i know that there is a God, just like everybody, they are just afraid to admit it.


I believe God exists, it's just religion that I am kind of feeling odd about.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I need to go to this museum ... hell it's in my state!






There's one sentence in this thing that just makes me roll laughing. I'm sure you'll know exactly what it is.
*


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

The scientist in that video is great.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*From that video we learned that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Hell yeah!!! *


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

the world would be a more exciting place if we lived with dinosaurs


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

:lmao that video is great


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

Vid's blocked in the UK. 

Croft, do something!


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Nas said:


> Vid's blocked in the UK.
> 
> Croft, do something!


*But the scientist is British! How could this happen? *


----------



## scrilla (Jan 18, 2008)

i wonder if thats where HBK takes his kids instead of disneyland


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I want to know where that astrophysicist got his degree.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I'm convinced he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying there. He's making a shit load of money off of that museum...that has to be his motivation. There's no way an astrophysicist would say what he says. Surely he's playin the Carney here. *


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

MrMister said:


> I want to know where that astrophysicist got his degree.


Ohio Wesleyan University and the University of Colorado.

*Biography — Jason Lisle*



Answers In Genesis said:


> Dr. Lisle graduated _summa cum laude_ from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

He's got a good bit I guess. He's making a lot of money basically just saying God is right. There's "extra weight behind it" because he's an astrophysicist. Easiest gig ever?


----------



## McQueen (Jul 17, 2006)

If I knew that was the secret to success I should have went to church. No wonder i'm unsuccessful, god hates me.


----------



## Panzer (May 31, 2007)

McQueen said:


> If I knew that was the secret to success I should have went to church. No wonder i'm unsuccessful, god hates me.


GOD HATES _________


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*
Black people are cursed. I knew y'all were related to Cane somehow.... bunch o' Abel killers!





*


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Why is this thread still alive?


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

ice_edge said:


> Why is this thread still alive?


 
As long as there is ignorance and insecurity in this world, there will be religion. As long as there is religion in this world, people are going to go 'round and 'round in circles regarding the issue; thus keeping this thread alive until the proverbial judgment day.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *
> Black people are cursed. I knew y'all were related to Cane somehow.... bunch o' Abel killers!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Berringer said:


> As long as there is ignorance and insecurity in this world, there will be religion. As long as there is religion in this world, people are going to go 'round and 'round in circles regarding the issue; thus keeping this thread alive until the proverbial judgment day.


Let me tell you a little secret here. 

Deeply devoted Christians aim for morality while atheist aim for logical explanations. People need a balance between the 2. Hence why we are having this logic against morals fights all the time.

If people only took their time to look deep inside their soul they would see they are one. Extremes are bad in one way or the other.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

ice_edge said:


> Let me tell you a little secret here.
> 
> Deeply devoted Christians aim for morality while atheist aim for logical explanations


Yeah this is bullshit. Would these be the same deeply devout Christians who protest at the possibility of Gay Marriage or the ones who bomb abortion clinics?

Or better yet this guy:










No group owns morality, pretty much everyone gets their morality from modern secular philosophy. Things like the bible and the Quran are horrible as moral guides.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

> Yeah this is bullshit. Would these be the same deeply devout Christians who protest at the possibility of Gay Marriage or the ones who bomb abortion clinics?


And how many times through the Ages has non-belviers done way worse to Christains?

Both sides have blame in this, to think any other way is ignorant


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> And how many times through the Ages has non-belviers done way worse to Christains?
> *
> Both sides have blame in this*, to think any other way is ignorant


Re-read my last statement.

Also judging history, your first sentance is way wrong.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

"1. You can't create something from nothing.

2. Nothing can create itself.

3. Therefore there must be a creator who created himself from nothing."


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> "1. You can't create something from nothing.
> 
> 2. Nothing can create itself.
> 
> 3. Therefore there must be a creator who created himself from nothing."


That would be a big contradiction.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

fergieska said:


> That would be a big contradiction.


That's the point.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> That's the point.


Sorry my bad, you'd be suprised how many people use that and think it works.

I swear the world is one big Onion article.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

fergieska said:


> Sorry my bad, you'd be suprised how many people use that and think it works.
> 
> I swear the world is one big Onion article.


Well the best way to debate someone isn't always to present your own ideas into the discussion. Sometimes all you have to do is repeat the same thing they said to you and throw it back at them and see if they can smell the bs they try to sell you. Give someone enough rope and eventually he/she will hang him/herself every time.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> "1. You can't create something from nothing.
> 
> 2. Nothing can create itself.
> 
> 3. Therefore there must be a creator who created himself from nothing."


Well by that logic we still should not be here... so whats your point

\My logic is a bit defreint, I think its far more likely that an all powerful being is around, the reasson for this is if there is not one then add one trillion billions to how many "highly unlikely" things that happen by chance, whule if there is a God then it only requires one to be true, which seems more likely?
Bt odd's its God to me.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Rayfu said:


> Well by that logic we still should not be here... so whats your point
> 
> \My logic is a bit defreint, I think its far more likely that an all powerful being is around, the reasson for this is if there is not one then add one trillion billions to how many "highly unlikely" things that happen by chance, whule if there is a God then it only requires one to be true, which seems more likely?
> Bt odd's its God to me.


That wasn't "my logic". I was being facetious by basically saying the same thing that creationists say.

Yes by that logic we shouldn't be here.... THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

Once again going over creationists' heads. Who created this God? Answer that and stay snazzy.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> That wasn't "my logic". I was being facetious by basically saying the same thing that creationists say.
> 
> Yes by that logic we shouldn't be here.... THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.
> 
> Once again going over creationists' heads. Who created this God? Answer that and stay snazzy.


I think you misunderstand my point, I'm saying no one did, he was always there. The reasson for this is, SOMETHING had to be there, be it god or what ever started evreything. now one theroy you have where if it was something like dust, then it still came from nothing and then it would have to go through a billions things times a trillion to get here with no plan. While with a God it only requires one thing to be true. by odds, God is FAR more likely.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> I think you misunderstand my point, I'm saying no one did, he was always there. The reasson for this is, SOMETHING had to be there, be it god or what ever started evreything. now one theroy you have where if it was something like dust, then it still came from nothing and then it would have to go through a billions things times a trillion to get here with no plan. While with a God it only requires one thing to be true. by odds, God is FAR more likely.


No not really. You're just narrowing your mind on the possible scenarios, this is a complete hypothetical. God holds as much Ground as say a Matrix like scenario.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Rayfu said:


> I think you misunderstand my point, I'm saying no one did, he was always there. The reasson for this is, SOMETHING had to be there, be it god or what ever started evreything. now one theroy you have where if it was something like dust, then it still came from nothing and then it would have to go through a billions things times a trillion to get here with no plan. While with a God it only requires one thing to be true. by odds, God is FAR more likely.


So God didn't create himself? So where did he come from? he just "thought himself into existence"? Matter can not be created, nor destroyed. it can only change form.

Your logic needs revision.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

fergieska said:


> No not really. You're just narrowing your mind on the possible scenarios, this is a complete hypothetical. God holds as much Ground as say a Matrix like scenario.


Wrong, God requires only one truth, him, all the others require many, many many many more, care to name one that requires only one truth?

I'm open to it, have not heard it yet.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> So God didn't create himself? So where did he come from? he just "thought himself into existence"? Matter can not be created, nor destroyed. it can only change form.
> 
> Your logic needs revision.


Where at all did I say God was matter? or that god created him self? he has always been.

you might says thats impossible but tell me how is any other even close to being possible? What started evreything if not God?


Edit: thats what I get for being used to forums telling you when no one else has posted....


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> Wrong, God requires only one truth, him, all the others require many, many many many more, care to name one that requires only one truth?
> 
> I'm open to it, have not heard it yet.


It's not wrong. I mean it you're being very silly here, for one even if you think God why monotheism? What makes Polytheism less likely?

Your reasoning seems to be this aspect of 'One Truth'. But we don't know if it's true, that's just a guess.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

fergieska said:


> It's not wrong. I mean it you're being very silly here, for one even if you think God why monotheism? What makes Polytheism less likely?
> 
> Your reasoning seems to be this aspect of 'One Truth'. But we don't know if it's true, that's just a guess.


I never saud it was the "truth", I dont know for sure. I said it would require ONE truth to be real, while any others would require more, yours would require more God's as such less chance.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Rayfu said:


> Where at all did I say God was matter? or that god created him self? he has always been.
> 
> you might says thats impossible but tell me how is any other even close to being possible? What started evreything if not God?
> 
> ...


When you have no logical answer to something *AWIZRDDIDIT*!
And let's say he did exist. Why are people vain enough to believe that out of ALL the planets he created that he said "you know what, I'm going to randomly choose the people of Earth to make in my image... but only the white ones LOL!"


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> When you have no logical answer to something *AWIZRDDIDIT*!
> And let's say he did exist. Why are people vain enough to believe that out of ALL the planets he created that he said "you know what, I'm going to randomly choose the people of Earth to make in my image... but only the white ones LOL!"


#1 never in the bible anywhere is it said God made pepole white, thats man back in old days thinking fo that, just like the so called pitucres of moses and Jesus, we have no clue what they look like.
Hell Adam and Even could of been moneky type pepole giving more proof to EVO and we would not know. And I dont think him making us in his image mean we are the only ones, he made us in his image to rule earth, why cant he make others in his image to rule other planets?
#2 make us in his image can mean anything, who knows.
#3 give me a logical awnser then, how did we get here?


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Rayfu said:


> #1 never in the bible anywhere is it said God made pepole white, thats man back in old days.
> #2 make us in his image can mean anything, who knows.
> #3 give me a logical awnser then, how did we get here?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> I never saud it was the "truth", I dont know for sure. I said it would require ONE truth to be real, while any others would require more, yours would require more God's as such less chance.


Exactly how does being singular make it more likely? Your skipping a lot of reasoning here and giving a rather lazy explanation.

I mean lets go with your chance reasoning here, we have nothing to base this on at all so a group of Gods holds as much ground as one God. Neither have any evidence for themselves and both require themselves to be real. Then there is the possibiliy of a recursive universe, or multiple universes.

You can say one God is more likely than two since only one needs to be proven, but since neither claim has any evidence and both can not currently be proven and both belong to a complete open question they both hold the same ground as do any answer; this is a complete hypothetical. If we want to go by chance any guess is insanely low as any other guess holds equal ground. You would be more likely to win the lottery for the rest of your life every time than be right on this point.

I don't think you understand how to calculate the likelihood of an event.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

> Exactly how does being singular make it more likely? Your skipping a lot of reasoning here and giving a rather lazy explanation.


If there is 5 games whats the odds you will pick the 1st
What if there is only one?

Odds a re higher, becuse lets say a God requires .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009 % chance
for each god it gets less and less as you add the chances of another one.




> I mean lets go with your chance reasoning here, we have nothing to base this on at all so a group of Gods holds as much ground as one God. Neither have any evidence for themselves and both require themselves to be real. Then there is the possibiliy of a recursive universe, or multiple universes.


just becuse there is no proof dont mean nothing, we cant prove there is life on other planets but whats more likely?




> You can say one God is more likely than two since only one needs to be proven, but since neither claim has any evidence and both can not currently be proven and both belong to a complete open question they both hold the same ground as do any answer; this is a complete hypothetical. If we want to go by chance any guess is insanely low as any other guess holds equal ground. You would be more likely to win the lottery for the rest of your life every time than be right on this point.


Yes, its highly unlikely, but FAR more likely then there be no God or mutiple Gods.

Be like if I pick a lotery with 15,000 perpole
15,000,000
and 15
Which is far more likely? the one with the least.


----------



## JimmyJoeJunior (Oct 28, 2010)

OP is typical of the sneaky way in which these people go about their business. 'I used to not believe in God, but then i read this' Fuck off ya cunt


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


Uh huh, and where did the first life come form? matter cant be created, how did the laws of E.V.O get set up?
what keeps them balanced? these things make it far more likely for a God to be at work

Also I dont belive God, or E.V.O disprove one another, God never said he did not do any of that, and Adam and Eve where never said to look like us.

God being around in no way says things cant adapt.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Rayfu said:


> Yes, its highly unlikely, but FAR more likely then there be no God or mutiple Gods.
> 
> Be like if I pick a lotery with 15,000 perpole
> 15,000,000
> ...


By that logic let's say one Giant Pumpkin King or multiple Pumpkin kings created the universe. Then there are the infinite series of chemical reactions that created the universe. 

Which is more likely? The one with infinite odds or the one with fewer odds?

See how uninspired and lazy that sounds?


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> By that logic let's say one Giant Pumpkin King or multiple Pumpkin kings created the universe. Then there are the infinite series of chemical reactions that created the universe.
> 
> Which is more likely? The one with infinite odds or the one with fewer odds?
> 
> See how uninspired and lazy that sounds?


The one with fewer odds, the one wherer it ony requires one thing to be true (a great pumpkin in this case)

Now I should note I dont know what this "God" is it could be a pumkin it could be a freakin pizza for all I know.

how is it lazy? is it lazy to think that there is life out there besides us?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> If there is 5 games whats the odds you will pick the 1st
> What if there is only one?
> 
> Odds a re higher, becuse lets say a God requires .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009 % chance
> for each god it gets less and less as you add the chances of another one.


No this is just garbage math because you're assuming you can put a number to it. Lets establsh this correctly.
For one God we have Zero Evidence. We need evidence in order to establish the numerical value for it.
For two Gods we have zero evidence. We need evidence in order to establish the numerical value for it.
You're comparing 1x0 to 2x0. They both equal zero. If one of these claims had evidence we could grant values to it but we can't and that's a fact. Say for example we have a different and new complete hypothetical. We know nothing about it, one guy gives a guess. This is the only guess so far. This does not make it 100%.




Rayfu said:


> just becuse there is no proof dont mean nothing, we cant prove there is life on other planets but whats more likely?


Honestly life on other planets. We did find Bacteria on Mars so that is life. But anyway I get the point you're aiming at and that's that there is the possibility of somethings being outside of our ability to observe them. And I agree but that doesnt mean we should fill that gap of knowledge with a guess, we should strive to learn more and try and answer these questions. Standing around saying 'God did it' gets us nowhere.




Rayfu said:


> Yes, its highly unlikely, but FAR more likely then there be no God or mutiple Gods.


No now you're contradicting yourself. You just said it's unlikely then stated that every other situation is more unlikely, that wouldnt make your initial claim unlikely then. Judging how our universe works and looking at Quantum Physics; it's more likely that things occured naturally instead of a conscious deity controlling it all.


Rayfu said:


> Be like if I pick a lotery with 15,000 perpole
> 15,000,000
> and 15
> Which is far more likely? the one with the least.


You.Cant.Assign.A.Number.To.A.Complete.Hypothetical!


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> Uh huh, and where did the first life come form?


If we're going to play this game then can we just skip to the Big Bang?


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

It's an exsample, I'm not saying thats the real number man, come on your smarter then that.

And no its not, becuse like you said matter cant create it self, so something had to be there form the start, as such we either have a being of ulimted power, or dust, whats more likey judgun by how well evreything works with logical laws and physics?

We have 0 evdince that there is no God and that it was made with out Gods, why is it better to pick that?


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> It's an exsample, I'm not saying thats the real number man, come on your smarter then that.


No you're missing the point.

You can't logically use a number as a comparison because this is a scenario where assigning a number is impossible. To use the number 15000 means that we have a definitive, finite list on the matter. We dont. That's why your example is nonesense.



Rayfu said:


> And no its not, becuse like you said matter cant create it self, so something had to be there form the start, as such we either have a being of ulimted power, or dust, whats more likey judgun by how well evreything works with logical laws and physics?


It cant create itself, it was created by the big bang however.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

> ]No you're missing the point.
> 
> You can't logically use a number as a comparison because this is a scenario where assigning a number is impossible. To use the number 15000 means that we have a definitive, finite list on the matter. We dont. That's why your example is nonesense.[/QUOTE
> That’s bull and you know it.
> ...


----------



## MoveMent (Oct 20, 2006)

God's my ***** too.


----------



## Theproof (Apr 9, 2009)

The word ignorance pretty much sums up this thread perfectly. Why even bother having a discussion about this topic when so many people are too ignorant and fixated on their own beliefs to understand where other people are coming from?


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

I'd agree, I've never said I was right, I just said to me its more logical for there to be a God (and only one) then more or none at all.


----------



## HardKoR (May 19, 2009)

Two side of the story may not be right or wrong, but they are using the same logic. Both sides are debating the same principle, "something can't be made from nothing." However that something is matter on one side and god on the other. How could matter come from nothing? Same question, how could god come from nothing? If one must just accept that god has always been no ands, ifs, or buts, then why can't matter just exist with no ands, ifs, or buts? 

I'm agnostic, only because I agree that matter can't come from nothing so something had to create it, however do I believe this creator is the god in the bible? HELL NO! I don't even believe he is the same god of any religion on this planet, maybe he doesn't want to be known, or simple doesn't care about us or this little blue marble.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> No you're missing the point.
> That’s bull and you know it.
> So all those guys saying there is X amount of planets in the unervers and so many solar systems are wrong?
> 
> ...


Oh for fuck sake. Do I honestly need to explain why this is wrong? Your implying that it requires the same amount of evidence to prove one god as it does to prove two. Prove this, show me the amount needed to prove one and to prove two. You are litteraly comparing 1x0 to 2x0. Neither have evidence, you do not have any knowledge of mathematics. Why is it if we prove one God we require the same effort to prove two. Why does being one make it more likely, what's the ground to state two is less likely because the ground that one requires less thought is not a good reason.




Rayfu said:


> And where did that come form? no mater how you look at it, something had to be there form the start.
> What caused this? Cause and effect, something had to cause it.
> if it appeared out of nothing why is it less likely for a God?


The big bang is a Quantum mechanic. It doesn't abide by the laws of causuality; there is no cause. Things within Quantum physics don't have a cause they are spontaneous.

The universe can, and in fact did, come from nothing, because the total energy of the universe (positive and negative) equals to 0. That means that the universe needed absolutely no matter or any existing energy to create itself (obeying the laws of creation and conservation of energy). This was also called by Hawking as "the ultimate free lunch".


Rayfu said:


> and if we say there is no God we then have to ask how is it that the planets where able to form? we know how they can, but I mean how is it the laws of physics made it where they could, why are there even laws? How is it life even came, at the start there was no life, even with the big bang, however you look at it life apeard somehow and we don’t know how or where.


Life can come from non-living matter, we know this it's called abiogenesis. The planets formed from the big bang. As for the laws of physics they could have always existed or existed when the big bang happened, no one knows.

Here's your problem. You keep claiming we need a God in this; we don't and the reason is as simple as placing the starting point one step before where you've placed it. You keep saying everything needs a start well what started God? To claim God doesn't need one contradicts your reasoning.

If you want to claim a God is more logical then prove it. Destroying maths has so far not done that. I'm not here to say that believing in a God is wrong, but I take offence to the arrogance of claiming it as the most logical option.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

> Oh for fuck sake. Do I honestly need to explain why this is wrong? Your implying that it requires the same amount of evidence to prove one god as it does to prove two. Prove this, show me the amount needed to prove one and to prove two. You are litteraly comparing 1x0 to 2x0. Neither have evidence, you do not have any knowledge of mathematics. Why is it if we prove one God we require the same effort to prove two. Why does being one make it more likely, what's the ground to state two is less likely because the ground that one requires less thought is not a good reason.


The problem with your logic is we know its not 0x 1 and 0 x 2, because 0 would mean no chance, and even you must admit, it’s one thing to put any number for an example its another to use 0 as it means none 
there is a chance out there for a thing to make us, and while it may not be the same chance for every God regardless if there is a 50% for one and a 30% of the other, it gets less likely, unless there is 0% chance, there is no way two God’s = one God’s chance, show me anywhere in math where you have the same chance of having more or one, and they are equal and its not less likely there is two or more Gods, without it being 0



> The big bang is a Quantum mechanic. It doesn't abide by the laws of causuality; there is no cause. Things within Quantum physics don't have a cause they are spontaneous.


The universe can, and in fact did, come from nothing, because the total energy of the universe (positive and negative) equals to 0. That means that the universe needed absolutely no matter or any existing energy to create itself (obeying the laws of creation and conservation of energy). This was also called by Hawking as "the ultimate free lunch".

Life can come from non-living matter, we know this it's called abiogenesis. The planets formed from the big bang. As for the laws of physics they could have always existed or existed when the big bang happened, no one knows.


> Here's your problem. You keep claiming we need a God in this; we don't and the reason is as simple as placing the starting point one step before where you've placed it.


You have not read any of my post then, I never said we needed him at all, this proves you’re not even trying to answer correctly.
We don’t need him, but he would explain everything with just ONE chance, while the other requires every single thing to happen by chance every single time
\
I know it all could of happen by luck, but I don’t think anything is that luckily and the universe is to LOGICAILY set up, an intelligent life form would make it as it was.



> You keep saying everything needs a start well what started God? To claim God doesn't need one contradicts your reasoning.


I never Saud everything needed a start, just that by logic, SOMETHIG had to come from nothing, once again your saying stuff that I did not say, one more time and we are done as I'm not going keep on typing just for you to put something 
I did not nor never say.



> If you want to claim a God is more logical then prove it. Destroying maths has so far not done that. I'm not here to say that believing in a God is wrong, but I take offence to the arrogance of claiming it as the most logical option


Here is logic for you:
God requires one thing to be true, if the big bang happen with no help form a God it would require every signal law to be true, and all the odds to be added up to come to this. Plus, for no apparent reason, LOGICAL rules are in place and a trillion other things to be true, while yes it’s possible that it did happen like that 
What’s more likely those trillion things are true by chance or one thing is true and explains everything else because something intelligent made it?

Explain to me how they are even close to being equal or the other one being more logical?


----------



## SHIRLEY (Jun 9, 2009)

LOL @ the "an infinitely powerful, knowledgeable humanoid is the simple answer" argument.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It's looking more and more possible that something did indeed come from nothing.


----------



## The_Great_One_316 (Jan 21, 2007)

The only problem with your reasoning Rayfu is that we have thousands of scientists on this planet experimenting and proving those laws as fact. Obviously they have no immediate proof that these laws helped create the universe, but to people who choose logic over faith it makes sense to believe it this way. I completely understand why people choose to believe in God, Gods or neither. I just prefer it on the non-believer side of the fence. If whoever wrote the bible wrote Star Wars instead though, I would be one religious nut.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

The_Great_One_316 said:


> The only problem with your reasoning Rayfu is that we have thousands of scientists on this planet experimenting and proving those laws as fact. Obviously they have no immediate proof that these laws helped create the universe, but to people who choose logic over faith it makes sense to believe it this way. I completely understand why people choose to believe in God, Gods or neither. I just prefer it on the non-believer side of the fence. If whoever wrote the bible wrote Star Wars instead though, I would be one religious nut.


Yet again, I have never said any of these laws are not there, I’m saying what’s the odds that they just “happen” to be there instead of a intelligent design putting them there?
I fully belive they are real, but belive it all happen by chance?
Eh, it seems way to unlikely.



> LOL @ the "an infinitely powerful, knowledgeable humanoid is the simple answer" argument.


no one has said it was simple.

evreything about where we came form is hard, hince why no one knows for sure.


----------



## The_Great_One_316 (Jan 21, 2007)

So basically your saying that the laws of relativity and physics are also God's doing? He placed them here. Like somehow he created the idea of Gravity, but implemented it in a way that if we found out how it worked that it would seem reasonable to us. So we have all powerful, all knowing and can see the future. Hell maybe God should of wrote Lost. He sure as hell knows how to think ahead and fill in the holes.

It's just ideas like that that sound insane to me.


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> The problem with your logic is we know its not 0x 1 and 0 x 2, because 0 would mean no chance, and even you must admit, it’s one thing to put any number for an example its another to use 0 as it means none
> there is a chance out there for a thing to make us, and while it may not be the same chance for every God regardless if there is a 50% for one and a 30% of the other, it gets less likely, unless there is 0% chance, there is no way two God’s = one God’s chance, show me anywhere in math where you have the same chance of having more or one, and they are equal and its not less likely there is two or more Gods, without it being


Once again because you keep thinking as if these two things are the exact same value, as if proving the one god of monotheism requires the same amount of proof as one of the gods of polytheism. You cant say it's more likely because you have no value to base it on. Lets look at it this way say God A has a value of 100 in Universe A. Next we have two Gods who have a value combined of 50 in Universe B. Now we don't know that these are their values however in this hypothetical scenario they are. So that's a value of 25 per God in universe B. Your big problem is your big assumption, you think that it requires the same amount of evidence to prove the God in universe A than to prove one of the Gods in universe B. It is completely possible that the Gods in universe B are individually easier to prove than the God in Universe A. We can't tell this. So to claim one is more likely than the other is to use a childs level of understanding on the issue.

When I use 0, the zero is for evidence. At the momment we have evidence for neither so currently they both stand just as accurate as each other. Your problem is this assumption of equality between these Gods. To quote what I've said several times in this thread, prove this.



Rayfu said:


> You have not read any of my post then, I never said we needed him at all, this proves you’re not even trying to answer correctly.
> We don’t need him, but he would explain everything with just ONE chance, while the other requires every single thing to happen by chance every single time


First I didn't misread your post because you asked for each thing I answered, you said what caused the big bang I answered that so please don't try to lie.

Next your using the argument of ignorance falacy. Just because one idea you have is easier to say doesn't mean it's right or more logical, which you keep claiming it's more logical. like I said earlier we can explain everything in the universe and we can test this. There could be a God outside of all of this but in this scenario it doesn't even seem like he's involved at all.


Rayfu said:


> I know it all could of happen by luck, but I don’t think anything is that luckily and the universe is to LOGICAILY set up, an intelligent life form would make it as it was.


It's not luck for fuck sake. Look just because you don't understand the science behind this doesn't mean we should go with the big unknown answer because it's simple. It's no more luck than 2+2 becoming 4 is luck. The total enery of the universe is zero. Quantum flunctations in a universe with this value will always produce something rather than nothing. This is a mechanic not luck.

Listen once more this isn't luck, just because you know nothing of Quantum Physics doesn't mean it's luck.


Rayfu said:


> I never Saud everything needed a start, just that by logic, SOMETHIG had to come from nothing, once again your saying stuff that I did not say, one more time and we are done as I'm not going keep on typing just for you to put something
> I did not nor never say.


How do you not see what your typing? Seriously you are going on the lines of "well yes everything can come around without God, and yes we have reason and evidence to suggest such things BUT God is the more logical answer"

For every answer given you kept insinuating on this starting point of God that this is needed. This was heavily implied throughout.



Rayfu said:


> Here is logic for you:
> God requires one thing to be true,


This one thing is something with no evidence and no reason and is much bigger than any single law which we have proven.


Rayfu said:


> if the big bang happen with no help form a God


The Big Bang didn't have help from God, once again it's a Quantum Mechanic it has no cause, nothing caused it to happen it was spontaneous.


Rayfu said:


> it would require every signal law to be true,


No it would require just Quantum Physics for it to be done without God. Quantum Physics has been tested and proven. Do you know anything of Quantum Physics because if you don't you really shouldn't be making arguments against it's credibility or likelihood.



Rayfu said:


> and all the odds to be added up to come to this. Plus, for no apparent reason, LOGICAL rules are in place


....don't talk shit. I swear this is actually rather infuriating that you keep using your ignorance on the subject as if it's a reason. The claim for no apparent reason is not even remotely true. Why is it your so sure on this when you've done no research on any of this?



Rayfu said:


> and a trillion other things to be true, while yes it’s possible that it did happen like that
> What’s more likely those trillion things are true by chance or one thing is true and explains everything else because something intelligent made it?


The several (not trillions) of things we can test and see working or this one bigger thing which we can not test or see working. Your reasoning is ridiculous.



Rayfu said:


> Explain to me how they are even close to being equal or the other one being more logical?


.............You are kidding right?

Ok let me use this exact reasoning for something else:
Magic Jelly requires one thing to be true for child birth, if the combination of sperm and an egg happen with no help from the magic jelly it would require every law of child birth, and all the odds to be added up to come to this. Plus, for no apparent reason, LOGICAL rules are in place and a trillion other things to be true, while yes it’s possible that it did happen like that 
What’s more likely those trillion things are true by chance or one thing is true and explains everything else because something intelligent made it?


Now what you said works exactly for child birth; so should we abandon all research in family planning and sperm/egg research because of the posibility of the Magic Jelly? And what if the Magic Jelly is true? Is the Magic Jelly now more likely? Because by your reasoning it is.

You see your excuse is just horrible. It's complete ignorance on Physics and Astronomy and you clearly have not researched any of this yet you keep being defiant in your ignorance in this.

You asked how can we show one is more likely. Because we have proof of one and none for the other. We can reach a logical conclusion of a universe from nothing based on the facts we know, you keep trying to place doubt in these facts that we are basing this conclusion on but that's the thing. They're facts, we have no doubt in them. If you genuinely think the point your making is right and that these things might be wrong then go do me a favour; pick up an object and drop it. Message back when Gravity stops working.

Not to mention our universe doesn't seem inteligently deisgned; we are the only planet capable of having life. If Inteligently designed why would this be the case?

Now a God could exist outside of everything, but this hypothetical scenario doesn't make it more likely; this is just stupid arrogance on your part because you don't know Physics. Go read a 'Universe From Nothing' you can download it from somewhere, or watch the lecture on it online. Educate yourself before you start making these big claims.

You are using the argumentum ad ignorantiam; the problem is your appeal to the unknown is to things we have answers on that you simply have no knowledge of.


----------



## Rayfu (Oct 28, 2011)

> Once again because you keep thinking as if these two things are the exact same value, as if proving the one god of monotheism requires the same amount of proof as one of the gods of polytheism.


Yet again not reaind my post, I even admited that one God could be more true then another, but the fact remains if one is 50% and one is 30% the odds of both of them being true are less likely.


> You cant say it's more likely because you have no value to base it on. Lets look at it this way say God A has a value of 100 in Universe A. Next we have two Gods who have a value combined of 50 in Universe B. Now we don't know that these are their values however in this hypothetical scenario they are. So that's a value of 25 per God in universe B.


Yes, and the odds that ALL three of them are real?
lower.


> Your big problem is your big assumption, you think that it requires the same amount of evidence to prove the God in universe A than to prove one of the Gods in universe B. It is completely possible that the Gods in universe B are individually easier to prove than the God in Universe A.


Yes, yes it is, but the fact reamisn it requirews more of a chnace for all to be true.

I also like how you keep saying "you cant prove it so you cant use it" yet your using things we dont have any proof for.




> We can't tell this. So to claim one is more likely than the other is to use a childs level of understanding on the issue.


Okay tell me, what are the odds that Bob form unerverse A won the lotto? what about Bob form B?


> When I use 0, the zero is for evidence. At the momment we have evidence for neither so currently they both stand just as accurate as each other. Your problem is this assumption of equality between these Gods. To quote what I've said several times in this thread, prove this.


And wghar I've said sevreal times, and you have ignored, one God may have a higher chace of being true, but STILL the odds that God A, and God B are both real are LESS then if one or the other is real.

Its simple math, you add more things to the odds, the odds get bigger and bigger till its highly unlikely,
what is the odds I can find a cat going out side right now?
what if I add finding two? three? four? five? with each one it gets less.



> First I didn't misread your post because you asked for each thing I answered, you said what caused the big bang I answered that so please don't try to lie.


You my freind are not reaind,I did not lie, I asked you what you thgout created it, I nerver, anywhere said God was needed, show me where I said that?



> Next your using the argument of ignorance falacy. Just because one idea you have is easier to say doesn't mean it's right or more logical, which you keep claiming it's more logical.


In this case it is, its more logica to asume we are not alone in space becuse of how big it is, and we know that planets can get in to the right spot
Is that not logical?



> like I said earlier we can explain everything in the universe and we can test this. There could be a God outside of all of this but in this scenario it doesn't even seem like he's involved at all.


Becuse you asumme it all happen jsut cause?
where is thge evdince for that?
why could not a God just make these laws?


> It's not luck for fuck sake. Look just because you don't understand the science behind this doesn't mean we should go with the big unknown answer because it's simple. It's no more luck than 2+2 becoming 4 is luck.





> The total enery of the universe is zero. Quantum flunctations in a universe with this value will always produce something rather than nothing. This is a mechanic not luck.


Yes, and this law happen to be there? always? quite luckiy of us that laws all work nice and neat huh?



> Listen once more this isn't luck, just because you know nothing of Quantum Physics doesn't mean it's luck.


I never said that the laws working was luck, I said that them being if there really no itelegent degin, is luck, after all with nothing to guid it or set the rules, it could of been anything.


> How do you not see what your typing? Seriously you are going on the lines of "well yes everything can come around without God, and yes we have reason and evidence to suggest such things BUT God is the more logical answer"


Where at all, dose any of this evdince say there is no God? it dose not, FYI I happen to belive God made the big bang and the laws, after all a all powerful being would be smart enough to have things set so he dont have to do evreything 24\7



> For every answer given you kept insinuating on this starting point of God that this is needed. This was heavily implied throughout.


You read in to it, I fully admit in many posts God is not needed at all, but just cause its not needed for this to work dose not mean he did not do it




> This one thing is something with no evidence and no reason and is much bigger than any single law which we have proven.


Not really, its a powerful being that has intelgelnts, is it so hard to belive there is something way more powerful then us?



> The Big Bang didn't have help from God, once again it's a Quantum Mechanic it has no cause, nothing caused it to happen it was spontaneous.


For the longest time gravity was not a "cause" just cause we dont know how to find it dose not mean its not there.
God could of full well made the big bang and how excatly would we trace it to him?




> No it would require just Quantum Physics for it to be done without God. Quantum Physics has been tested and proven. Do you know anything of Quantum Physics because if you don't you really shouldn't be making arguments against it's credibility or likelihood.


But Quantum Physics never says god cant't exist, it hints at it by saying this all just happen but what proof do we have that it did?
Can we really say there are no secrets we do not know?



For the last freaking time, I freaking belive in this stuff, but I belive God set it up, after all its was to orgnized, 



> ....don't talk shit. I swear this is actually rather infuriating that you keep using your ignorance on the subject as if it's a reason.


right back at you buddy.,



> The claim for no apparent reason is not even remotely true. Why is it your so sure on this when you've done no research on any of this?


I have, I belive evrey single one of those laws, do I belive they all where just "thgere" and hapeen to be and we have the tecnolgy to be sure that nothing at all was envloved? heck no.


> The several (not trillions) of things we can test and see working or this one bigger thing which we can not test or see working. Your reasoning is ridiculous.


Some of the things require

#1 the idea that something came form nothing, that right there says God can exist, not that he dose but that he can
#2 evrey single law of physics and evrey single thing alive otday yesterday and tommorw must some how come form non living things through a prossces that once again was "just there"
I could go on for evere talkinbg about evrey single thing that happens and is set to happen, and evrey single one of those laws where "just there" 

so tell me how is that, in anyway, more likely then one single being who could make all of this becuse he was intelgeint and as such the laws where made by something.

.............You are kidding right?



> Ok let me use this exact reasoning for something else:
> Magic Jelly requires one thing to be true for child birth, if the combination of sperm and an egg happen with no help from the magic jelly it would require every law of child birth, and all the odds to be added up to come to this.


Speaking by odds the magicl jelly MAY be more liekly
we would have to see the numbers, just cause its more likely dose not eman it is.




> Plus, for no apparent reason, LOGICAL rules are in place and a trillion other things to be true, while yes it’s possible that it did happen like that
> What’s more likely those trillion things are true by chance or one thing is true and explains everything else because something intelligent made it?


Something intelligent made it, do you have any diea how complex the whole unverse is?
how many things work together and work almsot as if there is a higher intelgents? 

and again just cause its more likely dont mean its true.


> Now what you said works exactly for child birth; so should we abandon all research in family planning and sperm/egg research because of the posibility of the Magic Jelly? And what if the Magic Jelly is true? Is the Magic Jelly now more likely? Because by your reasoning it is.


No, I never said stop looking, something more likely dose not make it so, your acting like I'm saying tis the only awnser, its not.


> You see your excuse is just horrible. It's complete ignorance on Physics and Astronomy and you clearly have not researched any of this yet you keep being defiant in your ignorance in this.


I love how you say my "excuses is horrible"
when none of those at all, say that God is the same or less likely.


> You asked how can we show one is more likely. Because we have proof of one and none for the other.


that dose not make it more likely in anyway

If you bet on a race and a last muint guy is enterd dose that mean you guy is still more likely?


> We can reach a logical conclusion of a universe from nothing based on the facts we know, you keep trying to place doubt in these facts that we are basing this conclusion on but that's the thing. They're facts, we have no doubt in them. If you genuinely think the point your making is right and that these things might be wrong then go do me a favour; pick up an object and drop it. Message back when Gravity stops working.


For the last freaking time, they work CASUE God made them, what part of thise are you not getting?


> Not to mention our universe doesn't seem inteligently deisgned; we are the only planet capable of having life. If Inteligently designed why would this be the case?


I love how you made all the claims and then said this with
A. no proof in anything
B. almsot evreysingle thing we do to study space says other wise

Way to go mister "you know nothing of astyrolgy"



> Now a God could exist outside of everything, but this hypothetical scenario doesn't make it more likely; this is just stupid arrogance on your part because you don't know Physics. Go read a 'Universe From Nothing' you can download it from somewhere, or watch the lecture on it online. Educate yourself before you start making these big claims.


Says the guy who says " we are ther only planet with life"
and that the big bang was proven to come form nothing.




> You are using the argumentum ad ignorantiam; the problem is your appeal to the unknown is to things we have answers on that you simply have no knowledge of.


Oh I do, I know of these laws you pseak of, I do not deny them, none of the laws say that a God can not exist or that a God made these laws.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Fighting over something that doesn't exist, lol.


----------



## Huganomics (Mar 12, 2010)

I remember when we were first taught evolution in school. I live in the South, so...

>Teaching Evolution
>Room filled mostly with Christian kids

'Twas quite lulzy.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Catalanotto said:


> Fighting over something that doesn't exist, lol.


Right.

Because the universe happening from nothing really makes sense right? LOL!!!


I guess since you believe God doesn't exist that, objectively speaking, what Hitler (who was an Atheist by the way) did was O.K.? The Nanking Massacre was alright too then (Japan is also generally Atheistic). We have no purpose, no meaning, and killing another human being is no different than stepping on a bug.

_*RIIIIIGHT.*_



http://www.creationtoday.org/seminar-part-1-the-age-of-the-earth/


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

i believe in nothing lebowski


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Right.
> 
> Because the universe happening from nothing really makes sense right? LOL!!!
> 
> ...



*Why would atheists believe all of that stuff was okay?*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *Why would atheists believe all of that stuff was okay?*


Because if a God doesn't exist then there aren't any objective moral standards by which we must adhere to.

Atheism, by default, embraces the idea that morality is subjective, not objective. Meaning that YOU alone decide what is right and wrong.

You believe the holocaust and rape of nanking was wrong, correct?

Objectively as well as subjectively? Or only subjectively.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

Doesn't the Bible feature God committing genocide?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

WCW said:


> Doesn't the Bible feature God committing genocide?


The Bible teaches only God can give and take away life.

However, read this if you want more information.

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/06/did-god-commit-genocide-in-the-bible/


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

Do as I say but not as I do? That's a great way to teach people.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

WCW said:


> Do as I say but not as I do? That's a great way to teach people.


It's more complex than that bro. lol


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

I'm just trying to figure out why a loving god would drown everyone on earth


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Right.
> 
> Because the universe happening from nothing really makes sense right? LOL!!!
> 
> ...


How the fuck does not believing in God suddenly make terrible things people do 'okay'?

Are you really that stupid?

This is why I hate arguing with people who believe in God. Hitler being atheist means fuck all to me and what he did was his own fucking decision, not something all atheists do and agree with.

You're just another uneducated religious nut who thinks all atheists are evil.

Learn to read something other than that fucking fairytale of yours.

People don't need an invisible asshole in the sky to have morals.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Because if a God doesn't exist then there aren't any objective moral standards by which we must adhere to.
> 
> Atheism, by default, embraces the idea that morality is subjective, not objective. Meaning that YOU alone decide what is right and wrong.
> 
> ...


*I base my moral belief system on what I personally think is right and wrong which, of course, is totally subjective. I think most people do that, Christians as well. I see no reason to believe in a God or a religion to have a moral base. 

We still must adhere to law, however, so it really doesn't matter if one thinks murder is right or wrong. While personal moral values are subjective to everyone, man created laws are not. That's what we adhere to, or pay the consequences of.

I have yet to meet an atheist that believes the holocaust was anything but atrocious. *


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

WCW said:


> I'm just trying to figure out why a loving god would drown everyone on earth


Do you see the fallacy in your post?

I'm assuming your an Atheist here.

If you are, you can't really make a statement like that, because according to you, objective morality cannot possibly exist.


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

hitler wasnt an athiest, fyi


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

WCW said:


> hitler wasnt an athiest, fyi


*take into consideration you are arguing with someone that probably believes in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. *


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

yeah i know, its probably not worth arguing


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

And you believe our minds and bodies came from monkeys. What a fantasy.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> *I base my moral belief system on what I personally think is right and wrong which, of course, is totally subjective. I think most people do that, Christians as well. I see no reason to believe in a God or a religion to have a moral base. *


Fair enough, but can you answer then, where did morals originate? Why do we have morals in the first place? Animals don't have morals. Ironically, you won't see an animal murder our of jealousy or greed, only to eat or self-defense.



> *We still must adhere to law, however, so it really doesn't matter if one thinks murder is right or wrong. While personal moral values are subjective to everyone, man created laws are not. That's what we adhere to, or pay the consequences of.*


Again, where did laws of man originate? And why?



> *I have yet to meet an atheist that believes the holocaust was anything but atrocious.*


Same here. I'm not saying they thought it was O.K., but objectively speaking, they'd have to admit that they're no more right in their morals than Hitler was in his. Hitler truly thought he was doing the right thing.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

WCW said:


> hitler wasnt an athiest, fyi


I have read that he was Catholic/Christian/Atheist/Never gave an indication of what he believed in. 

I don't think you were talking to me, just wanted to put that out there. Seems no group wants Hitler, lol. Understandably so.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *take into consideration you are arguing with someone that probably believes in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. *


Yes, I do.

People think it's silly to believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. because it's been parodied to death. As such people don't take it seriously.


There REALLY was a world-wide flood about 4400 years ago.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> Fair enough, but can you answer then, where did morals originate? Why do we have morals in the first place? Animals don't have morals. Ironically, you won't see an animal murder our of jealousy or greed, only to eat or self-defense.


*I think most people's morality scale comes from their parents originally. We are taught what is right and what is wrong as a kid. Now when we grow older we start to decide, ourselves, what is actually right and what is wrong. 






Again, where did laws of man originate? And why?

Click to expand...

I really couldn't care less. They (laws) don't affect my personal morality scale. It's still what we adhere to, not morality or God.






Same here. I'm not saying they thought it was O.K., but objectively speaking, they'd have to admit that they're no more right in their morals than Hitler was in his. Hitler truly thought he was doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. I don't have to believe in God to think my morality scale is better than other peoples. 





Yes, I do.

People think it's silly to believe in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc. because it's been parodied to death. As such people don't take it seriously.


There REALLY was a world-wide flood about 4400 years ago.

Click to expand...

You are aware that Christianity wasn't the first religion to come up with that story right? 

And also, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and the other stories in the bible get parodied to death because they are fucking stupid stories. 
*


----------



## Horselover Fat (May 18, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> And you believe our minds and bodies came from monkeys. What a fantasy.


The movie Congo really convinced me



Catalanotto said:


> I have read that he was Catholic/Christian/Atheist/Never gave an indication of what he believed in.
> 
> I don't think you were talking to me, just wanted to put that out there. Seems no group wants Hitler, lol. Understandably so.


Publicly he was definitely a Christian. Privately, he was an agnostic at best. He believed in God enough to do things like put "God With Us" on all the Nazi belt buckles. It could have all been for show, but there's sure more evidence that he believed in a god then there is that he didn't.


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

WCW said:


> Publicly he was definitely a Christian. Privately, he was an agnostic at best. He believed in God enough to do things like put "God With Us" on all the Nazi belt buckles. It could have all been for show, but there's sure more evidence that he believed in a god then there is that he didn't.


That makes Poltergays attack points even more hilarious.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> *No they wouldn't. I don't have to believe in God to think my morality scale is better than other peoples. *


But you're saying this from a subjective standpoint.

Objectively, you're no more right than Hitler was.




> *You are aware that Christianity wasn't the first religion to come up with that story right?*


I'm glad you know this fact.

Actually, almost every religion on Earth acknowledges a world-wide flood happened.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> But you're saying this from a subjective standpoint.
> 
> Objectively, you're no more right than Hitler was.


*

And that's fine for you to think that... or anyone else for that matter. I have no problem with that. I don't need my moral scale to be acknowledged by anyone but me. 

But also, to God, you are no better than Hitler either. So we're both in the same boat.*






> I'm glad you know this fact.
> 
> Actually, almost every religion on Earth acknowledges a world-wide flood happened.


*And Christianity stole almost all of it's stories from religions before it. Which makes Christianity even more laughable and illegitimate. *


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Our minds and bodies were created by God. Thats why we have very intelligent minds out there. We definitely do not have the minds of monkeys. We were created in God's image. Body, soul and spirit. Jesus was the visible image of the invisible God. (if you can grasp that) We do what we want to do and say what we want to say, we act like gods. We were made in his image, and we act like him. We want power, we want glory..like come on where do you think these feelings came from? God is spirit. This stuff is like spirtual evidence.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> And you believe our minds and bodies came from monkeys. What a fantasy.


*Nah, not necessarily. But there is more evidence pointing to us coming from monkeys over us coming from a magic man in the sky. So I do tend to give more weight to one theory over the other. 

Of course some people believe evolution is a design of God. I have no problem with that viewpoint.*


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> *
> 
> And that's fine for you to think that... or anyone else for that matter. I have no problem with that. I don't need my moral scale to be acknowledged by anyone but me.
> 
> But also, to God, you are no better than Hitler either. So we're both in the same boat.*


You are correct but I think you're missing the point.

I'm no better than Hitler in the fact that I'm a sinner. In fact every person on Earth has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The difference is, I've accepted the free gift of what Jesus Christ did on the cross. He paid our debt and was thinking of *YOU* (yes literally YOU) when he was on the cross.

Now most people would probably be quick to say, "well what if Hitler accepted Christ, he would be in heaven right? but that doesn't make sense!".

And you'd be right, it doesn't make sense. The reason why is because a true Christian (someone who is part of the body of Christ) would never do something like this. The Bible references this is many verses including http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-26&version=NKJV.

Someone can claim to be a Christian but isn't really one. The word Christian literally means Christ-like or like Christ.

Does Hitler match up with how Jesus Christ is described in the Bible? I think not. Hope you understand the difference between a Christian and someone who claims to be a Christian.






> *And Christianity stole almost all of it's stories from religions before it. Which makes Christianity even more laughable and illegitimate. *


I don't mean this in an offensive way at all but I think you're slightly ignorant of some things here. Christianity didn't steal anything. There's three major religions in the world that can be contrasted significantly. These are called the Abrahamic Religions, or Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three of these are intertwined somewhere down the line in beliefs etc.

If anything, Judaism is the "original" religion and Christianity just states or "borrows", if you will, what was already known. Nothing was "stolen".


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *Nah, not necessarily. But there is more evidence pointing to us coming from monkeys over us coming from a magic man in the sky. So I do tend to give more weight to one theory over the other.
> 
> Of course some people believe evolution is a design of God. I have no problem with that viewpoint.*


If we came from nothing and we are this intelligent wouldn't you say we are like magic people on earth?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

LadyCroft said:


> *
> Of course some people believe evolution is a design of God. I have no problem with that viewpoint.*


The problem with that is Evolution is completely contradictory to what the Bible says.

Both cannot be true.

If you have a couple of hours to spare I would highly suggest you watch this video for more information

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/

You are a very intelligent person and I appreciate the fact that you don't deny the possibility of God like Atheists do and I truly believe if you gain some good information you will come to the right conclusions.


----------



## Fargerov (Sep 20, 2011)

delete


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> You are correct but I think you're missing the point.
> 
> I'm no better than Hitler in the fact that I'm a sinner. In fact every person on Earth has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
> 
> ...


*I really couldn't care less about that stuff. I've grown up around it my entire life. It does nothing for me.

Jesus Christ thought so much (i.e. so little) about all of this that he chose not to write a single word about it. Think about that for a minute.*








> I don't mean this in an offensive way at all but I think you're slightly ignorant of some things here. Christianity didn't steal anything. There's three major religions in the world that can be contrasted significantly. These are called the Abrahamic Religions, or Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three of these are intertwined somewhere down the line in beliefs etc.
> 
> If anything, Judaism is the "original" religion and Christianity just states or "borrows", if you will, what was already known. Nothing was "stolen".


*I'm not offended at all by what you say. Why would I be? I just think it's hilarious that someone that believes in Adam and Eve will call someone else ignorant. It's pretty damn funny. 

Also there are religions other than the three you mentioned that reported the same stories. Those ridiculous stories aren't exclusive to the Abrahamic Religions.*




Poltergeist said:


> The problem with that is Evolution is completely contradictory to what the Bible says.
> 
> Both cannot be true.
> 
> ...


*Both don't have to be true. One theory has evidence to back it up. The other theory doesn't. I tend to go with the evidence side.*




MacDanny 6 said:


> If we came from nothing and we are this intelligent wouldn't you say we are like magic people on earth?


*No. Simply because I see nothing magical about us. Magic doesn't exist. 

As for where we come from... I simply don't know. I think there are alot of possibilities. So until we know for sure I'll go with the evidence we have at hand. *


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> *I really couldn't care less about that stuff. I've grown up around it my entire life. It does nothing for me.
> 
> Jesus Christ thought so much (i.e. so little) about all of this that he chose not to write a single word about it. Think about that for a minute.*


The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Jesus is God in the flesh. I don't understand what you're trying to say, that Jesus Christ would've written by hand the Bible himself? The Bible is actually a compilation of books that were written over hundreds of years. Jesus Christ only lived a few decades. Besides, who's to say he didn't write anything?







> *I'm not offended at all by what you say. Why would I be? I just think it's hilarious that someone that believes in Adam and Eve will call someone else ignorant. It's pretty damn funny.
> 
> Also there are religions other than the three you mentioned that reported the same stories. Those ridiculous stories aren't exclusive to the Abrahamic Religions.*


I wasn't saying you're an ignorant person. I was just saying you are ignorant on a couple of things. There's a difference.
I bet if you were born and raised in a nation where media, TV, and comedians didn't have a strong influence on culture where parodies of these stories are rampant, you wouldn't be thinking the story of Adam and Eve were laughable.

I know those stories aren't exclusive to the Abrahamic Religions, however, Christianity clearly came before every one except Judaism.






> *Both don't have to be true. One theory has evidence to back it up. The other theory doesn't. I tend to go with the evidence side.*


I'm so sorry but you are mistaken. There is so much evidence to back up the Bible. If you want me to provide the evidence, then again, I urge you to watch this video as it explains in depth.

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane.

A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Poltergeist said:


> The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Jesus is God in the flesh. I don't understand what you're trying to say, that Jesus Christ would've written by hand the Bible himself? The Bible is actually a compilation of books that were written over hundreds of years. Jesus Christ only lived a few decades. Besides, who's to say he didn't write anything?


*

Yeah. I think if Jesus thought his life or his words were so important he would have written it down. And he didn't. Or if he did then no one thought it important enough to save. I find that odd. 

Also I find it odd that people over hundreds of years could remember conversations. I can't remember conversations I had last week let alone years ago. 

The bible was written by man so I see no reason to take it as the word of God. It's the word of man.









I wasn't saying you're an ignorant person. I was just saying you are ignorant on a couple of things. There's a difference.
I bet if you were born and raised in a nation where media, TV, and comedians didn't have a strong influence on culture where parodies of these stories are rampant, you wouldn't be thinking the story of Adam and Eve were laughable.

I know those stories aren't exclusive to the Abrahamic Religions, however, Christianity clearly came before every one except Judaism.

Click to expand...

Nah holy man, you've got me all wrong. My culture is straight up holy rolling bible belt. I've grown up with the stories all my life. Still hear them when I go to church. Where I grew up we heard none of that mocking stuff. People take their God worshiping and religion very seriously here. 

It's funny how I believed in the bible until I actually read it. That or I actually started thinking on my own and not just taking what people were telling me as the truth. 

The story of Adam and Eve is complete bullshit. And that being bullshit, *along with Noah's Ark, Jonah and the whale *or fish, whichever you prefer* makes me not trust the bible at all. 

Now some will say that those stories aren't meant to be taken literally. And I would agree with that. You can't take those stories literally with a straight face. It's damn near impossible.

I see where you're coming from though. I do think there's alot of truth in so much as when people actually seek out other ideas and actually look for facts and scientific evidence the wise among us start to doubt what we grew up being told. Or at the very least question it. 

I think that's a great thing. 





I'm so sorry but you are mistaken. There is so much evidence to back up the Bible. If you want me to provide the evidence, then again, I urge you to watch this video as it explains in depth.

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/

Click to expand...

I know that there are alot of things in the bible that are true. That's how most great stories are written. I have no problem with that. *





MacDanny 6 said:


> Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane.
> 
> A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.


*That's all well and good. But saying since we don't have an answer for it, God must have done it makes no sense either. 




The Bible is true. The history of the Bible is true. The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present. We were not there! God said He created the universe. God said He created all living things. We know that life is much more than chemicals. God put His life into Adam and that life has been transferred from generation to generation all the way down to us!

http://www.bestbiblescience.org/top.htm

Click to expand...

Nah. It's not true. For it to be true then the Adam and Eve story must be true. And it's not. It's bullshit. *


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

LadyCroft said:


> *No. Simply because I see nothing magical about us. Magic doesn't exist.
> 
> As for where we come from... I simply don't know. I think there are alot of possibilities. So until we know for sure I'll go with the evidence we have at hand. *


But see from God's side he already told you where we came from. And where we go. If you call him a liar and what the bible says turns out to be true, how tough do you think you're going to look in front of God telling him he's a crock?


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

> *Yeah. I think if Jesus thought his life or his words were so important he would have written it down. And he didn't. Or if he did then no one thought it important enough to save. I find that odd.
> 
> Also I find it odd that people over hundreds of years could remember conversations. I can't remember conversations I had last week let alone years ago.
> 
> ...


It may be odd, but there was probably a good reason for it. What that is I simply don't know. However, God spoke to the writers through divine inspiration, so conversations that happened didn't need to be remembered in a basic sense, but with the help of God they could.










> *Nah holy man, you've got me all wrong. My culture is straight up holy rolling bible belt. I've grown up with the stories all my life. Still hear them when I go to church. Where I grew up we heard none of that mocking stuff. People taking their God worshiping and religion very seriously here.
> 
> It's funny how I believed in the bible until I actually read it. That or I actually started thinking on my own and not just taking what people were telling me as the truth.
> 
> ...


I apologize for misunderstanding you. I didn't grow up in the Bible belt so I can't relate there. I know that alot of Christians in bible belt are notorious for being holy-rolling-fire-and-brimstone-teaching people. But please understand that at the end of the day they mean well. They are just misguided in that they are not going about teaching Christ in the best way.






> *I know that there are alot of things in the bible that are true. That's how most great stories are written. I have no problem with that.
> *


What if I told you that there is tons of evidence to support Noah's Flood? There is.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> But see from God's side he already told you where we came from. And where we go. If you call him a liar and what the bible says turns out to be true, how tough do you think you're going to look in front of God telling him he's a crock?


*First of all I disagree with the premise. For me to call God a liar I would have to actually believe the bible is the word of God. I don't. So I'm not saying he's a liar. 

Now an atheist would say they would have to first believe in a God to call God a liar. I don't take that approach. 

I simply don't know where we came from. And I'm okay with that. I'll probably die not knowing. That's cool with me. But I'm not going to sit here and take for granted that a magic man put us here simply because I don't know what really happened. 

It goes back to the answer vs no answer discussion. I could go into it but I'll let this guy do it for me. My beliefs are very similar to his.









Poltergeist said:



It may be odd, but there was probably a good reason for it. What that is I simply don't know. However, God spoke to the writers through divine inspiration, so conversations that happened didn't need to be remembered in a basic sense, but with the help of God they could.

Click to expand...

I agree, they could but that's just silly.

But it still doesn't explain why Jesus felt no need to write this down when that would have put far more credibility into this religion than him not doing so. 

As for God speaking to people. There are alot of people that claim God spoke to them. Did he? I have no clue. I don't know. There's no evidence against it but there's no evidence to support it either. 













I apologize for misunderstanding you. I didn't grow up in the Bible belt so I can't relate there. I know that alot of Christians in bible belt are notorious for being holy-rolling-fire-and-brimstone-teaching people. But please understand that at the end of the day they mean well. They are just misguided in that they are not going about teaching Christ in the best way.

Click to expand...

Of course they mean well. My family are, for the most part, really great people and I love them.  I just happen to not fear questioning things they seem to not want to question. Doesn't make them a bad person. I still go fishin' with them 









What if I told you that there is tons of evidence to support Noah's Flood? There is. 

Click to expand...

There are tons of evidence to support a flood. There is no evidence to support that Noah gathered all these animals and put them on a boat. It's ridiculous. 
*


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

The creation is not greater than it's creator. We are from beneath, he is from above. That which is from above is above all. Humble yourself. We're the ones who fucked up, God did not tell us to sin, we did that on our own. The wages of sin is death. God wants to rid the world of sin. We are ALL sinners. Therefore we are all worthy of death (get it?). BUT, ok we all sinned aginst God, so is God just gonna let us all die? No mercy? Thats where Jesus comes in! He who believes in Jesus Christ will never die, but will pass from death to life. The wages of sin is death. Jesus paid the price of sin for the whole world! Whoever believes that Jesus died for their sins will be saved from their DESERVED punishment. Jesus is a get out of jail free card. It's that simple. It's got nothing to do with us, its about Him and what He did for us. To the believer. The unbeliever has no place with God, because the unbeliever did not accept the free gift that washes away sin.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> The creation is not greater than it's creator. We are from beneath, he is from above. That which is from above is above all. Humble yourself. We're the ones who fucked up, God did not tell us to sin, we did that on our own. The wages of sin is death. God wants to rid the world of sin. We are ALL sinners. Therefore we are all worthy of death (get it?). BUT, ok we all sinned aginst God, so is God just gonna let us all die? No mercy? Thats where Jesus comes in! He who believes in Jesus Christ will never die, but will pass from death to life. The wages of sin is death. Jesus paid the price of sin for the whole world! Whoever believes that Jesus died for their sins will be saved from their DESERVED punishment. Jesus is a get out of jail free card. It's that simple. It's got nothing to do with us, its about Him and what He did for us. To the believer. The unbeliever has no place with God, because the unbeliever did not accept the free gift that washes away sin.


*

Is that in response to me? If so you're wasting your time and you clearly didn't read what I wrote because that has nothing to do with our conversation.

That being said, if that's what you believe in then praise the Lord brother. You and my mom would get along great. *That's not an invitation btw*  *


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

lc you're arguing with trolls. Stop wasting time.

By the way, the fact Christians to this day still haven't realized "the orginal sin" wasn just randomly made up so that they would have had a reason for people to believe in their ridiculous concept of religion are in complete denial.


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

Magic said:


> lc you're arguing with trolls. Stop wasting time.
> 
> By the way, the fact Christians to this day still haven't realized "the orginal sin" wasn just randomly made up so that they would have had a reason for people to believe in their ridiculous concept of religion are in complete denial.


*Meh, I think Poltergeist really believes what he's saying and I admire that. I don't think he's a troll at all. 

MacDanny, isn't reading anything going on though so who knows about him  He's probably not a troll either though because 9 out of 10 members of my family are like him in so much as they believe what he believes in. You can actually have a conversation with a few of them *my family* however. *


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

Ive met some logical Christians myself, that actually to respond to what is being said instead of ignoring it completely and going by what they want to say. I still think most religions are completely ridiculous and have a hard time figuring out why there are still so many followers today; death is obviously a big part of it but it has to be something else.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

I thought the Adam and Eve story was just so people wouldn't walk around naked.


----------



## Nas (Apr 5, 2011)

:lmao

Edit: @ H of Light


----------



## fergieska (Apr 22, 2011)

Rayfu said:


> Yet again not reaind my post, I even admited that one God could be more true then another, but the fact remains if one is 50% and one is 30% the odds of both of them being true are less likely.


This post is contradicting logic. You throw your hands up in the air and admit the possibility of one God being more likely than another but then you go back to making assertions on it. This isn't a fact that you've stated because it is only a fact in an enclosed hypothetical scenario of your choosing. But the world and our universe is not an enclosed hypothetical scenario of your choosing so the reasoning that your using is incorrect. You can't assign these values because we don't know anything on the value your setting.


Rayfu said:


> Yes, and the odds that ALL three of them are real?
> lower.


You missed the point entirely on this one.


Rayfu said:


> Yes, yes it is, but the fact reamisn it requirews more of a chnace for all to be true.


Once again missing the point.


Rayfu said:


> I also like how you keep saying "you cant prove it so you cant use it" yet your using things we dont have any proof for.


I'm creating hypothetical scenarios to explain why your reasoning is wrong. I'm not declaring this as a fact that is why I'm not in a circumstance where proof is needed.



Rayfu said:


> Okay tell me, what are the odds that Bob form unerverse A won the lotto? what about Bob form B?


This is a non-sequitar and has no similarity to what I've declared as an example. My example is that 1A can be less or more than 2B. We can't assign a numerical value to either because of our lack of knowledge.


Rayfu said:


> And wghar I've said sevreal times, and you have ignored, one God may have a higher chace of being true, but STILL the odds that God A, and God B are both real are LESS then if one or the other is real.


No once again you can't assert these odds, I haven't ignored this. I have explained this but since you can't comprehend this you go off on tangents and keep declaring this reasoning. It's faulty reasoning, untile you have values for both you can't assign odds.


Rayfu said:


> Its simple math, you add more things to the odds, the odds get bigger and bigger till its highly unlikely,
> what is the odds I can find a cat going out side right now?
> what if I add finding two? three? four? five? with each one it gets less.


It's not simple math because in this scenario we aren't using numbers but using an algebra based equation due to the unknown. Your example about the Cats is a rather stupid one because we know cats exist, they can be assigned a value, we know your area exists we can assign a value to that. We can also find out information on your area and the cat population so another value being assigned.



Rayfu said:


> You my freind are not reaind,I did not lie, I asked you what you thgout created it, I nerver, anywhere said God was needed, show me where I said that?


I am 'reading' your posts but you choose to interpret them differently and when I point out something you say "But that's not my point". Which is no wonder as you're being very vague in all of this. You said what caused it, I explained it. Frankly I don't care either way on this issue because it's small in comparison to the crap you've described.



Rayfu said:


> In this case it is, its more logica to asume we are not alone in space becuse of how big it is, and we know that planets can get in to the right spot
> Is that not logical?


No not really. There is no logical answer to this, while it is most certainly a possibility there is no good reason for us to think there's life just because it's big. From the planets we can observe we can see no life on them. You're making an appeal to the unknown again; you need more than this to claim what's logical and what isn't


Rayfu said:


> Becuse you asumme it all happen jsut cause?
> where is thge evdince for that?
> why could not a God just make these laws?


I don't assuume it all happened for no reason, in fact that's your defense because by thinking that a God did it you haven't provided a reason as to why it did do it. I've explained that it could very well be a big natural spontaneous process. This is nature acting upon itself.

Also on God making these laws. You keep making this big assertion that these laws were created. I'd like you to prove this.



Rayfu said:


> Yes, and this law happen to be there? always? quite luckiy of us that laws all work nice and neat huh?


The exact same could be said about a God (which you will no doubt say "oh no it isn't" but frankly it is) yet you have no problem stating God is more logical.



Rayfu said:


> I never said that the laws working was luck, I said that them being if there really no itelegent degin, is luck, after all with nothing to guid it or set the rules, it could of been anything.


By this reasoning God being there would also be luck.



Rayfu said:


> Where at all, dose any of this evdince say there is no God? it dose not, FYI I happen to belive God made the big bang and the laws, after all a all powerful being would be smart enough to have things set so he dont have to do evreything 24\7


Like I said I have no issue with you believing these things. I do have issue with you claiming it's more logical because it's an assertive claim.



Rayfu said:


> You read in to it, I fully admit in many posts God is not needed at all, but just cause its not needed for this to work dose not mean he did not do it


Once again I'm not declaring God as not possible, I'm claiming that your argument for it being more logical is weak. If we can achieve all this without God (which you admit is not needed) then there really doesn't seem like a reason for a God. And yet with this you claim it's more logical, since we can see these things working without a God and these things can explain our universe it isn't more logical that God started all this because it didn't need a starting point and we know this. If you want to use God to fill in every other unknown fine but don't try to declare it as the most logical answer because that is arrogance and don't try to use it in things we do know.

I'm going to overlook everything else because it's essentially the destruction of grammar, spelling and logic down there.


----------



## MoveMent (Oct 20, 2006)

Y'all really need to stop trying to force beliefs on people. If someone doesn't wanna believe in God or particularly your God then let them.


----------



## #1Peep4ever (Aug 21, 2011)

well i believe in god

its just that way
there has yet to be some evolution theory that convinces me there is no god


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

Magic said:


> lc you're arguing with trolls. Stop wasting time.
> 
> By the way, the fact Christians to this day still haven't realized "the orginal sin" wasn just randomly made up so that they would have had a reason for people to believe in their ridiculous concept of religion are in complete denial.


You're an idiot.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Do you believe in Hinduism?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> You're an idiot.


*Well that's not very Christian like. :hayden*


----------



## Lady Eastwood (Jul 10, 2006)

MacDanny 6 said:


> Dead chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of "protoplasm" as believed in Darwin's day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some "warm little pond" will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The "Law of Biogenesis" states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane.
> 
> A person is a unity of body + mind/soul, the mind/soul being the immaterial part of you that is the real inner you. Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.
> 
> ...



Does the existence of the easter bunny sound ridiculous to you?

The tooth fairy?

Yet an invisible man in the sky is totally plausible?


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> "1. You can't create something from nothing.
> 
> 2. Nothing can create itself.
> 
> 3. Therefore there must be a creator who created himself from nothing."


Fail.

The actual argument:

1. Anything that had a beginning must have a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning (per the scientific data).

3. The universe has a cause.

Theists believe the cause was intentional/purposeful (God), whereas atheists believe it was non-intentional/purposeless (chaos).

If the universe were eternal and infinite (beginning-less), then it would need no explanation, as it would be the very root of existence. This is why the latest fad amongst God-deniers is an infinite multiverse, of which our own universe is just one extension. It allows them to explain why our universe can have a beginning, while still being a part of an infinite chaos, allowing them to evade God.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Catalanotto said:


> Does the existence of the easter bunny sound ridiculous to you?
> 
> The tooth fairy?
> 
> Yet an invisible man in the sky is totally plausible?


This is a prime example of parodying of religion that desensitizes people into laughing at it as well.

We don't claim there's an "invisible man in the sky". I believe that would be a straw-man.


Someone comparing God to the tooth fairy and the easter bunny is completely out of touch with the reality of what Christians believe.

Shame on you.


----------



## Poltergeist (Dec 19, 2009)

Mr. High IQ said:


> Fail.
> 
> The actual argument:
> 
> ...


First off, only some atheists believe this.

The new fad among the atheistic community is that the Universe literally came from NOTHING. Look up Lawrence Krauss.

And by the way, that's fine if you want to believe in something you can't prove. But don't call it science and don't put it in school textbooks. Because it's a belief system based on faith alone, which makes it religious.

I don't think ANY religious beliefs should be taught in school, including the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, and many other things than haven't and will never be proven.

Lastly, why would you believe in the chaos argument when everything is clearly designed. From molecules to DNA to simple bacteria. It simply can't form by random chance. (Did you know DNA is a language?)

Then of course you have to question the origins of morality (if there is no God, there is no absolute right or wrong. Morals are left up to the individual to decide, which would mean Hitler wasn't doing any wrong from an objective standpoint.)

You also have to ask yourself, why have we never seen a star form, when given the amount of stars in our universe, and the supposed age of the universe, we should be seeing hundreds of thousands forming every minute. But in the history of mankind we haven't witnessed even 1 star form? Come on.

Sorry but God makes much more sense. Pretty much everything is lining up with what the Bible says but if you want to believe in a fairy tale from the depths of hell then go ahead (although I really wish you wouldn't.)


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

Poltergeist said:


> Sorry but God makes much more sense. Pretty much everything is lining up with what the Bible says but if you want to believe in a fairy tale from the depths of hell then go ahead (although I really wish you wouldn't.)


 

This is the reason why it's hard to take anything in this thread seriously. If you don't believe the Bible-thumpers (and let's face it - that's really all they are) you're either believing in something that came from "hell", or you're going to "hell" yourself. The actual truth of the matter is quite simple: no human being on the face of this Earth is ever going to know the truth of the universe until after they've died (and I'm not so sure you'll find out even at that point). Until that day arrives, all your speculation is pointless bullshit that only matters (or at the very least should only matter) to you and you alone. Neither side can be proven. Argue all you want, but after over one hundred pages of this drivel, this has simply become something that closer resembles a back-and-forth theological debate at the Special Olympics than an actual, intellectual dicussion. And I swear, if I read one more person saying "I'm comfortable with my beliefs and don't care what anyone else believes" - _then goes off arguing for six or seven pages proving that they actually do care what other people believe_ - my faith in humanity is going to go bye-bye completely.


----------



## The_Great_One_316 (Jan 21, 2007)

You rest your faith in humanity on the community of a wrestling forum?


----------



## Berringer (Jul 16, 2011)

The_Great_One_316 said:


> You rest your faith in humanity on the community of a wrestling forum?


 

I constantly re-evaluate my faith in humanity at every opportunity presented. We're living in a digital age. How you act online is every bit as important as how you act in real life. There's no real differential, although some would try to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Bushmaster (Sep 28, 2010)

i didnt read the op cuz i just wanted to give my say. im catholic and have done just about everything needed as a religious person. Baptism, confirmation, etc but every now and then i start thinking maybe there isnt. i recently saw someones reaction to the vid 3 guys and a hammer. Never seen it but heard about it and after what she said i did some research and was shocked to see the whole situation. 2 kids go on a rampage killing 21 ppl with hammers and screw drivers and injuring several others. I then started thinking if there is a God how the hell could he allow something as evil as this. Then i thought we have freewill and with that freewill we will be later judged by our actions. But still that moment made me wonder. also when i watch a bunch of national geographic stuff on my netflix about space and dinosaurs. Maybe God didnt create this world or galaxy or life and we just evolved. We see how space works and we have evidence of evolution among species. I am still a believer in some ways but im open minded. I was raised on religion so i cant just denounce it its just in a world with information and science those things make you question alot.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Mr. High IQ said:


> Fail.
> 
> The actual argument:
> 
> ...


It's supposed to be "fail". I've explained like 45 times I made that comment to be facetious to creationists and people who are too dumb to understand sarcasm keep telling me it's wrong The purpose of that post was to illustrate how retarded the creationists sound by using their own logic.

:facepalm

I'm tired of explaining this shit.


----------



## Mr. High IQ (Nov 24, 2011)

Camille Léone said:


> It's supposed to be "fail". I've explained like 45 times I made that comment to be facetious to creationists and people who are too dumb to understand sarcasm keep telling me it's wrong The purpose of that post was to illustrate how retarded the creationists sound by using their own logic.
> 
> :facepalm
> 
> I'm tired of explaining this shit.


The fail was in your ignorant straw man attempt at the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Hey Peeves.



Poltergeist said:


> Sorry but God makes much more sense. Pretty much everything is lining up with what the Bible says but if you want to believe in a fairy tale from the depths of hell then go ahead (although I really wish you wouldn't.)


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

Mr. High IQ said:


> The fail was in your ignorant straw man attempt at the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


Just because it went over your head doesn't mean it was a fail.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

How was there light days before the light source (Sun) was created? How were there even units of "days" before he created "Night and Day?"

Answer that and stay snazzy.


----------



## MF83 (Jan 21, 2012)

People raised with any sort of religious influence have religiousity wired into them from birth. This is a sad/envious thing from an outside view. If they accept it, hey, they have strong social ties, good values, and the almighty faith factor. If not, they turn all rebellious and have to deal with shame and eventually become an angry atheist or something else to settle their angst. In a perfect world, people would realize that they don't have to choose between the dozen big religions out there and notice that nobody is stopping them from defining their own spiritual beliefs. If I had to give you the closest thing to what I've created for myself, it would be some sort of pantheism. I have the ability to stop when stressed, do a sort of meditation and realize my place in this world, what's important, and what to do next, and after getting all serene, I do a puroresu love pose "Hyyaaa~!" akin to a huddle "BREAK!" and get on with life. However, what I believe has nothing to do with you, so who cares? I could do a handstand in the shower and pray to a piece of cheese and who are you to tell me that's wrong? Logic dictates that every man made religion is just that, and that we will never in our life times have any sort of hard evidence of the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power, so if it helps you to create-a-god or rent-a-god, then do it, but please everyone, quit yelling at each other because the kids are getting upset.


----------



## Killswitch Stunner (May 23, 2011)

If there is a God, his name is either Chuck Norris or it's me and I just realized it.


----------



## BlueMagic (Dec 19, 2006)

MF83 said:


> People raised with any sort of religious influence have religiousity wired into them from birth. This is a sad/envious thing from an outside view. If they accept it, hey, they have strong social ties, good values, and the almighty faith factor. If not, they turn all rebellious and have to deal with shame and eventually become an angry atheist or something else to settle their angst. In a perfect world, people would realize that they don't have to choose between the dozen big religions out there and notice that nobody is stopping them from defining their own spiritual beliefs. If I had to give you the closest thing to what I've created for myself, it would be some sort of pantheism. I have the ability to stop when stressed, do a sort of meditation and realize my place in this world, what's important, and what to do next, and after getting all serene, I do a puroresu love pose "Hyyaaa~!" akin to a huddle "BREAK!" and get on with life. However, what I believe has nothing to do with you, so who cares? I could do a handstand in the shower and pray to a piece of cheese and who are you to tell me that's wrong? Logic dictates that every man made religion is just that, and that we will never in our life times have any sort of hard evidence of the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power, so if it helps you to create-a-god or rent-a-god, then do it, but please everyone, quit yelling at each other because the kids are getting upset.


God tells you you're wrong.. But hey what does he know? lolz


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

It knows nothing since it doesn't exist.


----------



## Camille Léone (Jan 29, 2012)

I think God MAY exist but IF he does exist, he is nothing like we mere mortals think he is like. He didn't make the universe the way we think he did either. People are so vain to believe that God is what THEY want him to be. In essence God didn't create us. We created God.


----------



## TJChurch (Oct 7, 2011)

I didn't read every page... But I did read MF's first sentence, & disagreed with that.

Despite my religious name (real surname; didn't choose it), I a not a heavily-religious person. I am not making a call whether there is a God or not. The only thing I am really bothered by is that people often "thank God" for the good stuff, but never think of him being connected to the bad.


----------



## Wintex (Aug 24, 2009)

Fairy tales can be dangerous, dont they...


----------



## Shawn Morrison (Jan 14, 2011)

God sure exists. i expected the day to come that it would be so easy to believe god doesn't exist, and its all satan's doing, playing with our brains through music, media and whatnot. 

You think these thousands of years people were just idiots? if god was fake, the belief sure wouldn't have lasted so long. isn't it ironic that it was in the religious books that before judgement day, the world would basically become a place where everyone sins? and here we are, year after year, the world is getting filled with brain-fucked people who have been basically turned mindless by the media and there is way more sinners, people getting pregnant as kids, homosexuality is made legal, god is considered a fairy tail, etc etc. 

Plus, tell me how this book which is apparently a fairytale, which was made thousands of years ago when there was no science, tell me how it already knew the stuff about how volcanoes form, how humans are made from one seed, etc.? Don't tell me some random guy knew all this thousands of years ago, there is only one answer....

Wake up people, god does exist.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Epic bump.



Shawn Morrison said:


> God sure exists.


I'll bite. Why?



> i expected the day to come that it would be so easy to believe god doesn't exist, and its all satan's doing, playing with our brains through music, media and whatnot.


Might be difficult to understand, but people who believe that god doesn't exist also don't believe satan exists. SHOCK!



> You think these thousands of years people were just idiots?


Yes. And still are.



> if god was fake, the belief sure wouldn't have lasted so long.


But the idiots you just mentioned...



> isn't it ironic that it was in the religious books that before judgement day, the world would basically become a place where everyone sins?


You realize that there are multiple religions? Contradicting each other? How wild.



> and here we are, year after year, the world is getting filled with brain-fucked people who have been basically turned mindless by the media and there is way more sinners, people getting pregnant as kids, homosexuality is made legal, god is considered a fairy tail, etc etc.


Now you're slipping into the mold of a religious bigot.


----------



## Klee (Oct 28, 2011)

Religion is for the weak and lonely.


----------



## ice_edge (Aug 4, 2011)

Full Nelson King said:


> Religion is for the weak and lonely.


*
So satanism for strong and witty? 8*D*


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Yes, satanism is the opposite of religion. Brilliant.


----------



## Shawn Morrison (Jan 14, 2011)

Hohenheim of Light said:


> Epic bump.
> 
> Might be difficult to understand, but people who believe that god doesn't exist also don't believe satan exists. SHOCK!



No, really? Doesn't change the fact that Satan is leading you in the wrong path. 

Also you ask why god exists? Cause i'm not stupid enough to think everything in this world was just randomly and coincidentally made to work perfectly? Also how do you explain the Bible and Qur'an having stuff in them that science has only just discovered to be true?



Full Nelson King said:


> Religion is for the weak and lonely.


B.S, religion is for people that are not in denial, and also for people that are not weak enough to be controlled by Satan.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Shawn Morrison said:


> No, really? Doesn't change the fact that Satan is leading you in the wrong path.


My parents are Hindus. I'm atheist. Imaginary devils don't care about me.



> Also you ask why god exists? Cause i'm not stupid enough to think everything in this world was just randomly and coincidentally made to work perfectly?


Are you asking me this? Are you asking me if you're stupid or not? Are you confused by your own beliefs?



> Also how do you explain the Bible and Qur'an having stuff in them that science has only just discovered to be true?


You should read the Vedas before arguing anything else. Bible and Koran are majorly plagiarized from the olden religions.


----------



## Shawn Morrison (Jan 14, 2011)

Hohenheim of Light said:


> My parents are Hindus. I'm atheist. Imaginary devils don't care about me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


was i asking you that? Its called sarcasm.

the vedas? Just because its the oldest doesn't mean anything was copied from it and if anything, you are trying to go against religion by saying it is copied from another religion, none of that proves why god doesn't exist. Also, i see how you 'cleverly' ignore the questions i asked, but those are enough for me to prove that god exists.


----------



## Klee (Oct 28, 2011)

Shawn Morrison said:


> B.S, religion is for people that are not in denial, and also for people that are not weak enough to be controlled by Satan.


Nah, I still believe it's for people who are *IN* denial and who are afraid to die.


----------



## Shawn Morrison (Jan 14, 2011)

Full Nelson King said:


> Nah, I still believe it's for people who are *IN* denial and who are afraid to die.


afraid to die? lol, religious people believe that they will get what they deserve after they die, so they out of all people, are least scared to die.


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

Everybody's afraid to die.



Shawn Morrison said:


> was i asking you that? Its called sarcasm.


Oh. You appeared genuinely confused. On another note, because I'm in an educative mood, did you know that sarcasm was a pseudo-word coined for irony meant to hurt someone? Check satire.



> the vedas? Just because its the oldest doesn't mean anything was copied from it and if anything, you are trying to go against religion by saying it is copied from another religion, none of that proves why god doesn't exist.


It's not the oldest. It's one of the oldest. And that wasn't my point. You were arguing the worth of religious texts, and while the vedas are not exactly religious texts, the essence of the Semitic religions are drawn from them. You're arguing with half-knowledge. I was only trying to get you to learn more.



> Also, i see how you 'cleverly' ignore the questions i asked, but those are enough for me to prove that god exists.


But you said the questions were sarcastic. Make up your mind. I'll retort anyway so you can't hide behind "I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS."



> Cause i'm not stupid enough to think everything in this world was just randomly and coincidentally made to work perfectly?


Yet you're stupid enough to believe goddunit? Lol.



> Also how do you explain the Bible and Qur'an having stuff in them that science has only just discovered to be true?


Oh like how Earth was created in 6 days? Genius!


----------



## Klee (Oct 28, 2011)

Shawn Morrison said:


> afraid to die? lol, religious people believe that they will get what they deserve after they die, so they out of all people, are least scared to die.


Haha, fair point, can't argue with that. BUT, don't they believe that god will forgive them if they repent or something? Confession? Something like that. 

"you can rape and kill all your life but if you confess your sins and repent to the lord you will be forgiven and go to heaven" - is this statement true?

For the record, I respect all of your opinions and beliefs.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I swear to god (lol) that if I read one more person talking about the fucking MEDIA, I'll go insane.

Oh yeah old thread.


----------

