Does God Exist?

[libertyminded]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Impenitent
but the bitch is that you are positing your arbitrary morals of secularism... thou shalt because god... thou shalt because state... thou shalt is still thou shalt... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Where in my post did I invoke a "thou shalt not"? I made no assertion that there was something everyone couldn't do accept infringe on others rights to do as they wish so long as they do not commit crimes agains any person or property. I merely stated that I want Christians to remove their "thou shalt nots" from a secular society.
If it's your assertion that I'm imposing secularism in the same fashion in which Christians impose religion you are mistaken. My secular morals state I should be able to do what ever I want so long as I don't hurt anyone or take or destroy anyone's property. Christian morality states that not only are crimes against persons and property illegal but that things that do not involve an infringement on anyone's person or property are also illegal because "their God said so". Like I said, millions of people have been imprisoned for doing drugs, not stealing not fighting but just doing drugs. Same with prostitution, two consenting adults having sex one recieving something in exchange for the act, no property or personal right infringed upon, nevertheless both could end up imprisoned and fined by the state which is SUPPOSED to be secular.

[joshinvade]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Spyder Jerusalem,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (josh invade)

You are basing your logic on an out of this realm being. The logic you are useing doesn't apply. You only think this way beucause thats the only way it happens here in our world. With an all-powerful god he needs not a creator because he is all there is. NO laws or logic(as we know it) are needed.

I see alot of people saying that the idea of god and religion arose from peoples insecurity. WEll how in the hell do you know that? Were you there?
Of course you would think its common to be afraid of death and rightfully so. So then they MUST have created their religion to give them hope. Yours and many other speculations on how religion popped up really annoys that crap out of me. Because is base on speculation on how the people felt. One person says it and hey it makes sense, so look what we got, something that religious people can't refute! All we need to say is that religion was invented to comfort us! They can't deny it because they weren't there, but you can't confirm it because YOU weren't there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Crap!
Crap, crap, crap, crap, crap!
"God" doesn't have to fit "logic", huh?
How verrrrry convenient, I think!
Convenient for the many and varied charlatans and con artists who have used people's fear of "death" and "god" to extract lifelong service and unending moneys for their "salvation".
It just about makes me wanna puke!
The Lie of "god", or The Big Lie as I call it, has been going on since man became aware of his own mortality. And immediately afterwards, there was some "priest" there to take advantage of that fear for his, and "the church"'s own benefit.
Baal, Amun-Ra, Zeus, Rama, Odin.
All of these "gods" were worshipped at one time or another, and each was shown to be "myth".
Now, in our modern days, the "myth" of "god" is yet again on the verge of being dispelled.
To the great fear and trepidation of priests and followers alike.

I say, why do we need "god" anymore?
It IS a vestige of our own primitivity.
A remnant of the days when diseases were "evil spirits" or "demons" and the mentally ill were "possessed".
We have grown beyond this superstitious drivel, both technologically and societally.
The longer we hold on to it, the longer its "sickness" will continue to sicken our society.

Begone, religicos!
Back to the caves with you, if that is what you crave.
We humans of now wish to cross the gulf of stars, and become nearly gods ourselves.
That is the only "godliness" that truly exists anyway.
Our superiority over every other life in the cosmos, bar none.
Till then, we strive, and without an "invisible friend" to hold our hands.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The same attitude that got us where we are now. The empowerment of humans. Where has that lead us? Only pain and death. Every humanistic cizilization has failed. And all will.

Your post is almost funny. But your opinion is the underlying tone of most peoples worldveiw now a days.

To an allpowerful being outside our realm that being gets to define logic. So what ever it says goes. Now in the case of the judeo-christian god, he defines logic in both realms because he created this one and he is the other(i mean as far as we know he is all there is). Although they may not always be the same.

[libertyminded]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
josh invade
3. You are basing your logic on an out of this realm being. The logic you are useing doesn't apply. You only think this way beucause thats the only way it happens here in our world. With an all-powerful god he needs not a creator because he is all there is. NO laws or logic(as we know it) are needed.

4. In the bible it states that we will be judged by what we know. If we have been giving the choice to follow christ or to not them we will be judged acordingly. That is why many believe that aborted babies and miscarages will go to heaven even if they haven't choosen to follow christ. THis is the mercy of god in action.

I see alot of people saying that the idea of god and religion arose from peoples insecurity. WEll how in the hell do you know that? Were you there?
Of course you would think its common to be afraid of death and rightfully so. So then they MUST have created their religion to give them hope. Yours and many other speculations on how religion popped up really annoys that crap out of me. Because is base on speculation on how the people felt. One person says it and hey it makes sense, so look what we got, something that religious people can't refute! All we need to say is that religion was invented to comfort us! They can't deny it because they weren't there, but you can't confirm it because YOU weren't there<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Your own assertions are proving my point. You're exactly right in that I was not there to see the Jews despair in their toil, just as you were not there to see the Vikings or the Hindu come up with their Gods.

What we do know is that; if you leave any primative culture to it's own devices and it will inevitably hoist something up and start praying to it.

How can you make the assertion that the God you believe in is any more valid than any one elses god/s?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
To an allpowerful being outside our realm that being gets to define logic. So what ever it says goes. Now in the case of the judeo-christian god, he defines logic in both realms because he created this one and he is the other(i mean as far as we know he is all there is). Although they may not always be the same. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Still more pseudo-rational BS!
Assumptions all.
There is NO NEED for a "god", don't you see?
Your desire for there to be one blinds you to simple rational thought.
The assumption of the existence of a deity flies in the face of simplicity.
Ever hear of Occam?
There is no need to prove the "non-existence" of something, you know.
I can say there are 12' tall purple bunny rabbits on the moon planning to invade as soon as they grow enough carrot ships, and being on the darkside its taking a LONG time.
However, it is not up to you to prove there are not such things, it is up to me to prove there are.
Until deists can prove, without doubt, that a deity exists, the only rational answer is that there is not.
Trying to say things like "god isn't rational" or some such drivel serves merely to blow smoke up the ass of the problem.
Namely, prove "god" exists.

[joshinvade]

I was detailing the nature of god not trying to prove his existance...Thats for another day.

There is no need for a god? hmmm.

[joshinvade]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
josh invade
3. You are basing your logic on an out of this realm being. The logic you are useing doesn't apply. You only think this way beucause thats the only way it happens here in our world. With an all-powerful god he needs not a creator because he is all there is. NO laws or logic(as we know it) are needed.

4. In the bible it states that we will be judged by what we know. If we have been giving the choice to follow christ or to not them we will be judged acordingly. That is why many believe that aborted babies and miscarages will go to heaven even if they haven't choosen to follow christ. THis is the mercy of god in action.

I see alot of people saying that the idea of god and religion arose from peoples insecurity. WEll how in the hell do you know that? Were you there?
Of course you would think its common to be afraid of death and rightfully so. So then they MUST have created their religion to give them hope. Yours and many other speculations on how religion popped up really annoys that crap out of me. Because is base on speculation on how the people felt. One person says it and hey it makes sense, so look what we got, something that religious people can't refute! All we need to say is that religion was invented to comfort us! They can't deny it because they weren't there, but you can't confirm it because YOU weren't there<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


What we do know is that; if you leave any primative culture to it's own devices and it will inevitably hoist something up and start praying to it.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I wonder why?

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Impenitent
but the bitch is that you are positing your arbitrary morals of secularism... thou shalt because god... thou shalt because state... thou shalt is still thou shalt... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

If it's your assertion that I'm imposing secularism in the same fashion in which Christians impose religion you are mistaken. My secular morals state I should be able to do what ever I want so long as I don't hurt anyone or take or destroy anyone's property. Christian morality states that not only are crimes against persons and property illegal but that things that do not involve an infringement on anyone's person or property are also illegal because "their God said so". Like I said, millions of people have been imprisoned for doing drugs, not stealing not fighting but just doing drugs. Same with prostitution, two consenting adults having sex one recieving something in exchange for the act, no property or personal right infringed upon, nevertheless both could end up imprisoned and fined by the state which is SUPPOSED to be secular.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
there is no mistake... christians command you to act a certain way...
secularists command you to act a certain way...
NO DIFFERENCE... both have some asshole telling you how to live your life

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Fear of the unknown, for one.
A need to justify the authority of leaders for another.
And, of course, the everpopular rationale for morality.
Need I go on?
None of these has anything to do with "spirituality" and everything to do with mans cravings to:
A: Lord over his fellow man.
B: Justify his own existence.
C: Rationalize his societal morality.
Once, slavery was "righteous", the bible justifies it, and all "right-thinking" people defended it as the "natural order".
Thinking changes, morality changes, and now slavery is inhumane.
Yet the "bible" the holy book of Jehovah and Yeshua ben Yusef, defends slavery many times.
How can modern christers justify this obvious contradiction and rationalize their faith against it?

Just more contradiction and hypocrisy from the masters of it, the theists.
Get real, people.

[joshinvade]

ok, where does it defend salvery?

[libertyminded]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
impenitent
there is no mistake... christians command you to act a certain way...
secularists command you to act a certain way...
NO DIFFERENCE... both have some asshole telling you how to live your life <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No secularists aren't telling you how to live. Secularists don't tell you you HAVE to do drugs or solicit a prostitute or make you do anything else, thats a religious schtick. Secularists merely say that you shouldn't be able to stop me from doing it if I want to.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
It doesn't sound like it, no. That is, until you remember that the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe that we live in, and not to those without. If you follow our combined arguments to their logical conclusion, you will get a couple of points:

Fact: The universe came from somewhere.

Fact: At a certain point in time (point zero, presumably) the universe began. Before this point, there was no physical universe.

Fact: Thermodynamics states that the universe cannot be created from within.

Inference: The universe, therefore, must have been created from without.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

'Laws' of thermodynamics! What is a scientific law? It's a statement of what is, so far as we know, an invariant relationship. Thus, like scientific theory, of which laws constitute a part, it is what we humans currently know to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately, some take the term 'scientific law' to mean that they're reading the constitution of the universe. Hey, maybe they are universal and invariant; maybe not.

And yes, they apply to what we know about the universe we live in. As to even the existent of 'universes without,' we know nothing, although cosmologists have speculated, just as have philosophers and theologians. Among those, I'd choose the cosmologists to do the best job; but none know much about the topic.

Fact: as best we know, our universe began with a Big Bang. We know nothing about whether there was a universe before (cosmologists have speculated), nor even if there was a before before.

Inference: we don't know.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I love it when people who say they believe in the bible have never actually read the damned thing.
Okay, here ya go.
Online searchable Bible.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
(Whole Chapter: Exodus 21 In context: Exodus 21:19-21)


Exodus 21:21
but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
(Whole Chapter: Exodus 21 In context: Exodus 21:20-22)


Exodus 21:32
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [ 21:32 That is, about 12 ounces (about 0.3 kilogram) ] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
(Whole Chapter: Exodus 21 In context: Exodus 21:31-33)


Exodus 23:12
"Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.
(Whole Chapter: Exodus 23 In context: Exodus 23:11-13)


Leviticus 19:20
" 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 19 In context: Leviticus 19:19-21)


Leviticus 22:11
But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 22 In context: Leviticus 22:10-12)


Leviticus 25:39
" 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 25 In context: Leviticus 25:38-40)


Leviticus 25:42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 25 In context: Leviticus 25:41-43)


Leviticus 25:44
" 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 25 In context: Leviticus 25:43-45)


Leviticus 25:46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 25 In context: Leviticus 25:45-47)



The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.
(Whole Chapter: Deuteronomy 28 In context: Deuteronomy 28:67-69)

He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
(Whole Chapter: 1 Samuel 8 In context: 1 Samuel 8:16-18)


2 Samuel 6:20
When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
(Whole Chapter: 2 Samuel 6 In context: 2 Samuel 6:19-21)


that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites could not exterminate [ 9:21 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD , often by totally destroying them. ] -these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day.
(Whole Chapter: 1 Kings 9 In context: 1 Kings 9:20-22)

There is more reference to the hebrew practice of taking slaves, but I digress.
Slavery, at the time, was socially acceptable, and politically valuable.
The Israelites were slaves, then once freed, proceeded to take as slaves all the peoples around them.
As their "god" decreed was "just".
Its all over the "bible"

How about this?


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
2 Kings 2:22-24
Elisha Is Jeered
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That's what happens if you make fun of one of "god's prophets"!
Isn't that just great?

Look at this one....

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Genesis 19:4-8
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Now theres a "godly" and "holy" dude, right?
Please, screw my virgin daughters but don't mess with these "angels of the lord", okay?

Puh-leez!
And this is the "god" you wanna defend?

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
I don't believe in god. Athiest.

If grant intellectual ambilivalence to every notion, you negate the power of the mind. Plus the whole "can you prove he DOESN"T exist" arguement is crap--it shifts the burden of proof. Things dont' exist until proven otherwise.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Then radio waves did not exist before they were proven to? Or radioactivity didn't exist until it was shown to? Ooh, that means that there really was a young universe until humans proved that radioactivity existed, thus allowing the universe to be truly ancient. Seems like an overly-idealist philosophy to me.

Oh, you meant that we shouldn't accept that things exist until we can prove that they do? Do we get to suspect, or to act on the possibility that they exist? If so, this is a fine principle for science. But that has nothing to do with belief systems. If science can say nothing about something, currently or perhaps ever, we either figure we don't know or we adopt a belief system that says that we do based on faith.

So, I remain an agnostic. I just don't have the faith that you atheists do.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)
Everyone has a religion, be it Christianity, Money, or Atheism. You have to have faith; it is what human beings rely on. Some people, many people, have their faith in reason... but I think others know better.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Agreed. Mine is agnosticism.

Now, we may all have preferences. I'd prefer there were a God, afterlife, and so on. But our preferences don't make the universe. Of course, maybe our preferences were put there by Something ... ;-)

Fairh? Actually, that should be distinguished from belief, in that it also involves trust. I joke about not having enough faith to be other than agnostic, but it's actually that I don't have enough belief. Faith is a separable aspect of our relationship to the universe, and we may have more or less of it, quite apart from our beliefs. I at least have faith that the universe is neutral to worst to benign at best -- that it is not malign. Well, I could be wrong; but if so, I figure I'm better off not knowing.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (18tir,)
I do not think God exists. There is absolutely no evidence for his existence. All we have are a few claims by primitive people thousands of years ago. We have not seen any evidence of any miracles or other supernatural happenings. There is about as much evidence for the existance of a God as there is for witches, goblins, dragons, giants and other mythological creatures. Christianity has as much credibility as the religion of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

OK, we've beat this horse dead. And some might take issue with your assertion that Christianity has fully as much credibility as those other religions. ;-)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (18tir,)
As to the belief in afterlife, this is harmful and untrue. First, nobody has ever seen this afterlife that is mentioned by so many religions. We do not have any reason to believe that it exists. Second, belief in the afterlife and a future paradise makes this life unimportant and meaningless. If this life doesn't matter and most of us will live an eternity in another world, why should we care about our lives? Why should we care that millions of people starve to death or killed? According to religious propagandists, these people end up in heaven. Belief in an afterlife and God makes people uninterested in solving their personal problems. They drift away into a fantasy thinking about the paradise that they will supposedly one day reach. Some might commit suicide to reach this imaginary place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Evidence for harmfulness? Yes, some religions have used faith in an afterlife to try to dominate this one. On the other hand, many people have taken comfort in the concept of an afterlife, and this has allowed some to resist tyranny, including that of tyrannical religions.

I count myself a humanist and focus on what is good for humans in this life. I assume that if there is an afterlife, it neither negates the importance of this one nor calls upon me to act in ways inimical to humanism.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (18tir,)
Religion has not done any good for humanity. It has caused many wars and genocides. It has made people more intolerant and less humane. It is a disease.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That can be said for many belief systems. Pots and kettles, and all that.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad)
Everyone has a religion, be it Christianity, Money, or Atheism.  You have to have faith; it is what human beings rely on.  Some people, many people, have their faith in reason... but I think others know better.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Atheism is NOT a religion, dammit!
Atheism is NOT a religion!
The philosophy known as atheism is not capitalized, has no "faith" behind it, has no churches or organized expressions of belief, nor "priests" to spread its philosophies.
Human beings do not "rely" on faith either.
They are imprisoned by it.
Only the foolish believe in something for which their is no evidence.
In fact, someone who says that they hear the voice of "god" in their head, or sees visions, is INSANE, not "holy".

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Kiss Hanks Butt

This morning there was a knock at my door.
When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed
couple.

The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's butt with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why
would I want to kiss His butt?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's butt, He'll give you a million dollars; and
if you don't, He'll kick the cr@p... out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town.
Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants
is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his
butt."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the butt?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's butt with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's butt often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave
town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money, and He kicks the cr@p... out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt, left town, and got
the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's butt for years. She left town last
year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if
you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a
twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance?
And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's butt He'll kick the cr@p... of
you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight
from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His butt?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His butt.
Other times we kiss Karl's butt, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing
Hank's butt. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few
times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss His butt, and that Hank would reward
you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the desk of Karl
1. Kiss Hank's butt and He'll give you a million dollars when you
leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the cr@p... out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's butt or He'll kick the cr@p... out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the cr@p... out of people just because they're
different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good
enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.'
Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat
right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the
bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be
true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item
2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain
wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2.
As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for
sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made
of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from
out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon
was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not
knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we
know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank
dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no
different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come
around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything
else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments
of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La
la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat
that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I
wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the cr@p... out of you
I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt
for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
Now on to your belief in God. You claim that your belief in God is just as valid as your belief that the train will arrive or that a ball will fall, once thrown. What I would like you to do is point us to the evidence that you used to come to this conclusion and come up with a way that it can be independantly verified.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The existance and divinity of Jesus WAS independantly verified, by those who hated him at the time. Firstly, a number of Roman (and therefore pagan) historians verified his existance, and the fact that he could perform miracles, less than a hundred years after he died. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I'm not sure that there is much evidence that Jesus existed apart from the Bible. Josephus, a Jewist historian, talked about Jesus, but that's about it. Can you cite documents showing that all these pagan Romans verified that Jesus existed.

And all of this shows neither that Jesus did or did not exist, did or did not perform miracles, was or was not divine.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
Secondly, there is an inference of verification, when people who hate you do not tell you you are wrong. Can you imagine if a politician said something completely outrageous, and the opposition let him go? The only situation that could have caused this is if the politician's outrageous claims were obviously and evidently true. The same thing happened to Jesus, except that those who hated Jesus hated him a lot more than the lefties hate the righties and visa versa. How much verification do you want?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is unfortunately very untrue. Look at what the Democrats let Dubya get away with until quite recently. They let Dubya lie us into invading another country based on information the world know to be false and violating principles to which they supposedly adhered. And Dubya's outrageous claims were obviously and evidently untrue, which has been subsequently demonstrted, but which most of the world recognized when he made them. Still, the official 'opposition' offered little objection, while the millions of us who protested were largely ignored.

Really, n00bie, you should be careful to not offer as principles of reasoning arguments that are so clearly falsified by recent history.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
In fact, the only reason I can think of that would cause you to doubt the factuality of the Bible, is that you have not experienced what it recounts first-hand. In which case I ask you, why do you believe... anything?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, there are the matters that it contradicts itself, is often rather looney, and emerged from a pre-scientific civilization.

But then there's the question of what is to be believed about the Bible. Should the Bible, including Genesis, be believed literally, as describing actual events and the nature of the universe? Unless one is a hopeless young-earth-creationist, this is easily dispensed with: yes, science has disproven such possibilities.

Should the Bible be seen as an allegorical document that does tell the truth about the existence of a deity that takes an interest in humanity? Well, then, science can tell us nothing about that; and I am an agnostic personally about it.

Should the Bible be seen as a moral guide? If so, it is a rather contradictory one, one with prescriptions and proscriptions that no logical human would or could abide, one that endorses slavery but prohibits interest banking.

Should it be seen as an allogorical moral guide, one reflecting the imperfect human understandings of various times and cultures, but striving toward greater moral truth? Well, along with a good many other documents (e.g., the Quran, the Torah, sacred scriptures of many peoples, the works of Shakespeare, and so on; not to mention the pracical knowledge of science), it could reasonably be used as one of the places to look for moral lessons.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (i_am_a_n00bie,)
This may be shifting the burden of proof from a legalistic one to a more scientific one, but I challenge you to try to disprove the Bible. Try to avoid insulting me, and also, please try to come up with an argument other than "The Bible recounts events entirely outside my range of experience, so it must be completely false." If you can, this should be quite interesting.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That's not scientific approach at all. It is not scientific to take a weighty claim and ask that it be accepted if it cannot be disproved. The burden of proof is on those who would validate the weighty claim.

As to science, it says nothing at all about God or gods, afterlife, the supernatural, or any metaphysical or moral claims of the Bible. It clearly disproves any Biblical literalism. And, by the way, science recounts events (and principles) entirely outside my range of experience, your experience, that of all of us -- so, no, unfamiliarity is no guide at all.

[buliwuf]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Spyder Jerusalem,)

Atheism is NOT a religion, dammit!
Atheism is NOT a religion!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Sure it is - all religions define reality in one shape or way. As an atheist, you must do this since God doesn't. You may not call this religion, but it is. You assert "facts" with no proof.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The philosophy known as atheism is not capitalized, has no "faith" behind it, has no churches or organized expressions of belief, nor "priests" to spread its philosophies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You would think that if religion was inherently false (especially Christianity), atheists would just ignore it and move on. Instead, we have to suffer through the ridiculous proselytizing you've done in favor of godlessness.

And btw, if there is really no God of the Bible, then why are you whining about slavery? What makes slavery so morally repugnant, as if you could even define what a moral is? You don't like it - so what.

Argue logically, not existentially.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Human beings do not "rely" on faith either.
They are imprisoned by it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No more imprisoned than you are by materialism - nothing can exist outside of that which can be measured in a test tube, proverbially speaking? And you call Christianity limited...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Only the foolish believe in something for which their is no evidence.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hmmm...like your own existence? In a world that arose from time plus chance plus nothing, you can't even account for your own thought processes or clearly define anything approaching objectivity without borrowing from the Biblical POV.

You need an argument here...

[Spyder Jerusalem]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont"&