Is God real post your thoughts!

[dpattle]

I have a few questions for Christians...

 

 

 

- I have asthma. Why won't God heal me and make it easier for me to survive? He's omnipotent and kind, if he didn't help someone in need, wouldn't that make him either powerless or cruel?

 

 

 

- Why hasn't God answered any of my prayers?

 

 

 

- Why has God shown himself to prophets, but no one else?

 

 

 

Honestly, I can't really say I'm athiest, but I don't want to believe that the fairy in the sky controls my actions if this fairy has never affected my life in any way.

 

 

 

I see...a fairy. Tell me, how exactly do you know he hasn't affected your life? Because you didn't see a giant hand come down and do something for you? I'm just wondering. Because the way i see it, you may have asthma, buy you sure as hell aren't dead yet are you? And that asthma may someday help you, even if you don't know it. I knew someone that has severe allergies, and always used to be mad because of certain places she couldn't go. Until one day the was a certain trip she couldn't go on, and as normal she wasn't too too happy about it...until later that day when she found out a car had hit the bus while it was traveling and 3 kids, that she knew had died, and some others were wounded. Had she been on that bus, that could have been her that died that day. She still tells me the story, that person is my aunt.

 

 

 

Now, i don't blame you. Many people have questions, ideas, and thoughts such as these, and it's all completely reasonable. Now the teachings are that God eternally has a plan for all of us, and the only people that can affect the plan...is well,...us. God may give you something so that you [hopefully] do something else, so that something will happen as a result of that. We can't exactly know, buy He does and has a way of resolving everything, even when we think there's no hope left.

 

 

 

Who says God hasn't answered any of your prayers? Different questions come to mind when people ask this, such as: How were you praying? Did you really even believe in what you were praying for? Was what you were praying for the kind of thing that's actually really important, or just for another materialistic item that you most likely didn't need?

 

 

 

Lastly, why has God shown himself to only prophets but nobody else? Well see those people believed in God to the point that he could reveal himself. The bible says his glory is so awesome, that those not fit to be near it would be instantly killed, and i don't think he want to just kill people for no reason. Although according to the bible this is what would happen during the second coming, it will be the Glory of the Lord that will kill the rest of the living that aren't "in Christ." I see no reason for God not to show himself to somebody...if that person were an actual good person, that REALLY believed in God, was able to view his glory, and if showing himself did not in anyway hurt the person.

 

 

 

Now i'm not a bible scholar so i can only answer questions to a point, so hopefully this is good...

[dpattle]

Then we wouldn't be "us" we would be Him?.. I don't see a point to that.

 

 

 

Just as much point as there is to living on a planet that god is going to destroy when he decides to judge his own creation.

 

 

 

??? This is just a "precursor" so to speak to true eternal life. That does make sense, and there is a point to it. Like i said before, can't take good and bad, as then there would be no point. you'd just be moving a "disease" to a new city and releasing it there.

[venomai]

Flinging the burden of proof sure is convenient.

 

I am not flinging the burden of proof, in fact I never brought it up. I am showing why the argument you pasted is absolutely ridiculous; mainly in its false assumptions (i.e. Mercury-size planet = no atmosphere, too hot for humans = no possible life, etc).

 

 

 

If you really want to get technical... Neither of us made a positive assertion, so the burden of proof does not apply.

 

 

 

The burden of proof does not apply to a statement like "X may or may not be true." The burden of proof applies to statements such as "X is true" or "X is false."

 

 

 

And going back into context, I'd like you to give me a geographical model/description of this "perfect planet" that god could have made.

 

I was responding directly to the pasted material, and not necessarily any argument that it was being used for.

 

 

 

There is no "perfect planet" just as there is no "perfect colour." Some planets may be better suited for life than others, but this does not necessarily make them "better planets."

 

 

 

show me that there are planets out there that have the right gases which can sustain life.

 

Research is limited -- we only recently found an extrasolar planet with an atmosphere. Interesting, though, that the particular planet (HD 209458 B) contained oxygen, carbon and evaporating hydrogen. It's atmosphere also seems to contain water vapour.

 

 

 

Seems like the "right gases," to me. Of course, other bodies, such as Europa, can potentially sustain life even without an apparently "perfect" atmosphere (i.e. Earth-like).

 

 

 

Just because you can't provide unduly evidence that doesn't automatically mean it's untrue. Can we come to an agreement here?

 

I doubt god's existence (as claimed by religion) not because "no evidence has yet to surface" but because "no evidence will ever surface," among other reasons.

 

 

 

Scientists and astronomers are searching for answers, and are finding them at an exponential rate. Many theists, on the other hand, claim to already have found the answer, and feel no need to search further (let alone attempt to support their findings).

[dpattle]

I doubt god's existence (as claimed by religion) not because "no evidence has yet to surface" but because "no evidence will ever surface," among other reasons.

 

 

 

I guess? unless of course he does come back and then what exactly would you do? lolz, jw.

[i_love_burritos]

Argh ! Walls of quote-text, can't you intellectuals, Venomai and Zierro, use hide tags !? :lol:

 

 

 

I have a few questions for Christians...

 

 

 

- I have asthma. Why won't God heal me and make it easier for me to survive? He's omnipotent and kind, if he didn't help someone in need, wouldn't that make him either powerless or cruel?

 

 

 

- Why hasn't God answered any of my prayers?

 

 

 

- Why has God shown himself to prophets, but no one else?

 

 

 

Honestly, I can't really say I'm athiest, but I don't want to believe that the fairy in the sky controls my actions if this fairy has never affected my life in any way.

 

 

 

God is dead, God has long gone from this place we call "Earth". No god, omnipotent,omnipresent and benevlot, would allow humans, to becaome this despotic hell-hole of suffering it has become today.

[tryto]

It's not a red herring. You are saying that god is doing things the wrong way and I asked what you would think the right way is. I'd just like to state that I'm saying everything is as perfect as it can be. For example, you might think a world with death is bad, but if you look at the big picture, a world with overpopulation is even more bad. Death is the lesser of the two evils, therefore it's the most perfect things can be. (IE: The right way.)

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever, I'll reply to your red herring. Hmm, let's see. Assuming that there is a god...humans could be faster, stronger, smarter.

 

 

 

If we were faster, stronger, and smarter than we presently are, then you could still argue that we should be faster, stronger, and smarter because there is still more room to improve unless you mean we should be infinitely fast, strong, and smart which doesn't make much sense to me. That would mean that those terms didn't even exist to us.

 

 

 

You asked for how we could be better and I told you. With this logic, there is no point in trying to improve the human race, because we'll never reach infinity goodness, lol.

 

 

 

If we were infinitely fast, we wouldn't be able to experience the joys of stopping to smell the roses. We also wouldn't be able to have races. If we were infinitely strong, we wouldn't need to workout and become inspired by the progress we made. We also wouldn't be able to have competition - since we'd all be the same, and competition is a beautiful thing if you ask me. It's the little things that make life what it is. Life is not a mission if that's what you're thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

There could be plants growable that are both more nutritious, healthy, and easier to grow.

 

 

 

The same applies to this. You can always tell me things can be better and you will never stop, until they are infinite. Can infinity even exist?

 

 

 

Why attempt to grow corn to feed more people at all? We should just all eat primitive corn, as we'll never reach infinity corn nutritiousness.

 

 

 

Sickness and diseases, along with natural disasters could be gone, and in fact, humans could be immortal.

 

 

 

What is good about immortality? To be honest with you, I don't want to live forever. Of course I see the bright side in immortality as well as mortality, but my point is that you're just using your subjective opinions. Some people see mortality as an already perfect thing.

 

 

 

I don't want to live forever, either. Surely an omnipotent god could let people choose when to die, rather than seemingly randomly(albeit somewhat genetics and environment based), killing some as infants, some at 80, some in the middle of important works. The economic and cultural act gained from extending the average lifespan from around 40 to nearly 80 has been enormous.

 

 

 

Since there's a god, this could be alleviated with making humans not require food, or by making energy and space limitless.

 

 

 

A world without food? I disagree. Food is one of the many reasons I think god could exist. Something so appealing to our taste buds seems too good to be derived from luck.

 

 

 

Surely you cannot claim that it's a coincidence that the foods we like best, that taste best, are the ones that have the best use, but are still fairly rare in regards to a hunter gatherer? Sugar and fat are our most loved foods, and they are extremely useful in a hunter gatherer lifestyle. As well, many children don't like vegetables on first taste. Not a coincidence. I said not necessary, not absent ;). Please do not strawman my points; I too enjoy food, but if people were not starving all the time, it would be extremely useful both empathetically and economically.

 

 

 

Earth could have twice or even a billion times the current carrying capacity. Perhaps a bisolar system of two revolving stars would be better, creating twice as much light energy to be used.

 

 

 

Copy and paste: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

 

 

 

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

 

 

 

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

 

 

 

Venomai already responded to this, but I would have said much the same thing. I don't know if he mentioned that the earth varies in it's orbit over a million kilometres.

 

 

 

Humans could have been given Maxwell's, Einstein's, Tesla's, equations, or god could reach down from the skies and hand us a quantum theory of gravity, along with plans for a FTL starship, probably based off an Alcubierre drive.

 

 

 

So everything should be handed to us? In the perfect world, we wouldn't be able to feel the joys of our own personal triumphs and successes? How does that constitute as perfect world at all?

 

 

 

You're the one who thinks that god is responsible for creating a perfect earth for us to live on, etc, etc, etc. I am simply stating that humanity's progress would have been much greater had these been done. As well, if they were, say, placed in the bible, there would be a faith basis for believeing in the bible, and it would stand as a proof of it's truths.

 

 

 

If this god wanted humans to know of him or his teachings, he could implant the bible or whatever in everybody at birth, or perform miracles.

 

 

 

And perhaps the separation between those who believe and those who don't believe is good? I know you're going to be asking for proof, but before you do, where is your proof that having non-believers in the world is a worse thing than a world full of all believers? My guess would be that it's a test, that it would be a contradiction to freewill, that the debate of his existence helps humanity achieve a better understanding of the world, or that god enjoys a world of skepticism. In your definition of a perfect world, this debate wouldn't exist. And honestly, I enjoy these types of debates and I think you do too or else we wouldn't be doing them.

 

 

 

If you believe in Jesus or the Abrahamic god, you lose your right to use the free-will defence, because he violates it all the time, according to your holy text.

 

as well, you have contradicted yourself. If things could always be infinitely better, than improving these things would not hurt this debate, because we can never have infinity goodness. A test? In my line of thinking, taking ants, killing many of them, and seeing what the rest do is sadistic. *Anticipates creator defence*--> It is illegal and immoral for parents to torture their children, and thus we can extend the same to god. If you believe in an afterlife of rewards and punishments, you forfeit that argument, because god is torturing and injuring those who do not believe in him for eternity after death. That would mean, in the interests of all humans, it would be good for god to give knowledge of his existence, because then less people would burn in hellfire. There is no logical connection between lack of evidence and free will- indeed, some would argue that to have free will in a certain decision, one must have knowledge. If I asked you to choose one of two boxes, and you had to pick one, and you had no knowledge of what is in the boxes, then you have no free will of any consequence, because your decision is based on chance. My proof that having non-believers in the world comes straight from Isiah, straight from Jesus' mouth, straight from Revelations.

 

 

 

He could tell us the meaning of life(if there is one), or alleviate poverty, war, or human suffering. He could eliminate discrimination and crime. Since this is an omnipotent god, he could always eliminate any foreseeable problems that could crop up with any of these.

 

 

 

Ah, the concept of suffering always seems to pop up with these arguments. Think of a battery. There is a positive and a negative side and each has it's own role to make the battery have a use. Well, that's how I see life. It has it's ups and downs, and without either one there wouldn't be much of a point to it at all.

 

 

 

So to make a point to life, god takes innocent children and humans, and floods them, infects them with diseases, and is responsible for both evil and good in the world.

 

 

 

How do you describe hot as? The opposite of cold. How do you describe up as? The opposite of down. How do you describe good as? The opposite of bad. Without the other, the other one wouldn't even exist. Bad is necessary for good to exist. That is why we have suffering and bad things like that.

 

 

 

A friend of mine made an interesting statement once. This argument is ridiculous, because why could god not simply show us varying levels of good? This would teach us goodness.

 

 

 

Let's apply this to the current difficulty. I make no positive claims. You definitly have made one, and are unable to back it up. You said that god influenced evolution. I provided evidence why a logical, sane god would not do such a thing, and humbly asked you to provide evidence for why you think so. You then start raging against a logical concept. You silly aunicornists and aleprechaunsatthebottomofthesea should stop poorly applying a logical concept! You make a positive claim about the lack of something! You are trying to make me prove a negative, and that is why you do not understand the fallacy. If I make a positive claim, I prove it. I back up evolution, cosmology, the big bang, and physical theories with proof. You accept my proof or others of evolution, then attempt to tack on another positive claim on it.

 

 

 

Saying that the universe is completely random is a positive claim. Let's look at cause and effect shall we? The effect is evolution, life, the current world, and where we are today. You are telling me that there is no cause. That doesn't make logical sense. The existence of the universe doesn't conform to the concept of cause and effect. Bring up the big bang if you want, but that brings up a new question. What caused the big bang? You see, you made a ridiculously illogical claim as well that requires an unduly amount of evidence. Yet I'm the one making hypocritical arguments?

 

 

 

You don't understand evolution. Natural selection is not random chance, and saying so is a strawman of my position. Haha. Let's apply your argument to your god. What caused him? You will say he caused himself or something. This is special pleading, and begs the question of why the universe cannot create itself. AS you can see, unless there is a steady state universe(which seems rather unlikely in the face of the evidence), one thing must have caused itself. There cannot be infinite regression. Therefore, we can take occams razor and choose the simplest answer that answers all the questions, thus slicing god out of the picture. If say, a miracle happened, then that may not be answerable, and we might need to reintroduce the god hypothesis. However, you and I know this is not forthcoming.

 

 

 

So, how about you prove that there can be an effect without a cause, inside the boundaries of logic of course. I'm glad I'm not faced with that sort of challenge, since god claims to be outside of our logical grasp. :P

 

 

 

Many atoms will radiate and decay instantaneously without cause. Most quantum effects are causeless- subatomic particles can pop in and out of existence spontanously.

 

 

 

I did not reply as it was a red herring, and not salient to the discussion. In either case, you are displaying hypocritical tendencies, criticizing me for what you have done. Now I have replied to it. I will not respond until you tell me why a god would choose evolution instead of ex nihilo creation, ex nihilo creation being smarter, faster, and better. How could a god create the fact that the fittest are more likely to reproduce? Did god create the fact that a two headed coin will always land heads, or the fact of the Fibonacci sequence? Would it make sense that a two headed coin will usually land tails? Of course not, and neither would saying that the fitter are not more likely to reproduce.

 

 

 

My argument was that god made reproduction - or more specifically: life - possible at all. My apologies for directing it towards evolution as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

You still have not told me WHY god would choose evolution over ex nihilo creation, as said in the bible and a myriad of religious texts. You claimed it, tell me why. You say he made it possible at all- why not go the easier, better, faster path of simply creating ex nihilo? Why did he instead choose evolution, which is slower, more brutal, requires more energy and effort, like you said?

[Zierro]

You asked for how we could be better and I told you. With this logic, there is no point in trying to improve the human race, because we'll never reach infinity goodness, lol.

 

 

 

I thought it would be obvious that we would need a pretty good reason to be better. You could argue that more stairs in a building makes it better, but more doesn't always equal better. There are cons to us being too strong, fast, and smart too. A baby would have the potential to strangle the parents. We'd be colliding into everything when we tried to walk. We'd also be a very bored race having infinite knowledge with nothing new to look forward to.

 

 

 

Why attempt to grow corn to feed more people at all? We should just all eat primitive corn, as we'll never reach infinity corn nutritiousness.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we should retrograde. Just that it's pointless for you to answer by saying, "it could be better". I want you to explain to me what exactly constitutes as better and how.

 

 

 

I don't want to live forever, either. Surely an omnipotent god could let people choose when to die, rather than seemingly randomly(albeit somewhat genetics and environment based), killing some as infants, some at 80, some in the middle of important works. The economic and cultural act gained from extending the average lifespan from around 40 to nearly 80 has been enormous.

 

 

 

All of your suggestions quite frankly take the fun out of life. Like I said before, life isn't a mission - life is... life. I don't see what good it would do to allow people to live or die at their will. First of all, that would mean overpopulation. Secondly, it would mean we would never lose loved ones - it would spoil us and prevent us from becoming independent. Third, I believe some particular people are better off not around.

 

 

 

Surely you cannot claim that it's a coincidence that the foods we like best, that taste best, are the ones that have the best use, but are still fairly rare in regards to a hunter gatherer? Sugar and fat are our most loved foods, and they are extremely useful in a hunter gatherer lifestyle. As well, many children don't like vegetables on first taste. Not a coincidence. I said not necessary, not absent ;). Please do not strawman my points; I too enjoy food, but if people were not starving all the time, it would be extremely useful both empathetically and economically.

 

 

 

It's a strawman to say that a world without food isn't a good thing? Man, what kind of sites are you reading from? I can tell you, they're wrong. My question was how could god have done a better job. Your retort consisted of something like "no food". Then my reply - "Actually, I think his invention of food was a good call". Tell me how this is a strawman. And to address your new point, you bring up suffering again. We've already discussed this. I don't think you understand what contrast is.

 

 

 

Venomai already responded to this, but I would have said much the same thing. I don't know if he mentioned that the earth varies in it's orbit over a million kilometres.

 

 

 

Yes, you guys can nitpick the technicalities to your amusement but the initial point still stands. Our planet really couldn't get much better than it currently is, without the side effect of it being uninhabitable.

 

 

 

You're the one who thinks that god is responsible for creating a perfect earth for us to live on, etc, etc, etc. I am simply stating that humanity's progress would have been much greater had these been done. As well, if they were, say, placed in the bible, there would be a faith basis for believeing in the bible, and it would stand as a proof of it's truths.

 

 

 

Life isn't a mission. How many times must I reiterate that fact? I'd like to ask you a question. When you accomplish a personal goal, what comes to your mind: A) Yes, I'm one step closer to completing my life! or B) Yes, I'm so proud of myself and happy that I was capable of doing that!

 

 

 

If you believe in Jesus or the Abrahamic god, you lose your right to use the free-will defence, because he violates it all the time, according to your holy text.

 

as well, you have contradicted yourself. If things could always be infinitely better, than improving these things would not hurt this debate, because we can never have infinity goodness. A test? In my line of thinking, taking ants, killing many of them, and seeing what the rest do is sadistic. *Anticipates creator defence*--> It is illegal and immoral for parents to torture their children, and thus we can extend the same to god. If you believe in an afterlife of rewards and punishments, you forfeit that argument, because god is torturing and injuring those who do not believe in him for eternity after death. That would mean, in the interests of all humans, it would be good for god to give knowledge of his existence, because then less people would burn in hellfire. There is no logical connection between lack of evidence and free will- indeed, some would argue that to have free will in a certain decision, one must have knowledge. If I asked you to choose one of two boxes, and you had to pick one, and you had no knowledge of what is in the boxes, then you have no free will of any consequence, because your decision is based on chance. My proof that having non-believers in the world comes straight from Isiah, straight from Jesus' mouth, straight from Revelations.

 

 

 

Huh? What's all this Christian mumbo jumbo? I do believe that following the lifestyle of Jesus would make the world a better and less hostile place, but I'm certainly not a follower of the religion. Oh and about your ant analogy. What if killing those ants caused a chain effect making life better for the future ants? Since you brought up Christianity, let's think about Noah's ark for a moment. I'm not well versed in the story but I believe God wiped out everyone but Noah's family to rid the world of evil - which is a bad thing to those people effected but a very good thing to those who survived. Yes, the act of killing ants for no reason whatsoever is sadistic, but of course you assume nothing but the worst possible scenario to benefit your atheistic stance.

 

 

 

So to make a point to life, god takes innocent children and humans, and floods them, infects them with diseases, and is responsible for both evil and good in the world.

 

 

 

Dark example you used there, but yes.

 

 

 

A friend of mine made an interesting statement once. This argument is ridiculous, because why could god not simply show us varying levels of good? This would teach us goodness.

 

 

 

No it would not. You don't understand what contrast is and the purpose of it. If there were humans before language was invented yet and they lived on earth - with only night and no day, what would they think? They wouldn't think of it as night - they wouldn't think about that concept at all. But if day existed, they would be able to contrast the differences and two new terms would arise: day and night. It's one of those things where without the other, the other wouldn't exist.

 

 

 

I can also bring up moderation here too. If you have chocolate cake everyday for the rest of your life, are you going to enjoy it as much or are you going to get sick of it?

 

 

 

You don't understand evolution. Natural selection is not random chance, and saying so is a strawman of my position. Haha.

 

 

 

Wow, this is strange. While calling my argument a strawman, you've formed one on your own. I never said natural selection is random chance - I said the existence of the concept of evolution, life, genetic coding, etc. whatever you want to call it is nothing but a random chance by your own argument. What are the chances that life can exist with absolutely nothing creating it? What are the chances that death can exist? What are the chances that there are variations in genetic codes? Try and understand my arguments before attacking them in the future.

 

 

 

Let's apply your argument to your god. What caused him? You will say he caused himself or something. This is special pleading, and begs the question of why the universe cannot create itself. AS you can see, unless there is a steady state universe(which seems rather unlikely in the face of the evidence), one thing must have caused itself. There cannot be infinite regression. Therefore, we can take occams razor and choose the simplest answer that answers all the questions, thus slicing god out of the picture. If say, a miracle happened, then that may not be answerable, and we might need to reintroduce the god hypothesis. However, you and I know this is not forthcoming.

 

 

 

God is called the unmoved mover for a reason. Plus, I think it's funny how you only try to apply illogical scenarios to your argument when it works on your behalf. God isn't allowed to be outside of logic, but when talking about the origin of the universe, we're allowed to talk illogically? That's a hypocritical argument.

 

 

 

Many atoms will radiate and decay instantaneously without cause. Most quantum effects are causeless- subatomic particles can pop in and out of existence spontanously.

 

 

 

See above. Also: 1.) We haven't discovered any patterns to their actions as of yet (trying to condone the scientific process here since you seem to abandon it when we talk about the two-way street of illogicality :P ). 2.) You are basically agreeing with me that something transcending our traditional version of logic can very well exist.

 

 

 

You still have not told me WHY god would choose evolution over ex nihilo creation, as said in the bible and a myriad of religious texts. You claimed it, tell me why. You say he made it possible at all- why not go the easier, better, faster path of simply creating ex nihilo? Why did he instead choose evolution, which is slower, more brutal, requires more energy and effort, like you said?

 

 

 

Even after all this you still don't see the underlying message? Here it is once again: Life is not a mission.

[dpattle]

Question:

 

 

 

Why do people not believe evolution? It is a theory, and therefore has years of observations and facts meshed together to form the idea, whereas God creating the Universe has what to back it up...?

 

 

 

It has the bible...which if you don't realize was around long before some guy decided otherwise and called it science. yes it's evolved since but to tell the truth it's evolved on a basis that hasn't been proved and was nonetheless a theory out of a guy's mind. Don't get me wrong, i love science and all, but sometimes it tries to hard to explain something it doesn't like. But we've already had this discussion earlier in the post. I don't feel like discussing it again.

[dpattle]

Question:

 

 

 

Why do people not believe evolution? It is a theory, and therefore has years of observations and facts meshed together to form the idea, whereas God creating the Universe has what to back it up...?

 

 

 

It has the bible...which if you don't realize was around long before some guy decided otherwise and called it science. yes it's evolved since but to tell the truth it's evolved on a basis that hasn't been proved and was nonetheless a theory out of a guy's mind. Don't get me wrong, i love science and all, but sometimes it tries to hard to explain something it doesn't like. But we've already had this discussion earlier in the post. I don't feel like discussing it again.

 

You're telling me a book that could have been written by a drunk psycho is worth more in terms of evidence than 100+ years of research and observation?

 

 

 

Coulda been, but that same science gives evidence that it wasn't...again...not having this convo again...hopefully i wont post again

[Flyingjj]

 

Coulda been, but that same science gives evidence that it wasn't...again...not having this convo again...hopefully i wont post again

Can I say it yet?

[dpattle]

 

Coulda been, but that same science gives evidence that it wasn't...again...not having this convo again...hopefully i wont post again

Can I say it yet?

 

 

 

lolz, shutup. I think we all are entitled to our opinions anywayz. I also don't think it's fair to just say "prove god is real or prove he isn't" as there are infact many different reasons that go both wayz and yet none of them lead to an actual "factual" conclusion. So either we wait and see if Jesus comes back and God is real, or we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is correct. Yeah you may say there are facts behind it, but i said beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think this is something we should all be able to agree on and live happily with.

[mmmcannibalism]

So either we wait and see if Jesus comes back and God is real, or we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is correct.

 

 

 

Evolution and God actually coexist very well. God created the universe laws of physics etc. through what he made evolution occured.

[dpattle]

So either we wait and see if Jesus comes back and God is real, or we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is correct.

 

 

 

Evolution and God actually coexist very well. God created the universe laws of physics etc. through what he made evolution occured.

 

 

 

:thumbsup: \ :)

 

 

 

Although, it'd be kinda wierd that he'd use evolution...unless he had some wierd plan...that isn't/wasn't really wierd to him at all. idk. I doubt we'll ever be completely sure.

 

 

 

Or maybe evolution happened faster than we all think and then stabilized or slowed down or something...idk.

[dpattle]

So why believe in something that has scientific evidence to back it up when you could believe in something you read from a book without sources?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, right?

[dpattle]

So why believe in something that has scientific evidence to back it up when you could believe in something you read from a book without sources?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, right?

 

Yes, but quite frankly, that's stupid! It's like saying that all you have to do is write a book that names you as God and then suddenly you are God!

 

 

 

while it may not mean you really are, if that's what you want to believe, then go for it.

[Blyaunte]

 

God is dead, God has long gone from this place we call "Earth". No god, omnipotent,omnipresent and benevlot, would allow humans, to becaome this despotic hell-hole of suffering it has become today.

 

 

 

.. god is not dead, he's resting -- you know, pining for the fjords ...

 

 

 

:lol:

[Blyaunte]

So why believe in something that has scientific evidence to back it up when you could believe in something you read from a book without sources?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, right?

 

Yes, but quite frankly, that's stupid! It's like saying that all you have to do is write a book that names you as God and then suddenly you are God!

 

 

 

while it may not mean you really are, if that's what you want to believe, then go for it.

 

[bleep] that, I'm becoming an atheist now.

 

 

 

I am reminded, somehow, of this:

 

 

 

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 snot 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 snot 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 snot out 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 snot 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 snot 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 snot 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 were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot 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.

[dpattle]

[hide=]

So why believe in something that has scientific evidence to back it up when you could believe in something you read from a book without sources?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, right?

 

Yes, but quite frankly, that's stupid! It's like saying that all you have to do is write a book that names you as God and then suddenly you are God!

 

 

 

while it may not mean you really are, if that's what you want to believe, then go for it.

 

[bleep] that, I'm becoming an atheist now.

 

 

 

I am reminded, somehow, of this:

 

 

 

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 snot 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 snot 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 snot out 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 snot 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 snot 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 snot 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 were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot 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.

[/hide]

 

 

 

antimatter nonetheless, never happen.

[raven_gaurd0]

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 snot 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 snot 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 snot out 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 snot 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 snot 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 snot 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 were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot 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.

 

 

 

I find that entire dialogue rather offensive. No, we do not 'Kiss His butt' nor do we have contradictory Commandments. Nor is it written anywhere in religious scripture that God deems that you must kill other people unlike you; not even the Qu'ran dictates that.

 

 

 

I shall not sink to your level and insult you, but I find it hard when this is such a blatant and obvious assault on us 'religious types'. Any good Christian knows that laughing at atheists or 'non-believers' for their choices is NOT Christian.

 

 

 

Humans are just as likely to succumb to sin and immorality as ever. We're not God. This, however, makes all religious people seem like arrogant, crumby bastards. I've never heard worse ignorant crap, not even listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not even reading Mein Kaumpf.

 

 

 

Bite thin tongue, hypocrite. 'Live and let live' has always been the motto of most the atheists I've ever met, and then they turn around and attack us and insist that we're being bigots because of Who we believe in, then they come up with gross mis-analogies that don't fit at all. Well, I'm getting sick of it.

[mmmcannibalism]

I find that entire dialogue rather offensive. No, we do not 'Kiss His butt' nor do we have contradictory Commandments. Nor is it written anywhere in religious scripture that God deems that you must kill other people unlike you; not even the Qu'ran dictates that.

 

 

 

I shall not sink to your level and insult you, but I find it hard when this is such a blatant and obvious assault on us 'religious types'. Any good Christian knows that laughing at atheists or 'non-believers' for their choices is NOT Christian.

 

 

 

Humans are just as likely to succumb to sin and immorality as ever. We're not God. This, however, makes all religious people seem like arrogant, crumby bastards. I've never heard worse ignorant crap, not even listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not even reading Mein Kaumpf.

 

 

 

Bite thin tongue, hypocrite. 'Live and let live' has always been the motto of most the atheists I've ever met, and then they turn around and attack us and insist that we're being bigots because of Who we believe in, then they come up with gross mis-analogies that don't fit at all. Well, I'm getting sick of it.

 

 

 

Or, you could look at it as very good satire about the less genuine elements of religion. If you cant take a joke you really need to learn to calm down.

[Kenshinjapan]

I find that entire dialogue rather offensive. No, we do not 'Kiss His butt' nor do we have contradictory Commandments. Nor is it written anywhere in religious scripture that God deems that you must kill other people unlike you; not even the Qu'ran dictates that.

 

 

 

I shall not sink to your level and insult you, but I find it hard when this is such a blatant and obvious assault on us 'religious types'. Any good Christian knows that laughing at atheists or 'non-believers' for their choices is NOT Christian.

 

 

 

Humans are just as likely to succumb to sin and immorality as ever. We're not God. This, however, makes all religious people seem like arrogant, crumby bastards. I've never heard worse ignorant crap, not even listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not even reading Mein Kaumpf.

 

 

 

Bite thin tongue, hypocrite. 'Live and let live' has always been the motto of most the atheists I've ever met, and then they turn around and attack us and insist that we're being bigots because of Who we believe in, then they come up with gross mis-analogies that don't fit at all. Well, I'm getting sick of it.

 

 

 

Or, you could look at it as very good satire about the less genuine elements of religion. If you cant take a joke you really need to learn to calm down.

 

 

 

That's like running up to a random black person, calling them an ignorant [racist term], and running off. You can't seriously expect them to take that kindly...

[raven_gaurd0]

No, I will not calm down. I recognize the flaws in the mortal aspects of the Church, but this isn't attacking the branches or the little guidelines of the religion, it's attacking the direct heart of it. To rectify even one of these 'mistakes' that this alleged piece of satire points out would disestablish all known religion for ever and for always.

[warri0r45]

Talk about an overreaction, Raven.

 

 

 

I thought the post was very funny (especially when it started talking about buns and condiments :lol: ), and it touched on some valid points. Perhaps religious people can understand the way atheists feel about their beliefs with a post like that. Not necessarily in the sense of ridicule, but in the sense that we just think your beliefs are plain weird and shouldn't be believed by any rational, skeptical person.

[Nom]

You've previously posted a link to A Modest Proposal. That and Gulliver's Travels are two of the most vicious satirical attacks ever written. Yet you claim to be an admirer of Mr. Swift. I guess it's okay if it's not directed at you.

[raven_gaurd0]

You've previously posted a link to A Modest Proposal. That and Gulliver's Travels are two of the most vicious satirical attacks ever written. Yet you claim to be an admirer of Mr. Swift. I guess it's okay if it's not directed at you.

 

 

 

I won't deny that it touched on valid points, but that's what faith is about. No, my problem is the fact that it demonized those of who believe. As for Mr. Swift, his satirical attacks are on mortal establishments and nothing as transcendent as religion. I personally believe that the sanctity of one's religion is the highest value upheld in their life, whether it be a religion or a lack thereof. I think a satirical attack against atheists would be equally uncalled for. Satirical attacks are fine in general, but not if it's just blatantly mean.