I shit on your thoughts.

How ya like that, boy?!?

VA Phins Fan and G&S are also Gravis lol

Type in "Gravis" in seach and 16983 results come up, wow! IDK how I feel about thaaaaaat! :/

go seach your fucking self

No one's obsessed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Type in "Gravis" in seach and 16983 results come
> up, wow! IDK how I feel about thaaaaaat! :/


And dont even try and convince he doesnt post under numerous names.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

LULZ Katz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VA Phins Fan and G&S are also Gravis lol

Gravis..a fat ass 20-something who lives with his Mom...and thinks being a computer nerd makes him important.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis..a fat ass 20-something who lives with his
> Mom...and thinks being a computer nerd makes him
> important.


and what makes you impotant, I mean important?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis..a fat ass 20-something who lives with his
> Mom...and thinks being a computer nerd makes him
> important.


Uh, yeah, being a computer nerd pretty much does make you important this day-and-age. It's been that way for the past 50 years at least.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2010 08:05PM by ThePackLeader.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis..a fat ass 20-something who lives with
> his
> > Mom...and thinks being a computer nerd makes
> him
> > important.
>
>
> Uh, yeah, being a computer nerd pretty much does
> make you important this day-and-age. It's been
> that way for the past 50 years at least.

Fine...climb into his ass and stay there. And while youre up there...ponder this, what you do is only important based upon what you do with your knowledge.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

I miss the old, nasty, cruel to trolls and bitter Gravis that specialized in owl photoshopping and pissing people off.

Ever since some maggot(s) posted his personal shit, he's turned into some kinda politically correct, right wing, bible thumping, ignore script using pussy.

WTF happened Gravis? You're not on any of the FFU hate lists anymore and all you ever talk about on here is dorky PC vs Mac vs UNIX shit.

Did you suddenly find meaning in your life or have some sort of epiphany?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Ever since some maggot(s) eesh posted his personal
> shit, he's turned into some kinda politically
> correct, right wing, bible thumping, ignore script
> using pussy.


I fixed it for you.

Gravis is fine. I think he has moved on for the most part.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I miss the old, nasty, cruel to trolls and bitter
> Gravis that specialized in owl photoshopping and
> pissing people off.

this forum does need more owl photoshop pics.


> Ever since some maggot(s) posted his personal
> shit, he's turned into some kinda politically
> correct, right wing, bible thumping, ignore script
> using pussy.

unrelated, fuck political correctness, i take no sides in politics, i dont recall hitting anyone with my faith and finally, the ignore script just gets rid of the posts i dont care about.


> WTF happened Gravis? You're not on any of the FFU
> hate lists anymore

i think that's a good thing.


> and all you ever talk about on
> here is dorky PC vs Mac vs UNIX shit.

i post on topics that i have a comment about.


> Did you suddenly find meaning in your life or have
> some sort of epiphany?

it wasnt an epiphany but a processes in realizing what it is to be a better person, to be a better Christian (i've been a Christian the better half of two decades so i'm not some new, chipper convert). this is what God wants us to do, to become better than we are. i wish i could take back all the things i've done but i cant.

you may think i'm wasting my life with this "Christianity stuff" but if you are correct and there is no God or gods then it doesnt matter anyway because nothing lasts including your own experiences so it's a waste of time even bothering. also, there is no such thing as a legacy because it will all disappear in the end and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.

with the choice of being a slave for God and being a slave of my desires, i choose God.

you only have one life, use it wisely.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Being a great artist gives my life meaning!

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I miss the old, nasty, cruel to trolls and bitter
> Gravis that specialized in owl photoshopping and
> pissing people off.

Gravis never pissed me off.

> Ever since some maggot(s) posted his personal
> shit, he's turned into some kinda politically
> correct, right wing, bible thumping, ignore script
> using pussy.

I've called Gravis a lot of things but politically correct and bible thumping were not among them.

>
> Did you suddenly find meaning in your life or have
> some sort of epiphany?

Numbers,

Let's say you're right and there is no God.

In the end, Gravis will have lost nothing but a lifetime of being angry at Christians.

Let's say you're wrong and there is a God.

In the end, you'll be in deep shit.

Vincent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being a great artist gives my life meaning!
>
>


THAT ROAD LEADS TO NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;'[

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> unrelated, fuck political correctness, i take no
> sides in politics, i dont recall hitting anyone
> with my faith and finally, the ignore script just
> gets rid of the posts i dont care about.


A while back you sort of shocked us all when you took offense to a religious matter (the thread topic escapes me now) and you kinda put your cards on the table. Strangely enough, I felt a little disappointed and thought you were too bright for that sort of stuff.

I just think that before you had more character, (albeit not a particularly nice one), but this blog was very colorful a few years back and I believe it was because the people here were so diverse. Ever since your transformation, it seems you have been slowly becoming a drone, devoid of personality (good or bad).


> it wasnt an epiphany but a processes in realizing
> what it is to be a better person, to be a better
> Christian (i've been a Christian the better half
> of two decades so i'm not some new, chipper
> convert). this is what God wants us to do, to
> become better than we are. i wish i could take
> back all the things i've done but i cant.


Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of us all becoming more humane to ourselves and all species, ending wars, equal rights, etc..... I just think religion is more of a roadblock than a source for good in the world.

The honest to goodness truth is, you have no idea if there's really a god and what said god wants you to do. No one does, which is why the world is so fucked up. Hell, we can't even pick one god!

I've always thought we should make moral decisions on what we believe in our conscience to be right, not because we fear retribution in the form of disease, car accident or "judgement Day" (as Alias seems so worried about).



> you may think i'm wasting my life with this
> "Christianity stuff" but if you are correct and
> there is no God or gods then it doesnt matter
> anyway because nothing lasts including your own
> experiences so it's a waste of time even
> bothering. also, there is no such thing as a
> legacy because it will all disappear in the end
> and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.


What I personally feel about what you should be doing with your life is irrelevant to both of us. Do whatever makes you happy. I just mistook you for a more logical and rational guy.



> with the choice of being a slave for God and being
> a slave of my desires, i choose God.


I really hope you're kidding here. Please tell me you're fucking with us.


> you only have one life, use it wisely.


We can agree on that at least. We just differ on what wisdom is.


It's not that I suddenly stopped liking you when you changed, I was just wondering WTF happened. I thought maybe someone died or some other tragedy occurred. I'm glad that wasn't the case.

Hey Numbers - the old adage "Judge not, lest ye be judged" comes to mind here. I think one of the things I take from all the conversations we have had on here regarding religion, or folks of religion (or not) is the heavy judgment of the Atheists on here of anything religious.

Religions - of whatever flavor - have their place and purpose. We may not all agree, but one thing for sure, people can choose to be Muslim, Catholic, etc, or choose some spiritual belief system (reincarnation)... and that is their choice. In all honesty, while science may change the ways we understand the environment, and things around us, it is clear science has not proven in any way that a God, or God(s), or some other metaphysical mechanism doesn't exist in the universe. As science advances, and looks deeper and deeper into things we still don't clearly understand - generally it just leads to more theorizing as to the cause, rather than coming to some fundamental understanding.

There is still plenty of room for religion in our world - in particular the ones that preach tolerance and understanding. Christianity got into that mode long ago - and while there may be sects of Christianity that push some form of hate, in general it is not using religion to justify war or wholesale slaughter of others.

Religion is not perfect, but then again neither is science. Tolerance of others is the best lesson while we pursue our common interests. Certainly, if someone is using religion or science to justify a course of action that is inimical to the common good, it should be resisted. But please, try to not just label people that believe in religion "nut cases" or loons for believing in religion. It is their right - one of the main reasons our ancestors came to America.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Fuckkkk..give me a break Mr RV's advice is "judge not, lest ye be judged". This from the guy who sees himself as the FFXU judge and jury on every post...who can make up his personal resume of experiences to fit every occasion...now he is the peace maker! Shove it up your ass until you live by your own advice...one single day.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuckkkk..give me a break Mr RV's advice is "judge
> not, lest ye be judged". This from the guy who
> sees himself as the FFXU judge and jury on every
> post...who can make up his personal resume of
> experiences to fit every occasion...now he is the
> peace maker! Shove it up your ass until you live
> by your own advice...one single day.

(R)V - you are judged because you have put yourself in that position. Don't confuse your fucking lunacy with anything to do with rational conversations, subjects, or thoughts. You are a single brain celled, racist, idiotic mofo. You contribute nothing of substance here, other than a load of crap every time you post. It is patently obvious from your posts here that you don't have a CLUE, let alone a LIFE.

Now STFU you creepy old hall monitor.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I am not the only subject of your pompous abuse..anyone who disagrees with you is.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not the only subject of your pompous
> abuse..anyone who disagrees with you is.

No (R)V - you are pretty much IT. On occasion, when WTL starts posting responses that mirror yours in politics, I accuse him of being no better than you. Truth. But in other topics where we are not talking about politics (and in some cases finances - loosely tied to politics), many times we agree. You are just an ass across the board. Maybe if you actually posted here to be part of the conversation rather than just an acerbic little moron you might have a different outlook.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2010 09:36AM by Registered Voter.

People cam believe whatever they want. I choose to believe that what I have now is the one shot I am ever going to get, so if there is something I really feel I need to do, I am going to do it versus investing a lot of time in something that doesn't exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

when you're dead, you're dead.

Religion is bad. Don't do it.

God is fake.

Organized religion = organized crime

don't be silly.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religions - of whatever flavor - have their place
> and purpose. We may not all agree, but one thing
> for sure, people can choose to be Muslim,
> Catholic, etc, or choose some spiritual belief
> system (reincarnation)... and that is their
> choice. In all honesty, while science may change
> the ways we understand the environment, and things
> around us, it is clear science has not proven in
> any way that a God, or God(s), or some other
> metaphysical mechanism doesn't exist in the
> universe.

there's no scientific proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, either. NOT having proof that something DOESN'T exist is not proof of anything, silly. It's just a double-negative. Science has nothing to do with it.

> There is still plenty of room for religion in our
> world - in particular the ones that preach
> tolerance and understanding. Christianity got into
> that mode long ago -

now you're just being silly.

>
> Religion is not perfect, but then again neither is
> science.

that's silly.

Tolerance of others is the best lesson
> while we pursue our common interests. Certainly,
> if someone is using religion or science to justify
> a course of action that is inimical to the common
> good, it should be resisted. But please, try to
> not just label people that believe in religion
> "nut cases" or loons for believing in religion.

I label them nut cases for subscribing to ORGANIZED religion. If you want to sit at home, by yourself, and believe in Zombie Jesus, that's fine & dandy.....I have a problem once you go out, organize yourselves into groups and tell anyone who doesn't think the way you do that they're going to hell (and more than that, negatively influence the politics and policy of this country and the world with your mumbo-jumbo).

Silliness.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there's no scientific proof that the Easter Bunny
> doesn't exist, either. NOT having proof that
> something DOESN'T exist is not proof of anything,
> silly. It's just a double-negative. Science has
> nothing to do with it.
>

This has nothing to do with the Easter Bunny. You are one of the folks I speak of - you don't like religion, fine, don't partake of it - but in your case it seems like you have no other redeeming value to society in your secular life either. What, are you, a leech? Maybe some religion would do you good, and give you some reason to contribute to society in a more meaningful way, rather than some dreg who whines about his constant lack of a real life. What is a real life to you anyway?

I certainly don't use religion to justify my existence by the way. But I can certainly see the many cases where it is beneficial to the functioning of normal society. In particular in places where it teaches tolerance and understanding. The Middle East and various Arabic cultures that embrace more fractional Muslim religions give us an even better example of those that don't. Show me a country anywhere in this world - anywhere - that is a fully functioning, scientifically based society that runs without some form of religion in it's make-up. I am sure someone of your great moral understanding can do this on the drop of a hat. Otherwise, you are just being silly in your denial of the obvious.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God is fake.


EVERYTHING EVOLVED OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EVERYTHING EVOLVED OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!! Now that is science at it's best!!!! Most religions (Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christians) believe in the same God, just different prophets.

WOOF-WOOF IS BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

woof-woof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EVERYTHING EVOLVED OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!! Now that
> is science at it's best!!!! Most religions
> (Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christians) believe in
> the same God, just different prophets.


I've never heard of a single scientist that believes that everything evolved from nothing and it just goes to show how little you know about the subject (except for what you've been spoon fed by creationist propaganda.

Evolution and cosmology are two completely different subject that relate very little to one another. Seriously, pick up a book and read what evolution really is. Once you do, it'll make sense to you (or maybe not in your case).

Numbers "judge not, lest ye be judged!" Hallelujah, "Praise God" and pass the beans.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evolution and cosmology are two completely
> different subject that relate very little to one
> another.

Wrong.

Cosmology is in fact defined as the scientific study of the evolution of the universe. http://books.google.com/books?id=yKUagx8PB_EC&pg=PA148&dq=%22The+scientific+study+of+the+origin,+evolution,+and+structure+of+the+universe.%22&hl=en&ei=EOc4TIGlJ8T_lgew27DVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20scientific%20study%20of%20the%20origin%2C%20evolution%2C%20and%20structure%20of%20the%20universe.%22&f=false

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Numbers - the old adage "Judge not, lest ye be
> judged" comes to mind here. I think one of the
> things I take from all the conversations we have
> had on here regarding religion, or folks of
> religion (or not) is the heavy judgment of the
> Atheists on here of anything religious.


We all judge one another every single day. Every time you have a conversation with someone, inside you're drawing a psychological profile of that person. It's only natural to assume someone is slightly off their rocker when they tell you they choose to believe in something without a single shred of evidence for its existence, then go on to deny the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.
What other subject can you think of where that would make any sense whatsoever?



> Religions - of whatever flavor - have their place
> and purpose. We may not all agree, but one thing
> for sure, people can choose to be Muslim,
> Catholic, etc, or choose some spiritual belief
> system (reincarnation)... and that is their
> choice.

You're wrong! Not everyone has a choice. Many are born into a religion and spend their whole lives around people in that faith. Do you have any idea how much courage it takes to "come out" and tell all those people that you no longer buy into it? People risk losing everything just because they stop believing in fairy tales. In Islam, an apostate gets the death penalty.


> In all honesty, while science may change
> the ways we understand the environment, and things
> around us, it is clear science has not proven in
> any way that a God, or God(s), or some other
> metaphysical mechanism doesn't exist in the
> universe.

It's not up to science to disprove god. It's up to you to prove to yourself that he/she exists. The rest of us don't give a shit and actually hope there is no god and we'd all be better off without one.


> As science advances, and looks deeper
> and deeper into things we still don't clearly
> understand - generally it just leads to more
> theorizing as to the cause, rather than coming to
> some fundamental understanding.


Yeah, but at least scientist don't give up on things we don't know about and inject the "Gap God". The human species is still in its infancy and naturally there is a lot we don't know. But throwing our hands up and praising god NEVER got us anywhere.



> There is still plenty of room for religion in our
> world - in particular the ones that preach
> tolerance and understanding. Christianity got into
> that mode long ago - and while there may be sects
> of Christianity that push some form of hate, in
> general it is not using religion to justify war or
> wholesale slaughter of others.


Sure, there's room for it, but not in the classrooms, not tax free and not in politics.


> Religion is not perfect, but then again neither is
> science. Tolerance of others is the best lesson
> while we pursue our common interests. Certainly,
> if someone is using religion or science to justify
> a course of action that is inimical to the common
> good, it should be resisted. But please, try to
> not just label people that believe in religion
> "nut cases" or loons for believing in religion. It
> is their right - one of the main reasons our
> ancestors came to America.


No one wants to take any rights away from religions. We want them to have the same rights (but no more) than the rest of us. That's the whole point.

Oh by the way Numbers where did that speck of dust and gas (Big Bang Theory) that the stars and planets coaleasced around come from? Hmm, maybe nothing.

woof-woof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh by the way Numbers where did that speck of dust
> and gas (Big Bang Theory) that the stars and
> planets coaleasced around come from? Hmm, maybe
> nothing.


Where did the thing called god come from, hmmmmm? Maybe nothing?

The problem is, this is not France. You want that life, move over there and become one of them. The problem with folks like you is, you don't know when to leave well enough alone. In the US it is a certainty that the harder you push against religion, the harder it will push back. The more you make the fights about religion, and how stupid religion is - the more you will see religion flourish. Those families where kids are born into religion - they will just make sure that it is even harder for the children to ever have the option to "opt out".

And honestly, your perception of that in today's world is really skewed. The only place these folks are being born into it and indoctrinated are the places where you have polygamist sects out in the mid-west, or Islamic religions. There are some other fundamental Christian groups that do it also - but not so much anymore except in maybe small towns that have insular populations. All-in-all most of the time what I see in families is the kids reaching an age - usually 14 to 16 - where they start asserting themselves and start opting to not go to church. It happened in my family that way (years ago), and it has happened in almost every family I have seen around here. Even the kids that were forced to attend Sunday school managed to move on to other things and make up their own minds. But it is no where near as twisted as you want to paint it.

In all seriousness though - the more you try to make religion just the belief of nut cases, the stronger you will see it come back. That is the nature of America - and for all you that embrace the illegal immigration going on, most of those folks tend to be Roman Catholic. Go figure huh. Religious freedom is just that - and it doesn't mean it stops at the door of the statehouse or the school house. If you want that, go to France where they actually have that law on the books. In the US, it doesn't exist, and you are seeing more and more push back against the folks that say you can't pray in school, or read the bible if you want, etc. Folks in this country may be slow to getting the message sometime, but in reality, there are a lot more "religious" people n this country that don't take kindly to being told they are nuts for believing in it, or that they have fewer rights then folks who don't. Atheists don't have fewer rights than others - that is just a nice talking point - no, Atheists just don't get the fact that non-belief doesn't give them greater rights then the majority of folks in the country. That is why tolerance is the best answer in the long run. It helps when you have to deal with actual religious nuts like radical Muslims.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I had religon forced upon me at a young age, Baptist (saw a lot of contradictions in church that I did not agree with). But that has not detered my belief in a God.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evolution and cosmology are two completely
> different subject that relate very little to one
> another.

Wrong.

Cosmology is in fact defined as the scientific study of the evolution of the universe. http://books.google.com/books?id=yKUagx8PB_EC&pg=PA148&dq=%22The+scientific+study+of+the+origin,+evolution,+and+structure+of+the+universe.%22&hl=en&ei=EOc4TIGlJ8T_lgew27DVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20scientific%20study%20of%20the%20origin%2C%20evolution%2C%20and%20structure%20of%20the%20universe.%22&f=false

If you're an atheist then you necessarily believe that everything evolved out of nothing. Or, to be fair, that everything evolved out of a very dense speck of matter of unknown origin about the size of the period at the end of this sentence, which exploded.

And if you believe that, then your faith is as great as any Christian's.

woof-woof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had religon forced upon me at a young age,
> Baptist (saw a lot of contradictions in church
> that I did not agree with). But that has not
> detered my belief in a God.


Why not?

Numbers Fail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Cosmology is in fact defined as the scientific
> study of the evolution of the universe.

What a dummy you are. You're confusing biological evolution with a process of development. Darwin's evolution deals with natural selection and cosmological evolution deal with changing status/movement of the universe. Two completely different uses of the word.


> If you're an atheist then you necessarily believe
> that everything evolved out of nothing. Or, to be
> fair, that everything evolved out of a very dense
> speck of matter of unknown origin about the size
> of the period at the end of this sentence, which
> exploded.


Or....we don't know exactly what caused the Big Bang. We are currently studying the cosmic microwave background, which is basically the field that is preventing us to observe deeper into time. The current theory of a "singularity" is the best we have so far and it's actually pretty plausible.

It's premise is NOT the the universe was created from nothing, but an highly dense clot of energy caused possibly from a previous retracting universe. We know our current universe is expanding and it's possible it will retract, like a rubber band, back into another singularity. We know energy can create matter and so this seems possible.



> And if you believe that, then your faith is as
> great as any Christian's.

So, the singularity theory (which has at least some evidence to back it up) is more of a stretch than some god wishing it into existence?
Unless you have a theory for where god came from, I'm through with you.

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Religion is not perfect, but then again neither is
> > science.
>
> that's silly.


No, it's not.

To begin with, science is conceptually limited in the scope of its truth claims,
as is recognized by such modern philosophers of science as Kurt Gödel (whose
incompleteness theorems establish that no mathematical system can validate its
own consistency, which in turn limits the ability of mathematics to validate the
empirical observations of scientists), Karl Popper (the inductive method of
science can attain to some degree of reliability but not truth as such), and
Thomas Kuhn (scientific paradigms - perceived truths - change over time).

Then, as a practical matter, scientists can and do make serious errors. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6958/is_8_70/ai_n30933794/

Although healthy science can root out error, a great deal of damage may be done
before mistakes are corrected. For example, the thalidomide disaster.

Also, the human factor in science is reflected not only in the errors and mistakes
that are made, but in an all-too-human resistance to change.

History teaches us that "even when confronted with overwhelming evidence,"
scientists will "stubbornly stick with the wrong but familiar." http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/kuhn.html

Moreover, scientific expertise and knowledge is no more a guarantee of moral and
ethical behavior than is religious faith.

Thus the Tuskegee syphilis study.

Thus the cooperation of "so many doctors and scientists... in some of the greatest
atrocities of Nazi Germany." http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/10/technology/exhibition-examines-scientists-complicity-in-nazi-era-atrocities.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

No, it is not at all silly to say that if religion is not perfect, then neither is science.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Numbers - the old adage "Judge not, lest ye
> be
> > judged" comes to mind here. I think one of the
> > things I take from all the conversations we
> have
> > had on here regarding religion, or folks of
> > religion (or not) is the heavy judgment of the
> > Atheists on here of anything religious.
>
>
> We all judge one another every single day. Every
> time you have a conversation with someone, inside
> you're drawing a psychological profile of that
> person. It's only natural to assume someone is
> slightly off their rocker when they tell you they
> choose to believe in something without a single
> shred of evidence for its existence, then go on to
> deny the mountains of evidence supporting
> evolution.
> What other subject can you think of where that
> would make any sense whatsoever?
>
>
>
> > Religions - of whatever flavor - have their
> place
> > and purpose. We may not all agree, but one
> thing
> > for sure, people can choose to be Muslim,
> > Catholic, etc, or choose some spiritual belief
> > system (reincarnation)... and that is their
> > choice.
>
> You're wrong! Not everyone has a choice. Many are
> born into a religion and spend their whole lives
> around people in that faith. Do you have any idea
> how much courage it takes to "come out" and tell
> all those people that you no longer buy into it?
> People risk losing everything just because they
> stop believing in fairy tales. In Islam, an
> apostate gets the death penalty.
>
>
> > In all honesty, while science may change
> > the ways we understand the environment, and
> things
> > around us, it is clear science has not proven
> in
> > any way that a God, or God(s), or some other
> > metaphysical mechanism doesn't exist in the
> > universe.
>
> It's not up to science to disprove god. It's up to
> you to prove to yourself that he/she exists. The
> rest of us don't give a shit and actually hope
> there is no god and we'd all be better off without
> one.
>
>
> > As science advances, and looks deeper
> > and deeper into things we still don't clearly
> > understand - generally it just leads to more
> > theorizing as to the cause, rather than coming
> to
> > some fundamental understanding.
>
>
> Yeah, but at least scientist don't give up on
> things we don't know about and inject the "Gap
> God". The human species is still in its infancy
> and naturally there is a lot we don't know. But
> throwing our hands up and praising god NEVER got
> us anywhere.
>
>
>
> > There is still plenty of room for religion in
> our
> > world - in particular the ones that preach
> > tolerance and understanding. Christianity got
> into
> > that mode long ago - and while there may be
> sects
> > of Christianity that push some form of hate, in
> > general it is not using religion to justify war
> or
> > wholesale slaughter of others.
>
>
> Sure, there's room for it, but not in the
> classrooms, not tax free and not in politics.
>
>
> > Religion is not perfect, but then again neither
> is
> > science. Tolerance of others is the best lesson
> > while we pursue our common interests.
> Certainly,
> > if someone is using religion or science to
> justify
> > a course of action that is inimical to the
> common
> > good, it should be resisted. But please, try to
> > not just label people that believe in religion
> > "nut cases" or loons for believing in religion.
> It
> > is their right - one of the main reasons our
> > ancestors came to America.
>
>
> No one wants to take any rights away from
> religions. We want them to have the same rights
> (but no more) than the rest of us. That's the
> whole point.

Numbers is right, Registurd Voter is wrong. Everything you said here, Numbers, is correct. Registurd Voter fails.

Isnt it interesting....RV debates endlessly on the need/value of religion in western civilzation...and Gravis finds jesus! They should both take the cross and shove it up their ass/es.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2010 09:17PM by Vince(1).

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Numbers Fail Wrote:
> > Cosmology is in fact defined as the scientific
> > study of the evolution of the universe.
>
> What a dummy you are. You're confusing biological
> evolution with a process of development.
> Darwin's evolution deals with natural selection and
> cosmological evolution deal with changing
> status/movement of the universe. Two completely
> different uses of the word.

You're the one who's confusing things.

You wrote "Evolution and cosmology are two completely different subject(s)."

As a matter of science, that's wrong.

You made a false assertion of fact, and you're not willing to admit it.

Oh, and I know this is FU and all, but the use of ad hominems like "dummy"
doesn't particularly advance the conversation, or enhance intelligent debate.


> Or....we don't know exactly what caused the Big
> Bang. [b.g. radiation, etc]
> The current theory of a "singularity" is...
> actually pretty plausible.

Yeah, it is, innit?

Hmmm, now how might a poet describe the Big Bang?

"Let there be light," maybe?


> It's premise is NOT the the universe was created
> from nothing, but an highly dense clot of energy

Right, I already acknowledged that in my prior post.


> caused possibly from a previous retracting universe.

Pure speculation. Although we have plenty of evidence that the universe is
expanding, there is scant evidence indeed for a Big Bounce or oscillating
universe.

But it's pretty to think so, isn't it?


> So, the singularity theory (which has at least
> some evidence to back it up) is more of a stretch
> than some god wishing it into existence?

There's a good deal of evidence for Fr. Lemaître's Big Bang theory, and his theory of an
expanding universe. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html

There's a good deal of evidence for at least some aspects of Darwinian evolution
(e.g., the finch's beak).

But evidence for cosmological and pre-Darwinian (if you will) evolution between
those two points?

I mean, ya know, for trivial stuff like the origin of life and consciousness?

Scant, at best.


> ...is more of a stretch

I didn't say it's more of a stretch.

I said it takes as much faith to believe that "a very dense speck of matter of
unknown origin" exploded and then gradually evolved, in the complete absence of
any transcendental creator whatsoever, into human life as we know it today, as it
does to believe in Christianity.

Einstein - no slouch when it comes to science - said, "The most incomprehensible
thing about the world is that it is comprehensible" (I've seen the quote phrased
in different ways).

This, among other reasons, is why he was a deist, i.e., he didn't believe in a
personal God, he didn't believe in the God of the Bible, but he did believe that
the universe reveals "the presence of a superior reasoning power," an "infinitely
superior spirit." In short, he believed in Spinoza's God. http://books.google.com/books?id=dJMpQagbz_gC&pg=PA388&dq=%22a+superior+reasoning+power%22+intitle:einstein&hl=en&ei=WBs5TNngH4GKlwfNrIXVBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22a%20superior%20reasoning%20power%22%20intitle%3Aeinstein&f=false

I think it takes a *great deal* of faith to believe otherwise. At least as much
faith as it takes to believe in the Resurrection.


> Unless you have a theory for where god came from, I'm through with you.

You err in supposing that God "came from" something, which no intelligent or
orthodox Christian believes.

Who is to say that this"highly dense clot of energy" that has expanded into an ever expanding universe, was not God? As all living things are basically energy.

woof-woof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who is to say that this"highly dense clot of
> energy" that has expanded into an ever expanding
> universe, was not God? As all living things are
> basically energy.


And what evidence is there that it is. Fill your knowledge gap with god...people have done that since day one.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

God damn, MMM/NF...

You're on fire, baby.

This is why I love you... it's your logic. Good... sound.. logic. It gives me hope for the future...

I hope you have children... Heck, I want you to have my children.

Keep fighting the good fight... You're a stronger person than I am.

Meet you in the pasture,

Harry Tuttie

Signatures are for fags

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > unrelated, fuck political correctness, i take
> no
> > sides in politics, i dont recall hitting anyone
> > with my faith and finally, the ignore script
> just
> > gets rid of the posts i dont care about.

>
> A while back you sort of shocked us all when you
> took offense to a religious matter (the thread
> topic escapes me now) and you kinda put your cards
> on the table. Strangely enough, I felt a little
> disappointed and thought you were too bright for
> that sort of stuff.

You shocked us, all of US. WE were shocked.

>
> I just think that before you had more character,
> (albeit not a particularly nice one), but this
> blog was very colorful a few years back and I
> believe it was because the people here were so
> diverse. Ever since your transformation .........

You, Gravis, and your God, have ruined FFXU!!

> it wasnt an epiphany but a processes in
> realizing
> > what it is to be a better person, to be a
> better
> > Christian (i've been a Christian the better
> half
> > of two decades so i'm not some new, chipper
> > convert). this is what God wants us to do, to
> > become better than we are. i wish i could take
> > back all the things i've done but i cant.

>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of us all
> becoming more humane to ourselves and all species,
> ending wars, equal rights, etc..... I just think
> religion is more of a roadblock than a source for
> good in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I think you people and your fairy tale God get in the way of my definition of good.

>
> The honest to goodness truth is, you have no idea
> if there's really a god and what said god wants
> you to do. No one does, which is why the world is
> so fucked up. Hell, we can't even pick one god!

Numbers, since you’re not picking one, why do you give a flying fuck? And, what’s with the “we” ?

>
> I've always thought we should make moral decisions
> on what we believe in our conscience to be right,
> not because we fear retribution in the form of
> disease, car accident or "judgement Day" (as Alias
> seems so worried about).

News Flash
Read all about it
Alias stays up nights worrying about J U D G E M E N T D A Y!

Here’s how it works, Numbers.

Those of us who get automatic entrance through those pearly gates... get 3 chips... they look like poker chips. Then, when someone like you stumbles up to the gates, I can turn in a chip by tugging on St. Peter’s robes and giving him the thumbs down. That chip disappears but so do you. I wonder where you go.

>
> I just mistook you
> for a more logical and rational guy.

You are stupid, Gravis. STUPID. And, I’m not arrogant, at all, because I am very smart.. a genius, actually. I’m one of the chosen few who understands how we and our Globe, our beautiful Globe, got here.

Do you understand natural selection, Gravis? No, I didn’t think so. You people believe in magic! Not me. I’m one of the chosen few who will lead you less evolved "apes"... sorry, just a little joke amongst us smart people... into the future of Sameness. You've probably never heard of Sameness, hahahaha... hey, look at Gravis, he never heard of Sameness.

So many idiots out there impeding our Globe's progress. This was one big idiot. Just look at those funny clothes!

Alias,
My questions and comments were directed at Gravis and his recent and sudden persona change, not you. Why are you answering for him?

Your perception that atheists are somehow smarter than you is only reinforced by your unimaginative, pointless and just plain silly response. It offered absolutely no counter argument for points I've made and just made you sound like a blithering idiot that when confronted with a rational and logical philosophical position, you have nothing but "Numbers Hates christians and thinks we're all stupid".

The bottom line is, (hopefully) there are many facets to ones personality and religion is just one of them. I can strongly disagree with someone's stance on religion and agree on many other issues. It is true that when someone tells me they truely believe in fairy tales that my overall opinion of them drops a bit. It tells me they aren't a particularly deep thinker or are just afraid to go there. However, if they put up any semblance of a reasonable argument to support that position, my respect for them rises again.

Unfortunately, most of them (including you) can't or won't. They just have so much blind faith (a symptom of insanity on any other issue) that they feel they have to defend their god. Now that a lot of people are waking up and realizing they've been duped, religious people suddenly feel like they're being attacked and feel like god is somehow being overthrown by the forces of EVIL. They aren't. It's just the 21st century and people are growing up and putting god alongside all the other past gods and goddesses, in the mythology section.

For thousands of years, religions have been dishing it out, persecuting everyone in its path by killing, torturing, enslaving, humiliating and dominating politics.
Then, here comes little ole Numbers, telling people in a little town called Fairfax that maybe there's a more humane way to live, with equal rights for all
... and you can't even take that.

You had better strap in (or strap-on in your case). You and your ilk have a rough ride ahead. Christianity is tanking fast and atheism is growing. What you believe is up to you, I don't give a shit. But I'm not going to stand for it when it gives you more rights and privileges than the rest of us and replaces proven facts with faith in schools.

PS, I found your picture of George quite nice. If I were him about to face-off against the British army in those (pre-Darwin) days, I would have done the same thing.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias,
> My questions and comments were directed at Gravis
> and his recent and sudden persona change, not you.
> Why are you answering for him?
>
> Your perception that atheists are somehow smarter
> than you is only reinforced by your unimaginative,
> pointless and just plain silly response. It
> offered absolutely no counter argument for points
> I've made and just made you sound like a
> blithering idiot that when confronted with a
> rational and logical philosophical position, you
> have nothing but "Numbers Hates christians and
> thinks we're all stupid".
>
> The bottom line is, (hopefully) there are many
> facets to ones personality and religion is just
> one of them. I can strongly disagree with
> someone's stance on religion and agree on many
> other issues. It is true that when someone tells
> me they truely believe in fairy tales that my
> overall opinion of them drops a bit. It tells me
> they aren't a particularly deep thinker or are
> just afraid to go there. However, if they put up
> any semblance of a reasonable argument to support
> that position, my respect for them rises again.
>
> Unfortunately, most of them (including you) can't
> or won't. They just have so much blind faith (a
> symptom of insanity on any other issue) that they
> feel they have to defend their god. Now that a lot
> of people are waking up and realizing they've been
> duped, religious people suddenly feel like they're
> being attacked and feel like god is somehow being
> overthrown by the forces of EVIL. They aren't.
> It's just the 21st century and people are growing
> up and putting god alongside all the other past
> gods and goddesses, in the mythology section.
>
> For thousands of years, religions have been
> dishing it out, persecuting everyone in its path
> by killing, torturing, enslaving, humiliating and
> dominating politics.
> Then, here comes little ole Numbers, telling
> people in a little town called Fairfax that maybe
> there's a more humane way to live, with equal
> rights for all
> ... and you can't even take that.
>
> You had better strap in (or strap-on in your
> case). You and your ilk have a rough ride ahead.
> Christianity is tanking fast and atheism is
> growing. What you believe is up to you, I don't
> give a shit. But I'm not going to stand for it
> when it gives you more rights and privileges than
> the rest of us and replaces proven facts with
> faith in schools.
>
> PS, I found your picture of George quite nice. If
> I were him about to face-off against the British
> army in those (pre-Darwin) days, I would have done
> the same thing.


+1

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just mistook you for a more logical and rational guy.

no, you mistook me for an atheist, there is a large difference.


Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > with the choice of being a slave for God and being
> > a slave of my desires, i choose God.
>
> I really hope you're kidding here. Please tell me
> you're fucking with us.

i've observed the outcomes of both and chosen accordingly.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I believe in GOD and I apologise to anybody I have offended and for all of the "worm food" jokes

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

graymoose1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe in GOD and I apologise to anybody I have
> offended and for all of the "worm food" jokes


but will you apologize for your poor spelling? :P


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

LOL

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> graymoose1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I believe in GOD and I apologise to anybody I
> have
> > offended and for all of the "worm food" jokes
>
>
> but will you apologize for your poor spelling? :P

He was just spelling it in the British way. I think writing in the British style from time to time can add some colour to one's postings.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

As does French, MrMephisteau.

Hey Numbers - personally I think it is the height of insanity to believe that somehow mankind is just a freak accident of nature. Mind you, I don't think that if/when we find other intelligent life out there, they will all look like us - at all - but until we get there, none of us has anything but theories and myths to believe in at the moment. So your adoption of non-belief is just as "irrational" as it is to believe, for all intents and purposes.

Organized religion on the other hand, in many cases is a scam. I will agree with you on that. Not that the underlying premise isn't good, but as usual, anything developed by men on earth to assert control over portions of the populace generally tends to be corrupted in its application over time. Whether that is religions, or governments.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As does French, MrMephisteau.

I lol'd.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Numbers - personally I think it is the height
> of insanity to believe that somehow mankind is
> just a freak accident of nature.

Why? Freak accidents in nature happen everyday. BTW, there is significant evidence that there was a 14 billion years series of events that led to us being here. Yet you find it easier to believe some higher power sneezed us into existence in a period of 6 days. Yeah, that sounds perfectly sane.



> Mind you, I don't
> think that if/when we find other intelligent life
> out there, they will all look like us - at all -


Maybe, maybe not. Why would that matter?


> but until we get there, none of us has anything
> but theories and myths to believe in at the
> moment.


True, but which is more plausible? At least we have solid and growing evidence for our theories. We have absolutely zero evidence for the myths.



> So your adoption of non-belief is just as
> "irrational" as it is to believe, for all intents
> and purposes.


LOL! That's ridiculous.



> Organized religion on the other hand, in many
> cases is a scam. I will agree with you on that.
> Not that the underlying premise isn't good, but as
> usual, anything developed by men on earth to
> assert control over portions of the populace
> generally tends to be corrupted in its application
> over time. Whether that is religions, or
> governments.


I agree, but who is more likely to be duped by governmental control agents, those who believe in fairy tales or open-eyed skeptics that don't take anything at face value?

Again, I don't give a flying fuck what people believe in their personal lives. Just don't infringe on my rights and stay the fuck away from schools, the White House and the nuclear trigger.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Numbers - personally I think it is the
> height
> > of insanity to believe that somehow mankind is
> > just a freak accident of nature.
>
> Why? Freak accidents in nature happen everyday.
> BTW, there is significant evidence that there was
> a 14 billion years series of events that led to us
> being here. Yet you find it easier to believe some
> higher power sneezed us into existence in a period
> of 6 days. Yeah, that sounds perfectly sane.

Presuming there is a higher "power" for lack of a better term - then intelligent design is just as plausible. And very few - VERY FEW - people believe that 6 days is literal. Most folks these days construe 6 days to be anything from thousands of years to millions of years. Time is a relative construct by the way - you knew that right?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey Numbers - personally I think it is the
> > height
> > > of insanity to believe that somehow mankind
> is
> > > just a freak accident of nature.
> >
> > Why? Freak accidents in nature happen everyday.
> > BTW, there is significant evidence that there
> was
> > a 14 billion years series of events that led to
> us
> > being here. Yet you find it easier to believe
> some
> > higher power sneezed us into existence in a
> period
> > of 6 days. Yeah, that sounds perfectly sane.
>
> Presuming there is a higher "power" for lack of a
> better term - then intelligent design is just as
> plausible. And very few - VERY FEW - people
> believe that 6 days is literal. Most folks these
> days construe 6 days to be anything from thousands
> of years to millions of years. Time is a relative
> construct by the way - you knew that right?

Of course not, he takes his atheism to the same level as bible beaters. Just like all Christian zealots will tell you that they feel "persecuted" for their beliefs, Numbers is "persecuted" for his. Just like most zealots are "superior" to nonbelievers, Numbers is superior to believers. If given the opportunity, I think Numbers would start a war between atheists and believers of any faith.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Presuming there is a higher "power" for lack of a
> better term - then intelligent design is just as
> plausible. And very few - VERY FEW - people
> believe that 6 days is literal. Most folks these
> days construe 6 days to be anything from thousands
> of years to millions of years. Time is a relative
> construct by the way - you knew that right?


LOL. Yeah, the story (spin) continuously changes with every scientific discovery. No matter what scientists find, religion always finds a way of spinning it to fit their cause.

The fact is, if we listened to religious folk, we'd still be in the dark ages, thinking the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, dying of simple infections, slavery,etc... Fortunately, there were some very courageous people that risked their lives and challenged mythology. It's those people that pushed the human species forward and continue to define our place in the universe.

We now have a probe investigating the cosmic microwave background. Once we begin to understand more about that, it will help us learn more about the origins of the big bang and what really happened. But have no worries, religion will be ready to go with their latest spin to squeeze it into biblical verse.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If given the opportunity, I think Numbers would
> start a war between atheists and believers of any
> faith.


LOL! I rest my case!

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL. Yeah, the story (spin) continuously changes
> with every scientific discovery. No matter what
> scientists find, religion always finds a way of
> spinning it to fit their cause.
>
> The fact is, if we listened to religious folk,
> we'd still be in the dark ages, thinking the world
> is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, dying
> of simple infections, slavery,etc...

LOL. Typical fool that treats his atheism like a religion. The myth of the Flat Earth is one of the bullshit things you continue to believe despite evidence to the contrary. How does this make you any less gullibly stupid than someone who believes in creationism?

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> LOL. Typical fool that treats his atheism like a
> religion. The myth of the Flat Earth is one of
> the bullshit things you continue to believe
> despite evidence to the contrary. How does this
> make you any less gullibly stupid than someone who
> believes in creationism?

Really?

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > LOL. Typical fool that treats his atheism like
> a
> > religion. The myth of the Flat Earth is one of
> > the bullshit things you continue to believe
> > despite evidence to the contrary. How does
> this
> > make you any less gullibly stupid than someone
> who
> > believes in creationism?
>
> Really?
>
> Isaiah 11:12
> 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations,
> and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and
> gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
> FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
>
> Revelation 7:1
> 1 And after these things I saw four angels
> standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the
> four winds of the earth, that the wind should not
> blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any
> tree. (KJV)
>
> Job 38:13
> 13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE
> EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
> (KJV)
>
> Jeremiah 16:19
> 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my
> refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles
> shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH,
> and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited
> lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no
> profit. (KJV)
>
> Daniel 4:11
> 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height
> thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof
> to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
>
> Matthew 4:8
> 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding
> high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of
> the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the flat earth theory was a fable wasn't it? The Greeks proved the Earth was round long before the Bible, and by the time of the Middle Ages, most folks knew the Earth was not flat. Don't mistake common phraseology for belief in a flat earth. Most people say "I will chase you to the ends of the Earth" when they cursed folks, etc.

Flat Earth (wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
"The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[5] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[6] The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[5]"

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

"The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.[1]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of "flat earth darkness" among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[2]

David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[3][4]

Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[5]

* "... with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."[6]
* Russell concludes that Irving, Draper and White were the main writers responsible for introducing the erroneous flat-earth myth that is still with us today."[7][8]

In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.[9]"

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > LOL. Typical fool that treats his atheism like
> a
> > religion. The myth of the Flat Earth is one of
> > the bullshit things you continue to believe
> > despite evidence to the contrary. How does
> this
> > make you any less gullibly stupid than someone
> who
> > believes in creationism?
>
> Really?
>
> Isaiah 11:12
> 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations,
> and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and
> gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
> FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
>
> Revelation 7:1
> 1 And after these things I saw four angels
> standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the
> four winds of the earth, that the wind should not
> blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any
> tree. (KJV)
>
> Job 38:13
> 13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE
> EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
> (KJV)
>
> Jeremiah 16:19
> 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my
> refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles
> shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH,
> and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited
> lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no
> profit. (KJV)
>
> Daniel 4:11
> 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height
> thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof
> to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
>
> Matthew 4:8
> 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding
> high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of
> the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Yeah, really. Does the term four corners mean "flat?"

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

What does "circle of the earth" mean? Do you know? I don't.

How many points are on a compass?

Plus, you have no clue what the intent of the writers were?

Keep clinging to your myth of the flat earth despite the fact it has been debunked by scientists and theologians alike. As noted before, you are no less gullibly stupid than a creationist.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2 0 88 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > LOL. Typical fool that treats his atheism
> like
> > a
> > > religion. The myth of the Flat Earth is one
> of
> > > the bullshit things you continue to believe
> > > despite evidence to the contrary. How does
> > this
> > > make you any less gullibly stupid than
> someone
> > who
> > > believes in creationism?
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Isaiah 11:12
> > 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the
> nations,
> > and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and
> > gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
> > FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
> >
> > Revelation 7:1
> > 1 And after these things I saw four angels
> > standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding
> the
> > four winds of the earth, that the wind should
> not
> > blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any
> > tree. (KJV)
> >
> > Job 38:13
> > 13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE
> > EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of
> it?
> > (KJV)
> >
> > Jeremiah 16:19
> > 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my
> > refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles
> > shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE
> EARTH,
> > and shall say, Surely our fathers have
> inherited
> > lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no
> > profit. (KJV)
> >
> > Daniel 4:11
> > 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the
> height
> > thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight
> thereof
> > to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
> >
> > Matthew 4:8
> > 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an
> exceeding
> > high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms
> of
> > the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the flat earth
> theory was a fable wasn't it? The Greeks proved
> the Earth was round long before the Bible, and by
> the time of the Middle Ages, most folks knew the
> Earth was not flat. Don't mistake common
> phraseology for belief in a flat earth. Most
> people say "I will chase you to the ends of the
> Earth" when they cursed folks, etc.
>
> Flat Earth (wiki):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
> "The false belief that medieval Christianity
> believed in a flat earth has been referred to as
> The Myth of the Flat Earth.[5] In 1945, it was
> listed by the Historical Association (of Britain)
> as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors
> in history.[6] The myth that people of the Middle
> Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered
> the popular imagination in the 19th century,
> thanks largely to the publication of Washington
> Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of
> Christopher Columbus in 1828.[5]"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Eart
> h
>
> "The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern
> misconception that the prevailing cosmological
> view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat,
> instead of spherical. During the early Middle
> Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the
> spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient
> Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat
> earth among the educated was essentially dead.
> Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier
> (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model
> became commonly accepted in Hellenistic
> astronomy.[1]
>
> According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a
> period of "flat earth darkness" among scholars
> (regardless of how the public at large may have
> conceptualized our planet both then and now).
> Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all
> major medieval scholars accepted the earth's
> roundness as an established fact of
> cosmology."[2]
>
> David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that
> "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the
> Middle Ages who did not acknowledge sphericity
> and even know its approximate
> circumference".[3][4]
>
> Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth
> mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920,
> and had to do with the ideological setting created
> by struggles over evolution.[5]
>
> * "... with extraordinary few exceptions no
> educated person in the history of Western
> Civilization from the third century B.C. onward
> believed that the earth was flat."[6]
> * Russell concludes that Irving, Draper and
> White were the main writers responsible for
> introducing the erroneous flat-earth myth that is
> still with us today."[7][8]
>
> In 1945 the Historical Association listed
> "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of
> twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common
> errors in history.[9]"

Yes, you are correct. But for zealous atheists, like Numbers, this is one of the many myths they cling to do justify their atheism. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they perpetuate this myth ad nauseum. There is no historical or scientific evidence to support their claim. In fact there is direct evidence refuting it, yet they continue to "preach" it as doctrine. Sound familiar?

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, really. Does the term four corners mean
> "flat?"


Uhh, yes. Spheres don't have corners.



> Isaiah 40:22
> It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
> earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as
> grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a
> curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell
> in:
>
> What does "circle of the earth" mean? Do you
> know? I don't.


Again, you echo all atheists points here, that the bible is filled with contradictions. No one seems to agree on any of the stories within it.




> Plus, you have no clue what the intent of the
> writers were?


Do you?



> Keep clinging to your myth of the flat earth
> despite the fact it has been debunked by
> scientists and theologians alike.


If you're trying to convince me that the Earth is not flat, you're wasting your time. I knew that when I was 4 years old.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, really. Does the term four corners mean
> "flat?"

How many corners are in a circle or a sphere? I sucked at geometry.

> Plus, you have no clue what the intent of the
> writers were?

This pisses me off. The Bible is either clear and direct, or it isn't. The Bible is either 100% true and correct, or it isn't.

If you don't understand the writer's "intent," that means it's open to interpretation. If it's interpreted, it's subjective. Subjective things are not based on facts. The whole idea of "this is 100% true, but also open to interpretation" is absolute bullshit. It cannot be both.

I know a lot of people who condemn homosexuality as an "abomination," but have no problem eating lobster. If the former is wrong, then the latter is wrong, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Yeah, really. Does the term four corners mean
> > "flat?"
>
>
> Uhh, yes. Spheres don't have corners.
>
>
>
> > Isaiah 40:22
> > It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the
> > earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as
> > grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as
> a
> > curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to
> dwell
> > in:
> >
> > What does "circle of the earth" mean? Do you
> > know? I don't.
>
>
> Again, you echo all atheists points here, that the
> bible is filled with contradictions. No one seems
> to agree on any of the stories within it.
>
>
>
>
> > Plus, you have no clue what the intent of the
> > writers were?
>
>
> Do you?
>
>
>
> > Keep clinging to your myth of the flat earth
> > despite the fact it has been debunked by
> > scientists and theologians alike.
>
>
> If you're trying to convince me that the Earth is
> not flat, you're wasting your time. I knew that
> when I was 4 years old.

I am pointing out that you are perpetuating a debunked myth about Christianity the same way creationism has been debunked. Your are letting your zeal for atheism put blinders on you. Your credibility is right up there with Branch Davidians. You can't even comprehend the simple facts that are placed right in front of you. Typical zealot really.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But for zealous atheists,
> like Numbers, this is one of the many myths they
> cling to do justify their atheism.


Justify my atheism to who, you? I don't need to justify anything to anyone. Atheism is simply a non belief in god(s), nothing else.

Why are you so upset?

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, really. Does the term four corners mean
> > "flat?"
>
> How many corners are in a circle or a sphere? I
> sucked at geometry.
>
> > Plus, you have no clue what the intent of the
> > writers were?
>
> This pisses me off. The Bible is either clear and
> direct, or it isn't. The Bible is either 100%
> true and correct, or it isn't.
>
> If you don't understand the writer's "intent,"
> that means it's open to interpretation. If it's
> interpreted, it's subjective. Subjective things
> are not based on facts. The whole idea of "this
> is 100% true, but also open to interpretation" is
> absolute bullshit. It cannot be both.
>
> I know a lot of people who condemn homosexuality
> as an "abomination," but have no problem eating
> lobster. If the former is wrong, then the latter
> is wrong, too.

Well, I'm not here to defend the bible. My only intent is that zealots (christian or atheist) are extremely simple minded folks that repeat myths simply because it helps them justify their chosen belief system.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But for zealous atheists,
> > like Numbers, this is one of the many myths
> they
> > cling to do justify their atheism.
>
>
> Justify my atheism to who, you? I don't need to
> justify anything to anyone. Atheism is simply a
> non belief in god(s), nothing else.

And you pursue that in a zealous fashion akin to bible beating creationists. If you don't feel the need to justify your belief system, why perpetuate debunked myths?

> Why are you so upset?

I am hardly upset. Although, you seem to be.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And you pursue that in a zealous fashion akin to
> bible beating creationists. If you don't feel the
> need to justify your belief system, why perpetuate
> debunked myths?


Seems to me that since you love the term "zealous" so much, you may want to think about your own position. You are a clearly a zealous defender of it.



> I am hardly upset. Although, you seem to be.


About what?

I would have to agree that Organized religion can be a scam in some cases.
I am a member of the Church of the Brethren but have not been there in many yrs.
I was on the church board for a couple of years and and disgusted with the church as a whole

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > And you pursue that in a zealous fashion akin
> to
> > bible beating creationists. If you don't feel
> the
> > need to justify your belief system, why
> perpetuate
> > debunked myths?
>
>
> Seems to me that since you love the term "zealous"
> so much, you may want to think about your own
> position. You are a clearly a zealous defender of
> it.

What? My position that you spew bullshit to justify your belief system?

> > I am hardly upset. Although, you seem to be.
>
>
> About what?

Who knows? Maybe you are one of those "angry atheists" bible beaters love to go on and on about? Maybe you are just pissed someone called you on your bullshit?

lol, I love how my lil posts become so big and cause so much ffu-controversy

Anon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, I love how my lil posts become so big and
> cause so much ffu-controversy

You got people of different viewpoints to argue religion. Congratulations on your life's biggest accomplishment.



Maybe now you can tackle something harder, like trying not to drool on yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Just real quick (I'm at lunch, which ended 10 minutes ago).

I respect the gravity of the issues you raise, and am only addressing them briefly and incompletely here.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This pisses me off. The Bible is either clear and
> direct, or it isn't.

It isn't (2 Pet 3:16).

It's useful for training, etc (2 Tim 3:16), but it requires an interpreter or teacher (Acts 15; 1 Thess 5:12; Titus 2:1, 15; 1 Tim 4:11-16; 2 Tim 2:2).


> The Bible is either 100% true and correct, or it isn't.

There are many arguments set forth in books and online to address the perceived errors and contradictions in the bible, several of which you've pointed out (eg, Jesus was not of the line of David, but cf. Romans 1:3).

Frankly, although at times they've been helpful for me, I find most of this sort of thing not very interesting (quite possibly an intellectual fault rather than a virtue on my part). Yet the arguments are there, and require your subjective interpretation of them, which may be right or wrong unless you are infallible. (I don't mean to imply that we can never decide if a perceived contradiction or error is an actual one; but I do believe a position of agnosticism can sometimes be intellectually legitimate, given the complex factual and interpretational issues that often arise with these sorts of questions.)


> If you don't understand the writer's "intent,"
> that means it's open to interpretation. If it's
> interpreted, it's subjective. Subjective things
> are not based on facts. The whole idea of "this
> is 100% true, but also open to interpretation" is
> absolute bullshit. It cannot be both.


First of all, virtually every text is open to interpretation. Biblical, legal, literary, etc.

There is simply no way around this.

Second, given human nature, people *are* going to disagree over the interpretation of various texts. This is inevitable and unavoidable. A text like the Bible is espcially difficult to interpret because the older a text is, the more we will have lost touch with the unstated cultural assumptions that undergird the text, which may be mostly or entirely lost, and which are at best difficult to piece together even in proximate form.

Pardon me if I'm off-base here, but in your all-or-nothing position I detect an (understandable) reaction against a rigid fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic. The same issue destroyed Bart Ehrman's faith. That said, I concede that perhaps you and Ehrman are right in the end - perhaps there really is no sound or acceptable alternative to the all-or-nothing hermeneutic you propose.


> I know a lot of people who condemn homosexuality
> as an "abomination," but have no problem eating
> lobster. If the former is wrong, then the latter
> is wrong, too.

This turns on the relation of the old to the new covenant.

The OT dietary restrictions are expressly abolished in the NT (Acts 10:9-15).

The OT condemnation of homosexuality is expressly affirmed (Romans 1:25ff).

Theophilus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's useful for training, etc (2 Tim 3:16), but it
> requires an interpreter or teacher (Acts 15; 1
> Thess 5:12; Titus 2:1, 15; 1 Tim 4:11-16; 2 Tim
> 2:2).

This is an incredibly evil concept for a religion whose main theme is love. "You need to believe what I tell you, or else you will suffer untold agony for all eternity. Of course it's vague and difficult to understand, but that's because you're not qualified to interpret it properly. However, I am, and you can totally trust me, like, for reals."

To me, that's like saying, "You can either get in this beat up old van and have some of my free candy, or your parents will die tonight. Trust me."

> There are many arguments set forth in books and
> online to address the perceived errors and
> contradictions in the bible, several of which
> you've pointed out (eg, Jesus was not of the line
> of David, but cf. Romans 1:3).
>
> Frankly...

It really comes down to this: If there's even one obvious error or contradiction in the Bible, then everything in it must be questioned. I don't take exception to people who say, "This is what I believe." I take exception to the people that say, "This is what I believe, and you are stupid if you don't believe it also, because we have this book RIGHT HERE that lays out everything you need to know."

> First of all, virtually every text is open to
> interpretation. Biblical, legal, literary, etc.

Of course. When people pass the NIV off as the infallable word of God, though, that means you're just supposed to accept it at face value, not interpret it.

> Second, given human nature, people *are* going to
> disagree over the interpretation of various texts.
> This is inevitable and unavoidable. A text like
> the Bible is espcially difficult to interpret
> because the older a text is, the more we will have
> lost touch with the unstated cultural assumptions
> that undergird the text, which may be mostly or
> entirely lost, and which are at best difficult to
> piece together even in proximate form.

Throw in hundreds (if not thousands) of different translations over many, many generations as well. I'd bet my life that the King James Bible bears little resemblence to what people actually wrote down in their native language, in the beginning.

> Pardon me if I'm off-base here, but in your
> all-or-nothing position I detect an
> (understandable) reaction against a rigid
> fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic. The same
> issue destroyed Bart Ehrman's faith. That said, I
> concede that perhaps you and Ehrman are right in
> the end - perhaps there really is no sound or
> acceptable alternative to the all-or-nothing
> hermeneutic you propose.

I was raised to believe that the Bible is the perfect and infallable word of God, yes. Whenever I found something that made me question that, I was told that even asking those questions was a sin. Eventually, I couldn't stand the guilt and fear anymore.

> The OT dietary restrictions are expressly
> abolished in the NT (Acts 10:9-15).

Correct.

> The OT condemnation of homosexuality is expressly
> affirmed (Romans 1:25ff).

The big JC himself never once said anything about anybody's sex life outside of the "coveting your neighbor's wife" thing. 'Twas Saul who first wrote condemnations against gays. That's the same Saul who used to persecute Christians until he saw how much they thrived under persecution. The same Saul who went out by himself into the desert, had a vision from God, came back calling himself Paul, and went on to establish the church as we know it.

If I were to go into the woods and tell people that Jesus came to me and said I need to spread His message that we should stop persecuting homosexuals, I doubt anyone would believe me.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I take exception to the people that
> say, "This is what I believe, and you are stupid
> if you don't believe it also, because we have this
> book RIGHT HERE that lays out everything you need
> to know."

I agree with you on this, Mephisto... I must point out that atheists can also be guilty of this offense..



Numbers,
Regarding your definition of atheism... You said it is a lack of belief in gods...

Do you think it would be acceptable to consider atheism a belief that there are no gods?

Signatures are for fags

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must point out that atheists can also be guilty of this
> offense..

Totally. I believe some pretty crazy stuff, personally. It's no crazier than the "Jesus rose from the dead" idea, so I don't knock anybody's beliefs. I draw the line at saying someone else's beliefs are wrong or stupid, regardless of who's doing the saying.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Numbers,
> Regarding your definition of atheism... You said
> it is a lack of belief in gods...
>
> Do you think it would be acceptable to consider
> atheism a belief that there are no gods?


No. It just means we have no reason to believe in gods, whether they exist or not. Not one person on Earth can be sure there are no gods, but until some proof exists, why would you. There is no more proof for gods existence than there is for unicorns, Santa Clause or any of the many past gods.

It sounds like you are more of an agnostic than an atheist... An agnostic that dislikes organized religion...

Do you think that suits you?

Signatures are for fags

Harry,
I never really concerned myself with titles regarding my beliefs/non-beliefs. All I want is for everyone to have equal rights in this country, to keep religion out of public schools and to keep the nukes from crazy people. Right now, all of those are questionable and I'm concerned. We all should be. If you really want to see what a religious society looks like, go to the middle east where god runs everything, from a cave.

I'm not angry, vengeful, depressed or any of the terms used in this thread to describe me, but that's all these people have as an argument.

I certainly did not intend to turn this thread into a religious argument and lately I've been pretty quiet about all this. All I wanted to know, is what happened to Gravis. He answered, we had a friendly discourse and that was that...or so I thought.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2010 09:37PM by Numbers.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry Tuttle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Numbers,
> > Regarding your definition of atheism... You
> said
> > it is a lack of belief in gods...
> >
> > Do you think it would be acceptable to consider
> > atheism a belief that there are no gods?
>
>
> No. It just means we have no reason to believe in
> gods, whether they exist or not. Not one person on
> Earth can be sure there are no gods, but until
> some proof exists, why would you. There is no more
> proof for gods existence than there is for
> unicorns, Santa Clause or any of the many past
> gods.

Actually Numbers you are wrong. There are no "factual" writers that claim to have met Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. Sure, there are anecdotal stories of things like Saint Nicholas which Santa is based on, but things like the tooth fairy, all those - they are clearly fairy tales. Made up fantasies.

On the other hand, if you believe anything at all about the Bible, portions of it are purported to be eye-witness accounts of the life of JC, and his actions and life. Also parts of the Old Testament again are purported to be eye-witness accounts of various events and such that are supporting the existence of God.

So truthfully, there is more proof of the existence of God, and JC based on the writings in the Bible. While parts of the Bible appear to be fanciful stories, (much like things about the Easter Bunny) - there are many parts that should be as valid as anything science has produced today. If you believe that many of the Bible stories are actually factual accounts put down by the observers, or stories passed down in oral tradition and then put on paper - they still amount to what would have been "proof". Just because these entities (God, JC) don't choose to manifest themselves today to prove their existence to you, doesn't discount the "factual" stories reported in the Bible. So, if you are saying the entire Bible is nothing more than a large collection of fanciful stories, made up to support a religion but without substance - then your theory is valid to YOU. On the other hand, you have not proven that these folks are liars in the portions of the Bible where they purport to be factual accounts of observations of the writers. The creation stories are obviously fables - they can be interpreted in many ways - part of why as science proves different theories, the explanations are adapted to fit the known circumstances.

At best, you can only truly say that science has changed our understanding of many of the "fables" in the Bible. It doesn't mean that science has made it clear there is no God.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2010 09:48PM by Registered Voter.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias,
> My questions and comments were directed at Gravis
> and his recent and sudden persona change, not you.
> Why are you answering for him?

Gravis is living in a monastery and has taken a vow of silence.

> Your perception that atheists are somehow smarter
> than you is only reinforced by your unimaginative,
> pointless and just plain silly response.

You ARE smarter, aren't you? You are a man of science and I am a woman of magic.

And, my lack of imagination has served me well. For example, my mother, when warning me about the dangers of drugs, used to say, "Now, Alias, some people have very imaginative minds and probably shouldn't experiment with drugs, especially hallucinogenics, whereas you, my dear, have a quiet mind, so drugs, although, still not a good idea, won't harm you in quite the same way.

> The bottom line is, (hopefully) there are many
> facets to ones personality and religion is just
> one of them. I can strongly disagree with
> someone's stance on religion and agree on many
> other issues.

Hear Hear!

> It is true that when someone tells
> me they truely believe in fairy tales that my
> overall opinion of them drops a bit.

What about Tinker Bell?

> It tells me
> they aren't a particularly deep thinker or are
> just afraid to go there.

Deep thinking? Is that code for something discusting, Numbers?

> However, if they put up
> any semblance of a reasonable argument to support
> that position, my respect for them rises again.
> Unfortunately, most of them (including you) can't
> or won't.

Why should I, Numbers. I don't run around yapping about my religious beliefs. You're the only one blathering on.

> They just have so much blind faith

I'm not blind, but I do need glasses to drive, a minor correction, actually. It's funny how I discovered my disability. I kept bumping into cars... not smashing into them, just gently hitting them, at red lights and in parking lots. Finally, after my sister witnessed a minor collision and I said, OMG, that's the first time I've ever hit anything... I confessed to my other incidents, including the hit and runs... and got glasses. Now, I see fine.

> (a symptom of insanity on any other issue)

I'm not insane, although, who knows what insanity is. Numbers, you sometimes sound a bit touched...

> that they
> feel they have to defend their god.

Where do you meet these people? Do you go out looking for weirdos?

> Now that a lot
> of people are waking up and realizing they've been
> duped, religious people suddenly feel like they're
> being attacked and feel like god is somehow being
> overthrown by the forces of EVIL.

Evil forces? Like when Stalin started executing millions?

> Then, here comes little ole Numbers, telling
> people in a little town called Fairfax that maybe
> there's a more humane way to live, with equal
> rights for all
> ... and you can't even take that.

I’m sorry Numbers. I just wasn’t listening; I have a tendency to daydream.

> You had better strap in (or strap-on in your
> case). You and your ilk have a rough ride ahead.

Will I go upside down because I don't like that. It makes me throw up.

> PS, I found your picture of George quite nice. If
> I were him about to face-off against the British
> army in those (pre-Darwin) days, I would have done
> the same thing.

It must irk you when you read that Einstein's interest in science came from his desire to understand how God had created a harmonious universe.
You remember that funny quip of his. "God does not play dice."

RV,
Whether a person named Jesus existed or not (I tend to believe there was) and for the sake of argument, lets just say there was, is really inconsequential. What we need is first party and credible eyewitnesses to the so-called miracles and the resurrection. There are too many contradictions, errors in translation, non-credible witnesses and the stories are overall pretty silly.

There is also too little known about who Jesus really was. Where did he disappear to for 30 years and wtf was he doing? My personal thoughts are that he was in Egypt being prepared for his upcoming role as messiah. He learned different cultures and philosophy (including Buddism) and blended them together.

He probably seemed like a nice guy, but inside just had a political agenda like everyone else. In the end, his purported purpose of dying for all our sins simply did nothing for anyone. People didn't suddenly change for the better and still haven't. It was all for nothing. Besides, nobody asked him to die for anyone. Many people throughout history have died for much better causes and their deaths helped far more people. Police and firemen risk their lives for us everyday and anyone that died trying to kill Hitler has far more admiration from me than Jesus.


Let's look at it another way. If someone came around today and claimed he was the messiah, what would your reaction be. If he claimed to talk to lizards and turn dirt into water, would you believe him?
Now think about it this way.
You never actually met the guy, but you read a book about him that his friends all put together telling the stories. Would you believe it?
Now take all that, and pretend it was all written 2000 years ago, by a bunch of illiterate nomads and drifters in a desert far, far away in a time when a yoyo would have been considered a miracle.

It's just not rational to believe this. And what other situation would you buy right into without a single shred of evidence?

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Gravis is living in a monastery and has taken a
> vow of silence.

I can almost believe that, at this point.


> You ARE smarter, aren't you? You are a man of
> science and I am a woman of magic.

Seems that way.



> Deep thinking? Is that code for something
> discusting, Numbers?

No, that would be "Deep Hurting"

> Why should I, Numbers. I don't run around yapping
> about my religious beliefs. You're the only one
> blathering on.


You were the one replying to me. Don't turn this around to make it seem like I confronted you about this. My questions/comments were directed at Gravis. He doesn't need you to answer for him.
So, tits or GTFO


> I'm not blind, but I do need glasses to drive, a
> minor correction, actually. It's funny how I
> discovered my disability. I kept bumping into
> cars... not smashing into them, just gently
> hitting them, at red lights and in parking lots.
> Finally, after my sister witnessed a minor
> collision and I said, OMG, that's the first time
> I've ever hit anything... I confessed to my other
> incidents, including the hit and runs... and got
> glasses. Now, I see fine.


I can believe that too.


> I'm not insane, although, who knows what insanity
> is. Numbers, you sometimes sound a bit touched...

Maybe so.


> Where do you meet these people? Do you go out
> looking for weirdos?


Yes, that's why I come here.

> Evil forces? Like when Stalin started executing
> millions?

YES, exactly.


> It must irk you when you read that Einstein's
> interest in science came from his desire to
> understand how God had created a harmonious
> universe.


No, why would that irk me?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's just not rational to believe this. And what
> other situation would you buy right into without a
> single shred of evidence?

Religion has always been a matter of belief - no doubt about it. But many religions have traditions and been practiced for far longer then you or I have been around to believe or not. Who are we to judge whether some nomad in the desert witnessed a real miracle or not? Maybe it was time travelers, who knows? In any case, the belief systems exist, and as long as they teach tolerance and understanding, I have no beef with them.

Morals and ethics don't exist in a vacuum. Much as you would like to believe in the graciousness of human nature, it is patently obvious from history that with or without religion, mankind can be a bunch of evil, stupid fucks. War can be fought over religion, or resources - pretty sure you go back through the ages and you will find that both causes are well represented. Slavery didn't evolve from religion as far as I know - but modern religions had a lot to do with why slavery went away. Religion, when used to promote tolerance and understanding, is a strong influence in guiding morals.

Science teaches us more and more about the world we live in, how "things" interact, and helps us understand the past, and possibly predict ways the future might go. But even today, we see beliefs based on "bad" science that are as much religion as any religious belief in a creator is. So if you don't want to believe in any of today's organized religions, or that there is a deity - good for you. That doesn't mean you have factual information to prove that folks who believe in these religions are nuts just for doing so. Inconsistency in supporting documents has little to do with belief systems - and that has proven time and time again. Inconsistency in many religious documents could just be due to lack of inclusion of other documents.

Sure, would I like "God" to show up in front of me and work a few miracles to prove to me that they exist? Absolutely. That would make it much easier for everyone - but just look at 9/11 - you have people like Firrat who will call you a liar to your face, even if you KNOW a plane hit the Pentagon - he wasn't there, he didn't see it, so for him, he believes you are a nut for thinking one did. Go figure huh? If we can't get it straight on an event that happened 9 years ago - then the Bible could be entirely factual for all we know.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2010 10:41PM by Registered Voter.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV,
> Whether a person named Jesus existed or not (I
> tend to believe there was) and for the sake of
> argument, lets just say there was, is really
> inconsequential. What we need is first party and
> credible eyewitnesses to the so-called miracles
> and the resurrection. There are too many
> contradictions, errors in translation,
> non-credible witnesses and the stories are overall
> pretty silly.
>
> There is also too little known about who Jesus
> really was. Where did he disappear to for 30 years
> and wtf was he doing? My personal thoughts are
> that he was in Egypt being prepared for his
> upcoming role as messiah. He learned different
> cultures and philosophy (including Buddism) and
> blended them together.
>
> He probably seemed like a nice guy, but inside
> just had a political agenda like everyone else. In
> the end, his purported purpose of dying for all
> our sins simply did nothing for anyone. People
> didn't suddenly change for the better and still
> haven't. It was all for nothing. Besides, nobody
> asked him to die for anyone. Many people
> throughout history have died for much better
> causes and their deaths helped far more people.
> Police and firemen risk their lives for us
> everyday and anyone that died trying to kill
> Hitler has far more admiration from me than
> Jesus.
>
>
> Let's look at it another way. If someone came
> around today and claimed he was the messiah, what
> would your reaction be. If he claimed to talk to
> lizards and turn dirt into water, would you
> believe him?
> Now think about it this way.
> You never actually met the guy, but you read a
> book about him that his friends all put together
> telling the stories. Would you believe it?
> Now take all that, and pretend it was all written
> 2000 years ago, by a bunch of illiterate nomads
> and drifters in a desert far, far away in a time
> when a yoyo would have been considered a miracle.
>
> It's just not rational to believe this. And what
> other situation would you buy right into without a
> single shred of evidence?


Fine, all well and good, but that still doesn't explain why atheists spread their own myths. You got caught spreading the myth of the flat earth lie. You are probably the same type of atheist that spreads the "Abraham Lincoln was an atheist" myth. As Tuttle and Mephisto pointed out earlier, atheists who look down upon followers of organized religion are really as silly as religious people who look down upon atheists. Both cling to your fantasies and repeat them over and over again without examining the facts for youtrself.

Haha - Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman - "Is there a creator?" on the Science Channel at 11pm. Too funny.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Haha - Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman -
> "Is there a creator?" on the Science Channel at
> 11pm. Too funny.


Turd alert!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Religion has always been a matter of belief - no
> doubt about it. But many religions have traditions
> and been practiced for far longer then you or I
> have been around to believe or not.

That doesn't make them true and cultures change all the time. You can say the same thing about Zeus and all the greek and roman gods. They were around for a long time too, but they're long gone now.


> Who are we to
> judge whether some nomad in the desert witnessed a
> real miracle or not?

We, humans are the guardians of this planet and it's our nature and obligation to find out who and what we are and where we came from. We also feel a need to know what happens when we die. As a result, we tend to wish that on the other side, life will somehow be better than it is here and now. We're creatures of comfort and we are wishful thinkers. But in the back of our minds we're pretty sure it doesn't work that way. If we really did, we'd all be perfect little angels for god.


> Maybe it was time travelers,
> who knows?

Somehow I find that more believable than the religious option, but still we have no supportable evidence of that, so I can't buy into it either. We may never know, but we can't give up on looking and fill the gaps with god.


> In any case, the belief systems exist,
> and as long as they teach tolerance and
> understanding, I have no beef with them.

Neither would I, if that were true. But religion is like a trojan horse. Once it gets inside, it attacks your very core by threats of hell and everlasting torture. That isn't choice and it isn't tolerance. It's capitulation.


> Morals and ethics don't exist in a vacuum. Much as
> you would like to believe in the graciousness of
> human nature, it is patently obvious from history
> that with or without religion, mankind can be a
> bunch of evil, stupid fucks.


What about before religion? Did human nature really change after the 10 commandments? After Jesus died on the cross?
NO! We're still basically apes and have a lot of evolving left to do.



> War can be fought
> over religion, or resources - pretty sure you go
> back through the ages and you will find that both
> causes are well represented. Slavery didn't evolve
> from religion as far as I know - but modern
> religions had a lot to do with why slavery went
> away.

No, human sensibilities and compassion conquered the biblical traditions of slavery. More evidence that we never needed biblical guidelines to know that killing each other only leads to more killing. If your hypothesis is correct, slavery might still exist. During the civil war and even in the 50s in this country, many of the racist bible thumpers used the old testament as an excuse for keeping slaves and denying blacks their civil rights.


> Religion, when used to promote tolerance and
> understanding, is a strong influence in guiding
> morals.


So is common sense. If not, the human species would have wiped itself out long before Moses.


> Science teaches us more and more about the world
> we live in, how "things" interact, and helps us
> understand the past, and possibly predict ways the
> future might go. But even today, we see beliefs
> based on "bad" science that are as much religion
> as any religious belief in a creator is.


Not true. If science makes a mistake, there are several other scientist there to correct it. This may take time, but that's the principle behind science. When you devise a theory about something, you present it and other scientists try desperately to disprove it. If they can't, and it makes sense based on the known laws of nature, then we can begin to accept it as true. It's a long process involving much discussion and debate to have a theory accepted by your peers.

This is the polar opposite of religion, which involves NO evidence, No discussion and no debate. All these are considered taboo in religion. Never ask questions.


> So if you
> don't want to believe in any of today's organized
> religions, or that there is a deity - good for
> you. That doesn't mean you have factual
> information to prove that folks who believe in
> these religions are nuts just for doing so.

Nuts may be a bit strong (though I've used that term a few times), but clearly it means they have an odd way of rationalizing things or they just never attempted to. Either way, it doesn't exactly instill much confidence that they are all there. I'd wonder what else they feel that way about?


> Inconsistency in supporting documents has little
> to do with belief systems - and that has proven
> time and time again. Inconsistency in many
> religious documents could just be due to lack of
> inclusion of other documents.

Yes, and....


> Sure, would I like "God" to show up in front of me
> and work a few miracles to prove to me that they
> exist? Absolutely. That would make it much easier
> for everyone - but just look at 9/11 - you have
> people like Firrat who will call you a liar to
> your face, even if you KNOW a plane hit the
> Pentagon - he wasn't there, he didn't see it, so
> for him, he believes you are a nut for thinking
> one did. Go figure huh? If we can't get it
> straight on an event that happened 9 years ago -
> then the Bible could be entirely factual for all
> we know.


Or completely false. 911 conspiracy people are similar to religious people, in that they believe things with little or no evidence, here-say, and paranoia. The fact that it's been debunked so many times, means nothing to them.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or completely false. 911 conspiracy people are
> similar to religious people, in that they believe
> things with little or no evidence, here-say, and
> paranoia. The fact that it's been debunked so many
> times, means nothing to them.

sort of like atheists and the flat earth myth?

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> sort of like atheists and the flat earth myth?


So that's pretty much all you have, huh? The flat earth complaint?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > sort of like atheists and the flat earth myth?
>
>
> So that's pretty much all you have, huh? The flat
> earth complaint?

Oh, there are plenty of fantasies that fervent atheists cling to. In that regard, they are no different than fundamentalists of any religion. Even if that was all I had, it is more than enough to poke holes in your ethos.

Don't worry. Be happy.

Numbers, you are a brave JACKASS.

YOU and your EXISTENCE had to be CREATED, NOT GOD'S!

Lastly I was reading over this page and saw the REASON for NUMBERS and Mr.Misery's solidarity in thier belief that believers are STUPID.

To reveal that reason, I must quote the great IDIOT who goeth by the name of 'NUMBERS' here on F•U.

'Numbers' wrote:
----------------------------------------
> "It's not up to science to disprove god. It's up to you to prove to yourself that he/she exists. The rest of us don't give a shit and actually hope there is no god and we'd all be better off without one."

WHY do you "HOPE there is NO GOD"? Because your SCARED of the CREATOR, whom we refer to as "God"! Oh and with the lunacy you preach, it doesn't take an EINSTEIN to figure out YOU believe that YOU would be better off without a God to answer to.


Haha, well @least you conVinced me of one thing "Numbers", and that is the FACT that you DEVIL WORSHIPERS that MASQUERADE as "ATHIESTS" are nothin' but a buncha SCARED ASS BITCHES!



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> You were the one replying to me. Don't turn this
> around to make it seem like I confronted you about
> this. My questions/comments were directed at
> Gravis. He doesn't need you to answer for him.
> So, tits or GTFO

Do you like these tits, Numbers?
Attachments:

That picture SCARES ME!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

That's a normal reaction, Mr Troll.

Numbers is saving it to his desktop.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theophilus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > It's useful for training, etc (2 Tim 3:16), but it
> > requires an interpreter or teacher (Acts 15; 1
> > Thess 5:12; Titus 2:1, 15; 1 Tim 4:11-16; 2 Tim 2:2).
>
> This is an incredibly evil concept for a religion
> whose main theme is love. "You need to believe
> what I tell you, or else you will suffer untold
> agony for all eternity. Of course it's vague and
> difficult to understand, but that's because you're
> not qualified to interpret it properly. However,
> I am, and you can totally trust me, like, for reals."
>
> To me, that's like saying, "You can either get in
> this beat up old van and have some of my free
> candy, or your parents will die tonight. Trust me."

If those passages necessarily implied the consequences you describe, I would agree they are incredibly evil.

But I don't think they do.

Because they are run by human beings, hierarchical systems always come with an inherent risk of corruption, negligence, and stupidity.

OTOH, such systems can achieve great good in this world far beyond the capacity of unorganized individuals. For both sides of the coin, think US govt, US military.

So far as we know, Jesus did not write down a single word, much less a book. Instead, for better or worse, he trained a group of men for 3 years, and then sent them forth with a mission, Mt 28:19, which he identifies with his own mission, John 20:21.

Human systems will always be beset by human weakness. When this takes place in the context of the gospel, when it is preached without love, it is a particular scandal, which has the obvious effect of driving people away from rather than towards faith.

At the same time, Christianity itself, pure and undefiled, reflects a scandal to the modern mind, what has been called "the scandal of particularity," ie, Christ's claim that "no one comes to the Father but by me."



> "You need to believe what I tell you, or else you will suffer untold
> agony for all eternity.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." Mt 5:29-30

Yes, that's a hard saying. There's no two ways about it.



> It really comes down to this: If there's even one
> obvious error or contradiction in the Bible, then
> everything in it must be questioned...

Questioned, yes. Summarily repudiated, on the basis of one such obvious error or contradiction? If the Bible has even the smallest error, does Christianity fall apart? With all respect, this strikes me as extreme, as the imposition of an impossible theoretical standard which no human text can survive.

The Bible is very important, but we are not saved by the Bible. We are saved by Christ, to whom the Bible points.

The issue then for me - for what it's worth - is the historical reliability of the New Testament as a stepping-stone to Christ. I think there is a good deal of evidence for that reliability, which I sketched in some detail here: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/236943/238169.html#msg-238169 (9/8/09 10:54PM). In all seriousness, I would be happy to discuss that with you further, if you were interested.

That said, I realize these wordy posts are rather useless. What's needed, of course, is prayer.

"God’s mercy is infinite like God Himself. If we lay open our soul to Him with all its infirmities and sins, His Divine gaze penetrates this abyss of which we cannot see the bottom. His gaze goes into the most hidden recesses and brings us strength and light." http://vultus.stblogs.org/2009/01/blessed-abbot-marmion-on-the-m.html



> > First of all, virtually every text is open to
> > interpretation. Biblical, legal, literary, etc.
>
> Of course. When people pass the NIV off as the
> infallable word of God, though, that means you're
> just supposed to accept it at face value, not
> interpret it.

I suppose there are people who hold that position, but I don't think it's even possible to read the gospels in a serious fashion without interpreting them. Such matters as communion and baptism require taking a particular interpretive stance.

Which brings to mind Mark Twain's remark, when asked if he believed in infant baptism: "Believe it? Hell! I've seen it done."



> Throw in hundreds (if not thousands) of different
> translations over many, many generations as well.
> I'd bet my life that the King James Bible bears
> little resemblence to what people actually wrote
> down in their native language, in the beginning.

Translation is a serious and challenging issue - no question - but there is a strong case to be made for the reliability of the biblical text based on the manuscript evidence. These are of course in the nature of historical, not mathematical proofs.



> I was raised to believe that the Bible is the
> perfect and infallable word of God, yes. Whenever
> I found something that made me question that, I
> was told that even asking those questions was a
> sin. Eventually, I couldn't stand the guilt and
> fear anymore.

Many aspects of the modern world raise serious questions for Christianity, which shouldn't be suppressed. Indeed, the ancient problem of suffering posed in Job is very much with us still.

I'm not sure what would be the basis for holding that asking questions is a sin; the necessity of a childlike faith? That seems a stretch. To tell a young man that asking questions is a sin seems to me not only misguided and wrong, but contrary to the letter and spirit of the New Testament properly understood, 1 Pt 3:15.



> The big JC himself never once said anything about
> anybody's sex life outside of the "coveting your
> neighbor's wife" thing.

He did say this: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." Mt 15:19-20.

IOW, he put fornication in the same category with murder, as something that defiles a man.

He also said: "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and in the same breath spoke of gouging out one's eye, etc, as preferable to sin. Mt 5:28-29.

If merely looking constitutes grave sin, what of doing? Need he have belabored the point?

Thankfully, he didn't say a word about internet pr0n, so at least we don't have to worry about that!



> 'Twas Saul who first
> wrote condemnations against gays. That's the same
> Saul who used to persecute Christians until he saw
> how much they thrived under persecution. The same
> Saul who went out by himself into the desert, had
> a vision from God, came back calling himself Paul,
> and went on to establish the church as we know it.

To address this would take us into deep waters, and this post is already verging on the dreaded tl;dr response.

Respectfully, I don't think the supposed dichotomy between Paul and Christ, a notion which arose out of German Higher Criticism and was popularized, in a sense, by Nietzsche, can withstand close criticism, and your specific observation about Paul establishing the church even less so. I could address this at greater (and doubtless boring) length if you were interested, but doing theology on FU would feel weird, like reading the Bible at a strip club.



> If I were to go into the woods and tell people
> that Jesus came to me and said I need to spread
> His message that we should stop persecuting
> homosexuals, I doubt anyone would believe me.

If stopping persecution = discovering a right to SSM in the Constitution that would indeed be a miracle of eisegesis (but then many of our judges are veritable miracle-workers when it comes to pulling formerly unknown rabbits out of that venerable document).

How bout a little fire, scarecrow!

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How bout a little fire, scarecrow!
>
>

While comedic and an interesting take, it fails to impress or enlighten. It really is typical atheist drivel, albeit delivered in an entertaining fashion. I am sure you regurguate the Hitchens speech and adhere to it as often as you adhere to the other debunked tenets of atheist ethos.

I respect your opinion, am considering your responses, and enjoying the conversation. Please don't take anything I'm saying as combative or dismissive. I wish more discussions on here were like this.

Theophilus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If those passages necessarily implied the
> consequences you describe, I would agree they are
> incredibly evil.
>
> But I don't think they do.

The key word here is "think." We agree that the Bible is not 100% clear, and open to interpretation. Even with the best of intentions, though, the interpretation can be wrong. Even if not evil, it's dangerous to have the key to eternal salvation or damnation even open to interpretation. If Paul (for example) taught Jesus's teachings the way he THOUGHT they were supposed to be and was wrong, he would inadvertantly be leading people on the path to Hell.

It would seem to me that if Jesus was God in the flesh, and God so loved the world that he gave us His only son so we may be saved, he would have taken the time to write something down himself so there wouldn't BE any question.

I mean, God can come down and tell two people explicitly which tree they're not allowed to eat from and write some stuff on stone tablets, but he can't put in a little effort to help billions avoid eternal suffering when he arbitrarily decides to change the rules? It strikes me as more than a little apathetic for a God of love, or pretty sloppy for an omniscient and omnipotent being.

> Because they are run by human beings, hierarchical
> systems always come with an inherent risk of
> corruption, negligence, and stupidity.
>
> OTOH, such systems can achieve great good in this
> world far beyond the capacity of unorganized
> individuals. For both sides of the coin, think US
> govt, US military.

The church has done some really great things in the world, I'll agree. Most critics tend to focus only on the bad. Charity programs, assistance for the needy, mission work... these things have helped people.

But, the consequences associated with the risk of misinterpreting the teachings of Christ (meaning, your eternal soul) are much more severe than the consequences of any earthly risks.

> So far as we know, Jesus did not write down a
> single word, much less a book. Instead, for
> better or worse, he trained a group of men for 3
> years, and then sent them forth with a mission, Mt
> 28:19, which he identifies with his own mission,
> John 20:21.

Have you ever considered that maybe Satan, in his attempt to lure people away from God, gave people this red herring of Jesus Christ? That maybe God's laws and rules never changed, and that Christianity is the devil's scheme?

> "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out
> and throw it away. It is better for you to lose
> one part of your body than for your whole body to
> be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes
> you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is
> better for you to lose one part of your body than
> for your whole body to go into hell." Mt 5:29-30
>
> Yes, that's a hard saying. There's no two ways
> about it.

So should that be taken literally or figuratively? If we're to take that literally, there wouldn't be a single church in the world with a single member still in posession of both hands and eyes. Figuratively, you can say that passage is telling you to remove the things from your life that cause you to sin, but the Bible isn't very clear on when it's being literal or figurative.

> Questioned, yes. Summarily repudiated, on the
> basis of one such obvious error or contradiction?
> If the Bible has even the smallest error, does
> Christianity fall apart? With all respect, this
> strikes me as extreme, as the imposition of an
> impossible theoretical standard which no human
> text can survive.

It is extreme, but it's the only rational conclusion to the idea that the Bible is the infallable word of God, 100% factual, and completely without error. It's also the way the scientific method works. For a theory to become a law, there must be no error, no contradiction, no flaws. If there's even one inconsistency, then it's not fact.

But, that's only if you're saying the Bible is perfect and flawless, which you are not.

> The Bible is very important, but we are not saved
> by the Bible. We are saved by Christ, to whom the
> Bible points.
>
> The issue then for me - for what it's worth - is
> the historical reliability of the New Testament as
> a stepping-stone to Christ. I think there is a
> good deal of evidence for that reliability, which
> I sketched in some detail here:
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/23
> 6943/238169.html#msg-238169 (9/8/09 10:54PM). In
> all seriousness, I would be happy to discuss that
> with you further, if you were interested.

I would read that now, but I'm getting word fatigue. I didn't realize that you were also present in that thread, so sorry if I'm re-iterating some of the stuff I said over there.

> I suppose there are people who hold that position,
> but I don't think it's even possible to read the
> gospels in a serious fashion without interpreting
> them. Such matters as communion and baptism
> require taking a particular interpretive stance.
>
> Which brings to mind Mark Twain's remark, when
> asked if he believed in infant baptism: "Believe
> it? Hell! I've seen it done."

Well, is the death and resurrection of Christ literal or figurative? Did he literally turn water into wine, or was that just someone's opinion of what actually happened?

> Translation is a serious and challenging issue -
> no question - but there is a strong case to be
> made for the reliability of the biblical text
> based on the manuscript evidence. These are of
> course in the nature of historical, not
> mathematical proofs.

Agreed, but mathematical proofs are not open to interpretation or opinion. If I wrote "if x=2, then x2+3=7" on a piece of paper, that would still be true thousands of years later. It's just not a fair argument to call something as subjective as third-party multiple-translations "fact."

> I'm not sure what would be the basis for holding
> that asking questions is a sin; the necessity of a
> childlike faith? That seems a stretch. To tell a
> young man that asking questions is a sin seems to
> me not only misguided and wrong, but contrary to
> the letter and spirit of the New Testament
> properly understood, 1 Pt 3:15.

I always got slapped in the face with, "Thou shalt not question the Lord, thy God."

I asked my minister about astral projection one time after reading about it in a book when I was 13 or 14. I was told it was akin to witchcraft, and thus a tool of the Devil. No explanation past that, and searching for answers on my own was the path of sin.

> He did say this: "For out of the heart come evil
> thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
> thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the
> things which defile the man; but to eat with
> unwashed hands does not defile the man." Mt
> 15:19-20.

I stand corrected. It does raise the question though... If adultery (cheating on a spouse) and fornication (sex between unmarried people) is wrong, then why can't gays get married (according to popular Christianity)?

> IOW, he put fornication in the same category with
> murder, as something that defiles a man.
>
> He also said: "I tell you that anyone who looks at
> a woman lustfully has already committed adultery
> with her in his heart," and in the same breath
> spoke of gouging out one's eye, etc, as preferable
> to sin. Mt 5:28-29.

I would contend that this is like saying, "Whoever looks at a delicious pie and wants to eat it has already committed the sin of gluttony," but I'm not going to argue with Jesus. Frankly, I think the anti-homo crowd would be more worried about a guy who DIDN'T look at a pretty girl "lustfully." This is personal opinion, though.

> If merely looking constitutes grave sin, what of
> doing? Need he have belabored the point?
>
> Thankfully, he didn't say a word about internet
> pr0n, so at least we don't have to worry about
> that!

I know you're joking, but that's looking at a woman lustfully, and masturbation is a sin, too (thanks, Onan).

> To address this would take us into deep waters,
> and this post is already verging on the dreaded
> tl;dr response.

I'm reading it, but it's taken me literally all day to respond. I'm considering everything you're saying.

> Respectfully, I don't think the supposed dichotomy
> between Paul and Christ, a notion which arose out
> of German Higher Criticism and was popularized, in
> a sense, by Nietzsche, can withstand close
> criticism, and your specific observation about
> Paul establishing the church even less so.

I like Nietzsche, but I wasn't aware this was an idea of his. I don't even know what German Higher Criticism is. I kind of came to that conclusion on my own, after seeing how easy it is for televangelists to get away with what they're doing in the Information Age. It wouldn't have taken a lot of effort on Paul's part to pull this off, especially since he was already well-known.

> I could address this at greater (and doubtless
> boring) length if you were interested, but doing
> theology on FU would feel weird, like reading the
> Bible at a strip club.

Frankly, this is a discussion more suited towards an actual conversation, instead of replies over a message board. Maybe we can compromise someday, and discuss this at a strip club.

> If stopping persecution = discovering a right to
> SSM in the Constitution that would indeed be a
> miracle of eisegesis (but then many of our judges
> are veritable miracle-workers when it comes to
> pulling formerly unknown rabbits out of that
> venerable document).

Without straying into politics (which would surely test the character limit for future responses)... How can anyone claim a "sanctity of marriage" or "institution of marriage" when the divorce rate is 50% across the boards, even in the church? Getting divorced and re-marrying counts as adultery, as I was taught.

Good talk. Please don't respond too quickly. I need time to decompress by calling people "fags" and "retards" and posting funny pictures of cats.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Mr. Mephisto wrote:
----------------------------------
>I stand corrected. It does raise the question though... If adultery (cheating on a spouse) and fornication (sex between unmarried people) is wrong, then why can't gays get married (according to popular Christianity)?


Answer:

MARRAIGE in the eyes of God is BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
(promotes creation, otherwise it is an UNgodly act of fornication.)

That is why.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good talk.

I agree. I appreciate your comments and observations, and enjoyed reading your response.


> Please don't respond too quickly. I need time to decompress

Good thought, that. Feel the same way myself. Will take some time to digest things and mull them over. A welcome luxury in the discussion board context.

Deep waters, bra, and not unmuddy.

Cheers.

Mephisto,
Be warned, these people can wear you out with their nothingness. For a moment, I thought this might become an interesting and entertaining debate. Unfortunately, all they have to offer is scripture to quote, names to call you, trivial and banal issues like "Flat Earth" and "Abe Lincoln's religion" that no one even gives a shit about and endless circular logic.

They make no attempt to rationally dispute any pertinent claims I've made and they offer no explanations for inconsistencies in their dogma. In true inquisition form, they go right into baseless character accusations and scripture quoting.

In other blogs, I've had some pretty interesting debates with christians and theists, but you're not gonna get that here. The people defending creationism and religion here are pathetic and an embarrassment to their case.

You probably already knew all this, but if not, prepare yourself for line after line of nothingness.

Numbers wrote:
>You probably already knew all this, but if not, prepare yourself for line after line of nothingness.

ARE YOU REFERING TO YOUR OWN POSTS, you mindless and spineless douchebag???


By the way asshole,
That was a mighty WEAK retort!!!

I actually expected more from you 'Numbers', you CHICKENSHIT DEVIL WORSHIPER.




.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Here I am last night during a goat sacrifice. Tonight, I'm going to call on Satan to curse Troll@aol

I have something special planned for you.
Attachments:

Haha, jokes on you fool!

Satan is my sidekick, dummy.






.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They make no attempt to rationally dispute any
> pertinent claims I've made and they offer no
> explanations for inconsistencies in their dogma.
> In true inquisition form, they go right into
> baseless character accusations and scripture
> quoting.

I think Mr. Theophilus is nice. He's not being condescending, not being insulting, and has a clear understanding of what he's talking about. If either side takes an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach before the discussion even begins, there is no discussion.

Religion is a lot like politics; there's no absolute, 100% factual explanation for why one side is correct and one side is wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If either side takes an "I'm right, you're wrong"
> approach before the discussion even begins, there
> is no discussion.

I prefer to take an "I'm right or convince me" approach. If you don't think you're right about something, why enter the discussion other than to simply ask questions? This is the reason I don't discuss most politics in this forum. There are many others here more qualified to make points on all sides. I read most of them all and enjoy the ensuing shitstorm.

However, having been "in the business" for 25 years, I know a fair amount about religion and non-religion. That's not to say I'm right about everything, but until someone offers a lucid response to my position, I feel pretty good about it.

Mr. Theopolis has not addressed me in this thread, but I've read the posts between you two. He has indeed been gracious in his posts. I don't share his position on most of his points, but at least he's trying, whereas the others I've been dealing with don't even bother.



> Religion is a lot like politics; there's no
> absolute, 100% factual explanation for why one
> side is correct and one side is wrong.


I don't equate religion and politics at all, other than they are both corrupt beyond repair. Neither politics or religion requires 100% factual explanation. The difference is politics are verifiable in most cases (if one really wants to know), religion cannot be verified at all, by anyone, (no matter how much one wants to know). Time can often help clear the air on political issues when the people involved die, the records are released and the truth is revealed (in some cases). Religion, on the other hand, becomes even more blurry and once exposed to the gossip chain and politics, becomes indistinguishable.


I never saw politics as being between two sides, although it often seems that way. There are always at least 3 sides, left, right and the politician him/herself. Throw in all the outside agents affecting all 3 and you have a multi- dimensional quagmire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2010 09:16PM by Numbers.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mephisto,
> Be warned, these people can wear you out with
> their nothingness. For a moment, I thought this
> might become an interesting and entertaining
> debate. Unfortunately, all they have to offer is
> scripture to quote, names to call you, trivial and
> banal issues like "Flat Earth" and "Abe Lincoln's
> religion" that no one even gives a shit about and
> endless circular logic.
>
> They make no attempt to rationally dispute any
> pertinent claims I've made and they offer no
> explanations for inconsistencies in their dogma.
> In true inquisition form, they go right into
> baseless character accusations and scripture
> quoting.
>
> In other blogs, I've had some pretty interesting
> debates with christians and theists, but you're
> not gonna get that here. The people defending
> creationism and religion here are pathetic and an
> embarrassment to their case.
>
> You probably already knew all this, but if not,
> prepare yourself for line after line of
> nothingness.

Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have done is point out your spreading of myths and lies (which I have yet to see you recant) to promote your own atheist ethos, which is no different than any other fundamentalist. You seem to mistake me for someone that has a vested interest in defending organized religion. You couldn't be further from the truth. Point to one instance in which I supported creationism or any other simplistic view of the world. In fact, I said creationists are about as empty headed and self thinking as you are.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have done
> is point out your spreading of myths and lies

You've made you're stance on Flat Earth clear (which I still don't buy), but what other "myths and lies" have I put forth?


> You seem to mistake me
> for someone that has a vested interest in
> defending organized religion. You couldn't be
> further from the truth.

Then why do you give a shit? All you ever point to in the Flat Earth argument that no one gives a shit about anyway. Why would this even concern "atheists"? I see it as more a figure of speech than anything else and it doesn't make or break either position. Why are you so obsessed with Flat Earth?


> Point to one instance in
> which I supported creationism or any other
> simplistic view of the world. In fact, I said
> creationists are about as empty headed and self
> thinking as you are.


So tell us then, what are your views on the origins of man and the cosmos? You can't just waltz in here, criticize everyone, not state your position and then expect anyone here to give you an ounce of credibility. At this point, you're just a troll and an amateur one at best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2010 10:33AM by Numbers.

people,
i implore you to cease this conversation as it's a waste of time.

you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

•Origin of the cosmos
•Gravity
•Conciousness

or here is an easy one, magnets. You find a scientist who has an indepth understanding about MAGNETS, a tangible object you can hold in your hand that is here on this planet. Because if you can NOT find me one scientist who has an understanding of a simple inanimate object like a fucking magnet and explain it to me clearly , then you can NOT tell me you or they have an understanding of the universe which we can NOT STUDY or touch and have ZERO comprehension of. Sorry even Einstein knew he relatively knew NOTHING about the balance of the universe. Hell look at what a marvel our bodies are, an infinately detailed and intricate system, that would be a crying shame to try and wish up its existance to be a wonderful fluke of chances in some primordial ooze. On that note lets not even begin talking about souls or spirits.

-yeah this all sounds like something you can make in a Science lab, have fun in HELL 'Numbers'.

Your stuborn simpleton attitude is really starting to make me laugh.
Unfortunately there may be no help for you. Some are destined to be blind, and that is thier role in life.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Gravis wrote:
>you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.



Ha, nice one!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.

Sure you can. Just put wheels and a motor on it, then ask politely.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Gravis,
I certainly didn't expect that my asking you a simple question would result in this 2 page troll feeding trough, but out of respect for your long tenure here at FFU, I will end my part in it now.

Yeah bail out, out of 'RESPECT'. What a fuckin' loser you are.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.
>
> Sure you can. Just put wheels and a motor on it,
> then ask politely.

i tried that already! as a fellow lizar-uhh... nevermind. >_>

---

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> out of respect for your long tenure here at FFU

dude, that's just retarded and not a reason to respect someone but thanks anyway. ;)

vince has been here a long time and i dont think people respect him which is likely due of his poor behavior.

please rethink your qualifications for respect. :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Learn how to spell son.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> •Origin of the cosmos
> •Gravity
> •Conciousness
>
> or here is an easy one, magnets. You find a
> scientist who has an indepth understanding about
> MAGNETS, a tangible object you can hold in your
> hand that is here on this planet. Because if you
> can NOT find me one scientist who has an
> understanding of a simple inanimate object like a
> fucking magnet and explain it to me clearly , then
> you can NOT tell me you or they have an
> understanding of the universe which we can NOT
> STUDY or touch and have ZERO comprehension of.
> Sorry even Einstein knew he relatively knew
> NOTHING about the balance of the universe. Hell
> look at what a marvel our bodies are, an
> infinately detailed and intricate system, that
> would be a crying shame to try and wish up its
> existance to be a wonderful fluke of chances in
> some primordial ooze. On that note lets not even
> begin talking about souls or spirits.
>
> -yeah this all sounds like something you can make
> in a Science lab, have fun in HELL 'Numbers'.
>
> Your stuborn simpleton attitude is really starting
> to make me laugh.
> Unfortunately there may be no help for you. Some
> are destined to be blind, and that is thier role
> in life.

Okay, I'll learn to 'spell', and you learn how not to be a sorryass faggot devilworshiper that has multiple personalities and talks to his/(but more likely) herself. Now go on and get a life. Did I spell that correct you loser?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have
> done
> > is point out your spreading of myths and lies
>
> You've made you're stance on Flat Earth clear
> (which I still don't buy), but what other "myths
> and lies" have I put forth?

So, you are standing by the flat earth myth? You stand by the fact that ALL people of a religious persuasion refuse to get innoculations despite the fact that the inventor of modern day innoculations was a religious man? You spit in the face of all medical accomplihments that were made by followers of Islam (which were numerous by the way)?

BTW, I have actually known atheists that refuse to get their children innoculated for fear of autism.

> > You seem to mistake me
> > for someone that has a vested interest in
> > defending organized religion. You couldn't be
> > further from the truth.
>
> Then why do you give a shit? All you ever point to
> in the Flat Earth argument that no one gives a
> shit about anyway. Why would this even concern
> "atheists"? I see it as more a figure of speech
> than anything else and it doesn't make or break
> either position. Why are you so obsessed with Flat
> Earth?

To the contrary. You are the one obsessed with ensuring your atheism is the enlightened view. No? You and your kind spread false rumors to support your tenuous position.

> > Point to one instance in
> > which I supported creationism or any other
> > simplistic view of the world. In fact, I said
> > creationists are about as empty headed and self
> > thinking as you are.
>
>
> So tell us then, what are your views on the
> origins of man and the cosmos? You can't just
> waltz in here, criticize everyone, not state your
> position and then expect anyone here to give you
> an ounce of credibility. At this point, you're
> just a troll and an amateur one at best.


Oh, so anyone that disagrees with the almighty Numbers MUST be a troll, right? You have cornered the market on intellectual superiority? My views? Well, I was raised a Christian, explored other religions, declared myself an atheist. What then? I realized every atheist I met was no different than any other religious fool I had encountered.

My conclusion? I don't know. If there is a higher being, so be it, if not, so be it. There is no proof of an existance and there is no way to disprove it. I am comfortable with my position. I don't discount the fact that there is a higher being and I don't discount there is not.

When atheists (like yourself), insult the intelligence of others that believe in a higher being, it only shows the limitations you have put upon yourself.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2 0 88 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have
> > done
> > > is point out your spreading of myths and lies
> >
> > You've made you're stance on Flat Earth clear
> > (which I still don't buy), but what other
> "myths
> > and lies" have I put forth?
>
> So, you are standing by the flat earth myth? You
> stand by the fact that ALL people of a religious
> persuasion refuse to get innoculations despite the
> fact that the inventor of modern day innoculations
> was a religious man? You spit in the face of all
> medical accomplihments that were made by followers
> of Islam (which were numerous by the way)?
>
> BTW, I have actually known atheists that refuse to
> get their children innoculated for fear of autism.
>
>
> > > You seem to mistake me
> > > for someone that has a vested interest in
> > > defending organized religion. You couldn't
> be
> > > further from the truth.
> >
> > Then why do you give a shit? All you ever point
> to
> > in the Flat Earth argument that no one gives a
> > shit about anyway. Why would this even concern
> > "atheists"? I see it as more a figure of speech
> > than anything else and it doesn't make or break
> > either position. Why are you so obsessed with
> Flat
> > Earth?
>
> To the contrary. You are the one obsessed with
> ensuring your atheism is the enlightened view. No?
> You and your kind spread false rumors to support
> your tenuous position.
>
> > > Point to one instance in
> > > which I supported creationism or any other
> > > simplistic view of the world. In fact, I
> said
> > > creationists are about as empty headed and
> self
> > > thinking as you are.
> >
> >
> > So tell us then, what are your views on the
> > origins of man and the cosmos? You can't just
> > waltz in here, criticize everyone, not state
> your
> > position and then expect anyone here to give
> you
> > an ounce of credibility. At this point, you're
> > just a troll and an amateur one at best.
>
>
> Oh, so anyone that disagrees with the almighty
> Numbers MUST be a troll, right? You have cornered
> the market on intellectual superiority? My views?
> Well, I was raised a Christian, explored other
> religions, declared myself an atheist. What then?
> I realized every atheist I met was no different
> than any other religious fool I had encountered.
>
>
> My conclusion? I don't know. If there is a
> higher being, so be it, if not, so be it. There
> is no proof of an existance and there is no way to
> disprove it. I am comfortable with my position.
> I don't discount the fact that there is a higher
> being and I don't discount there is not.
>
> When atheists (like yourself), insult the
> intelligence of others that believe in a higher
> being, it only shows the limitations you have put
> upon yourself.


Actually, this makes more sense than the nonsense I have seen around. So what if Numbers is right? So what if 2 0 88 is right? Are they mutually exclusive positions?