NationStates Jolt Archive

Text of UN Bill:

Promote Smoking

We find that when our citizens smoke, this habit supplants other, more socially destructive, urges. Such as extramarital and other unnatural sex, more dangerous narcotics like heroin and crack, laziness, atheism, and many more socially harmful vices.

Besides, our medical advisors assure us that smoking "tastes good and is good for you!" Some anti-smoking crusaders have challenged this on the basis that our medical advisors are private firms, thus susceptible to pressure group financiers, but this is certainly alarmist nihilism.

We simply outlaw smoking in most public places and let our alert, nicotine-using employees have small isolated areas in which to smoke. They have to clock out for smoke breaks, of course. We don't pay them to enjoy the full flavor of our wonderful products.

This bill allows your UN member nation and region to set its own standards for the use of tobacco products. If you want to regulate it to the point that smokers must apply for licenses, have tracking devices implanted in their bone marrow, and smoke only in specially built air-purifying rooms in the basements of their homes, fine. If you want to allow smoking anywhere, anytime, including around gas pumps, that is fine also. This bill simply mandates that, whatever the government regulations on the practice, citizens of UN member nations have the fundamental moral right to their flavorful tobacco smokes. And chewing tobacco, or “chaw.”

Without further ado, please endorse this bill, and enjoy the taste sensation of New Mighty Capitalist Überpower™ Patriot Filter Lights™! Allow the joy of smoking to fuel your docile workforce. Think of the children! Would you rather they be molested by frustrated smokers denied access to their nicotine? Give the citizens of the UN world the right to buy cigarettes and fuel the global economy, while consensually reducing overpopulation problems, in the safety of designated smoking-approved zones.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

p.s. Just do it!

End of bill text.


Note: if you voted for either of the first two options in the poll, you should support this proposal. If you voted for any of the last three options in the poll, you should not support this proposal.

Note: the note at the end of the previous post is inaccurate, but I am afraid to edit it again because it may automatically delete my poll again. Apologies, but it seems the poll editing is a bit buggy.

It should read: if you voted for options #1, #2, #3, #4 or #6 in the poll, you should support this proposal. If you voted for options #5, #7 or #8 in the poll, you should not support this proposal.


The previous post was the text of the bill. This post will summarize my arguments and responses regarding why nations ought to give their endorsements to the proposal:

1.) Intentions.

Yes, this bill was written to oppose the ridiculous Outlaw Smoking proposal which immediately precedes it in the voting queue. My bill, Promote Smoking, gives nations the mandate to protect their citizens’ moral right to enjoy full flavored tobacco products, while other nations seek to outlaw tobacco as an illegal drug similar to crack and heroin. This is absurd. What’s next, caffeine? Sugar? MSG? Meat?

2.) Writing style.

Some have argued against the bill due to the style of writing used. Some have even gone so far as to suggest the writing style disqualifies it as a bill:


I'd refer you to http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3218482#3218482 and note that your proposal is comparable to the first deleted proposal. I suspect yours will go to the same fate.


I have thoroughly reviewed all the rules on proposals, and though there are style guidelines and suggestions, bills are not disqualified purely for writing style. The deleted proposal you refer to was deleted because it required no concrete action.

This bill does: it (1) mandates all UN nations to allow their citizens the basic moral right to smoke, and (2) gives all UN nations the right to regulate the use of tobacco products as they see fit within their sovereign borders. This is quite clear in the bill, and definitely constitutes action. It is not detailed because the bill spells out clearly that the way in which such rights are regulated is up to individual nations. It does not have to be detailed, because it is non-intrusive.

Look at the Abortion Rights bill, which passed with all of one sentence!

It is irresponsible of any UN nation to make an important policy decision based on their stylistic preferences in regards to writing.

The question is: do you think smoking should be made illegal in all UN member nations, overriding the national and individual sovereignty of your own and every other UN member nation? If so, vote for my opponent’s bill, Outlaw Smoking.

If on the other hand, you would like to keep the right of your nation to allow your citizens to smoke full flavored tobacco products, to allow your agricultural businesses to sell full flavored tobacco on the world market, and to regulate flavorful tobacco use as tightly or loosely as you see fit within your sovereign borders (which includes your nation’s right to launch educational campaigns about the dangers of smoking, as well as placing restrictions on where and when people may use tobacco), vote for my bill, Promote Smoking.

3.) Supporting the content but “strongly rejecting” the bill anyways.

The Holy Empire of Sporkeric will not support this bill whatsoever. Though we do not beleive tobacco should be outlawed all together we refuse to encourage the dangerous and unhealthy practice.
We strongly disagree. Smoking is unhealthy and reduces life expectancy. It is also increasing the likelyhood of cancer tremendously. We therefore encourage our citizens to stop smoking - however we don´t ban it completly except in areas were not smokers are affected (restaurants, cafes, e.g. - they may open a smoking area). We have to strongly reject this proposal

Both of these posters seem deeply confused. They refuse to support Promote Smoking even though it clearly allows them to pursue exactly the policies they recommend: if your government opposes smoking, and wants to regulate where smoking is allowed and educate people about the dangers of smoking, this bill supports your nation’s right to do so, while also protecting the right of individuals to smoke and agricultural businesses to sell tobacco.

Outlaw Smoking, on the other hand, takes away your right to enact the policies you recommend, and forces you to ban tobacco completely.

4.) National issues.

A national issue already covers a nations right to choose what limits or lack of limits to place on smoking. To the point of complete freedom, or complete ban. And something in the middle of those points if I remember correctly.
Considering the number of proposals of late that have been pulled directly from the issues list, I dont blame him (or her, as the case may be).


This is correct. There is also a national issue that allows nations to ban or allow abortion. A UN bill passed recently which forces all UN nations to allow abortion. The fact that something is already a national issue does not prevent the UN from considering it.

5.) Particulars about the benefits and drawbacks of tobacco smoking.

About the only reason I can think of that heroin and crack users wouldn't smoke tobacco is that their fool habit renders them bankrupt… But tobacco itself is also a costly vice - both monetarily and for one's health.

How does it prevent extramarital sex? What is it that folks traditionally do after sex - extramarital or otherwise? You've seen it in any number of movies, no doubt. They light up! :lol:

Surely you'd save more money in the long run if you did away with smoking? Everything you lost in revenue you'd more than make up for in not having to deal with those pesky pesky law-suits claiming that it causes cancer, not to mention all that money in taxpayer dollars, having to pay for operations, etc for cancer?

My bill, Promote Smoking, allows each nation to decide for itself how harmful or beneficial it considers smoking, and how or whether to regulate it.

That said, our nation currently allows but tightly regulates smoking. We outlaw heroin and crack. Stiff punishments deter people from heroin and crack use, but not smoking, because our nation considers heroin and crack to be much more harmful than tobacco, both to the individual and to society.

Yes, tobacco is costly, but we allow our citizens the right to determine what costs they choose to accept. We are not a communist nation – we believe people should be allowed to spend their hard earned Almighty Dollars as they see fit, even on habits that are harmful to themselves (but not to others).

As for extramarital sex, our studies find that habitual smokers have a harder time soliciting sexual partners. Survey data indicate this may be due to any or all of the following: “bad breath,” “yellow teeth,” “smell on clothes,” and a perception among citizens of The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™, that “smokers are less moral than non-smokers, and thus more likely to be promiscuous, and thus more likely to be carriers of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.” Our government has very rigorous moral training in schools and television programming.

As for the repeated concern that tobacco use “shortens lifespan,” to this we say, “so what?” The world faces a drastic overpopulation problem as things stand, and smoking is one excellent, enjoyable, flavorful, and onsensual to address this problem. We do not force people in our nation to smoke, so this lifespan shortening is entirely voluntary. Similarly, we do not ban meat eating, which has also been shown to shorten lifespan. We also do not outlaw automobiles, which shorten lifespan both through pollution and crashes.

We allow individuals to decide how they will consume products, whether they choose to exercise, or whether to do other things to lengthen or shorten their lifespan.

We do not allow lawsuits against companies for the health dangers about which the consumer has been warned. We have clear warning labels on all our flavorful smokes. Such lawsuits are thrown out of court by judges and the claimants are mocked throughout the nation - the same as any fool who sues a knife manufacturer for intentional self-injury with the companies’ products. The companies being sued have the right to sue such claimants for frivolous lawsuits. Tobacco remains a profitable market sector for The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™.

6.) Ambiguous statement by Gigatron.

Nations may or may not allow or disallow smoking as they please due to certain abilities as a nation. Gigatron does not limit its citizens in regards to what they do for or against their health. We leave it to each and everyone and do not limit if a citizen wishes to smoke. However, since the natural and scientifically proven - healthy way is to not smoke, we protect our non-smokers by limiting smoking to locations outside of buildings, unless the building is the home of the smoker, where he/she may do whatever he/she pleases with their cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos or chaw.

Our nation has very similar policies. This bill is intended to protect our nation’s right to continue to uphold such policies. In fact, we are even stricter. Not only do we disallow smoking inside of buildings, but even in outdoor locations in close proximity to others who are not known to be smokers themselves. Thus, smokers can have picnics together if they are a safe distance from others, but they cannot stand right next to a non-smoker in the park and blow smoke towards them. We have countless other regulations regarding smoking, all of which make it difficult, but possible, to be a smoker in our nation.

You do not say whether you support or oppose the proposal. You should support it for the reasons outlined in point 3, above.

7.) Besides, think of the indians!

They consider tobacco sacred. What are we supposed to do, outlaw their religion?

And deny our people the full flavor of Indigenous Spirits™, our special organically grown line of Mighty Capitalist Überpower™ tobacco products, specially blessed in a Sun Ritual complete with hanging hooks by an America the American Shatowkataw Shaman?

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

post a copy of the proposal on here please.

ACK!!! Where did my poll go? I just edited my first post to add a ™ and it disappeared! Fie!

Editing polls almost always removes them completely, unfortunately.

post a copy of the proposal on here please.

Our entire first post on this thread, beginning with "We find that..." and ending with "p.s. Just do it!" is the text of the proposal. Our second post is our first commentary on why this bill should be passed.

Thank you for your interest!

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

post a copy of the proposal on here please.

Our entire first post on this thread, beginning with "We find that..." and ending with "p.s. Just do it!" is the text of the proposal. Our second post is our first commentary on why this bill should be passed.

Thank you for your interest!

The DSH will not be supporting the proposal - it is poorly written and poorly researched. I'd refer you to http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3218482#3218482 and note that your proposal is comparable to the first deleted proposal. I suspect yours will go to the same fate.

Write it better, and it might do well. Have a look at the resolution writing guide.

This bill allows your UN member nation and region to set its own standards for the use of tobacco products. If you want to regulate it to the point that smokers must apply for licenses, have tracking devices implanted in their bone marrow, and smoke only in specially built air-purifying rooms in the basements of their homes, fine. If you want to allow smoking anywhere, anytime, including around gas pumps, that is fine also. This bill simply mandates that, whatever the government regulations on the practice, citizens of UN member nations have the fundamental moral right to their flavorful tobacco smokes. And chewing tobacco, or “chaw.”

A national issue already covers a nations right to choose what limits or lack of limits to place on smoking. To the point of complete freedom, or complete ban. And something in the middle of those points if I remember correctly.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

smoking is bad

smoking is bad

Well, there is that too !

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

Nations may or may not allow or disallow smoking as they please due to certain abilities as a nation. Gigatron does not limit its citizens in regards to what they do for or against their health. We leave it to each and everyone and do not limit if a citizen wishes to smoke. However, since the natural and scientifically proven - healthy way is to not smoke, we protect our non-smokers by limiting smoking to locations outside of buildings, unless the building is the home of the smoker, where he/she may do whatever he/she pleases with their cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos or chaw.

We strongly disagree. Smoking is unhealthy and reduces life expectancy. It is also increasing the likelyhood of cancer tremendously.
We therefore encourage our citizens to stop smoking - however we don´t ban it completly except in areas were not smokers are affected (restaurants, cafes, e.g. - they may open a smoking area).

We have to strongly reject this proposal

We find that when our citizens smoke, this habit supplants other, more socially destructive, urges. Such as extramarital and other unnatural sex, more dangerous narcotics like heroin and crack, laziness, atheism, and many more socially harmful vices.

Upon what do you base this?
About the only reason I can think of that heroin and crack users wouldn't smoke tobacco is that their fool habit renders them bankrupt - even the royals and uber-wealthy have noted this.
But tobacco itself is also a costly vice - both monetarily and for one's health.

How does it prevent extramarital sex? What is it that folks traditionally do after sex - extramarital or otherwise? You've seen it in any number of movies, no doubt. They light up! :lol:

And atheism? Plenty of atheists smoke (and how is that a vice in any case?). :o


Besides, our medical advisors assure us that smoking "tastes good and is good for you!"
These'd be the same medical advisors who work for Camel? :P
Trying to imagine the surgeon general with a giant Camel-head...CREEPY!
Oh...wait....I see you answer this (sort of) below:


Some anti-smoking crusaders have challenged this on the basis that our medical advisors are private firms, thus susceptible to pressure group financiers, but this is certainly alarmist nihilism.



Surely you'd save more money in the long run if you did away with smoking? Everything you lost in revenue you'd more than make up for in not having to deal with those pesky pesky law-suits claiming that it causes cancer, not to mention all that money in taxpayer dollars, having to pay for operations, etc for cancer?

Promote smoking; you're kidding me, right? :?

The Holy Empire of Sporkeric will not support this bill whatsoever. Though we do not beleive tobacco should be outlawed all together we refuse to encourage the dangerous and unhealthy practice.

I'll help!

I somehow think the author, while being facetious, was attempting to stop someone from writing and passing a bill that would do just the opposite of his idea... make smoking completely illegal.

Considering the number of proposals of late that have been pulled directly from the issues list, I dont blame him (or her, as the case may be).

Therefore, I applaud the authors intentions, and writing styles. Of course, in terms of serious proposal writing, it is poorly done.

Ingenious use of irony. I worry that soon we will find the need to pass resolutions like this to prevent our national sovereignty from being stripped away from us.

I will address all your concerns in an edited "arguments for the bill" post immediately following my first post, which is the bill text.

Cordially,
Richard Held
etc, etc

* Just wants to slip in again the point that a :

NATIONAL ISSUE

Covers smoking laws, and such and such for quite a while now, you know.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

* Just wants to slip in again the point that a :

NATIONAL ISSUE

Covers smoking laws

We responded to this point of yours above, in point #4 of our second post on this thread.

Abortion is also a national issue, and the UN considered and voted on it. The fact that something is a national issue does not mean the UN should not consider it.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

I've tried to vote in the poll but it's not registering my vote and I can't see the voting results, but subsequent attempts to vote give me the "You've already voted in this poll" message.

Greenspoint will not ban smoking, it is the right of our citizenry to choose to smoke if they wish. Greenspoint will not promote smoking as it is a dirty nasty stinking filthy habit.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

the dsh now choose to oppose this proposal on the faulty assumption that smoking can somehow eliminate other vices. We also find it highly offensive that certain areas are listed as vices, most notably aethism. To base the preamble on these imaginary foundations simply undermines any effort to provide a sensible reolution.

incidentally, the DSH is most pleased to discover this proposal has failed and did not reach quorum.

Spokeperson: Smoking will not make you Christian. Only brainwashing can do that.

(This comment does not reflect the views of all Letilans. Please do not use nuclear weapons.)

-----------------------------------------
"The [Nazi] Party is based on the fundamental principle of private
property" - Adolf Hitler (What does that say about capitalism?)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Smoking is kinda bad. I'd never promote smoking- even if I subject my populace everyday to radon, nuclear, and industrial exposure, smoking would just be taking the biscuit.
At least being radioactive doesn't smell.

You people are arguing this proposal as if it had any chance of actually going to queue.

Cant you see the humor in his post?
This was not intended to pass a UN resolution.
It was intended to REMIND us that the UN is voting on issues that are NOT our business.

We also find it highly offensive that certain areas are listed as vices, most notably aethism. To base the preamble on these imaginary foundations simply undermines any effort to provide a sensible reolution.

We find it highly offensive that Hirota calls the One True God "imaginary foundations." We at The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™, would support a ban on such dangerous atheist talk.

You people are arguing this proposal as if it had any chance of actually going to queue.

Cant you see the humor in his post?
This was not intended to pass a UN resolution.
It was intended to REMIND us that the UN is voting on issues that are NOT our business.

Clever! You just might be onto something...

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

We also find it highly offensive that certain areas are listed as vices, most notably aethism. To base the preamble on these imaginary foundations simply undermines any effort to provide a sensible reolution.

We find it highly offensive that Hirota calls the One True God "imaginary foundations." We at The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™, would support a ban on such dangerous atheist talk.

The "imaginary foundation" that you have misunderstood is the assumption within the original post that aethism is a vice, not that a religion of any denomination is imaginary as you have chosen to understand my comment - although if you want to debate on the validity of God and religon then I've got a few spanners to throw into the proverbial works if you really wanted to get onto that.

Anyway, I'd expect the UN is too liberal to endorse this proposal as it stands right now.

" No " god " for us thank-you, We're Atheist ! " :wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

We find it highly offensive that Hirota calls the One True God "imaginary foundations." We at The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™, would support a ban on such dangerous atheist talk.

And as usual, you fail to understand the point. :roll:

We have a department devoted to the failure to understand points, and we are deeply aggrieved that you would suggest that personnel from other governmental departments within The United States of America the American would usurp that role.

The "imaginary foundation" that you have failed to understand is the assumption within the original post that aethism is a vice.

Do you mean to say that this is not universally understood? Are there citizens of UN nations who believe the Earth to be flat, as well, and night to be day? How could anyone in the modern era believe that atheism, the certainty that there is no God or unifying spiritual force in the Universe, is anything but a vice? It seems quite clear to us, in the sense that delusions are intellectual vices.

Cordially,
Archibald Buttle
Commissar of Transnational Counter-Confusion
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

We find it highly offensive that Hirota calls the One True God "imaginary foundations." We at The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™, would support a ban on such dangerous atheist talk.

And as usual, you fail to understand the point. :roll:

We have a department devoted to the failure to understand points, and we are deeply aggrieved that you would suggest that personnel from other governmental departments within The United States of America the American would usurp that role.

I corrected my post before you had replied. I had realised I had been unduly blunt.

The "imaginary foundation" that you have failed to understand is the assumption within the original post that aethism is a vice.

Do you mean to say that this is not universally understood?

Are there citizens of UN nations who believe the Earth to be flat, as well, and night to be day?

Well, only those who have been told the earth is flat by established religous organisations.....

How could anyone in the modern era believe that atheism, the certainty that there is no God or unifying spiritual force in the Universe, is anything but a vice?

you really don't want this topic to wander into that direction....

but since you insist....the certainty???? Go ahead then and PROVE it. PROVE that there is a God. In fact, go ahead and convert me....Explain these things to me please. Under no circumstances will "The LORD works in mysterious ways" or other arguments in that vein be acceptable.

1. Explain why your god's only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.

2. Did everyone who died before Jesus died go to Hell? Justify your answer.

3. If a Catholic, justify the Inquisition and other persecutions of "heretics" throughout the centuries, concentrating on why the Pelagianists, the Priscillianists, and the Manichaeans were persecuted; if a Protestant, justify the witch trials and the way that Protestants constantly hunted down native Americans until there were so few that the government could simply take their land; if a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, justify the persecutions of the Old Believers after the reforms of the seventeenth century.

4. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not Christian.

5. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not members of your particular sect.

6. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).

7. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe the idea that racism is morally acceptable.

8. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable.

9. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to run a society.

10. Explain why children should submit to their parents' decisions even when those decisions are clearly evil. Answering this question entails refuting Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, and Hebrews 12:7-8.

11. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: "Many are called but few are chosen," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it." If your god loves all of us, couldn't he find a better way?

12. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). Do not exceed 100 words.

13. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other.

14. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.

15. Explain why, if the personality resides in the soul, things like drugs and brain damage can affect someone's personality.

16. If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell.

17. What is Heaven like?

18. What is Hell like?

19. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.

20. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #19.

21. If your god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that our modern-day courts of law refer to as "entrapment."

22. Explain why sex, potentially one of the most wonderful, beautiful things in human nature, is considered "bad" by your particular sect. If your sect does not consider sex to be "bad," then refute Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7 (particularly verses 1 and 9), Galatians 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, James 1:14-15, Matthew 24:38, Luke 17:27, and Revelation 14:4.

23. Explain why, if Jesus was perfect, he thought that the end of the world was coming soon, when it has clearly not come yet. See Matthew 16:27-28.

24. Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.

25. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistent?

26. If you are a Protestant or a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, explain why you are still using the Catholic Bible, which was formalized by a vote among (supposedly divinely inspired) cardinals and bishops in the fourth century CE, when you disagree with the idea that the Pope, who is higher in the Catholic hierarchy, is divinely inspired; if a Catholic, explain why your church accepts the canonical Bible while rejecting the Apocrypha (do not use the "divinely inspired" argument: Because I am not religious, I will not be able to accept it).

27. If your god is kind and gentle, why do some animals have to eat meat?

28. If your god is kind and gentle, why did he create parasites?

29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will.

30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.

31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? Jesus was at least a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished.

32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?

33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known to be liars? (See Romans 3:7).

34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.

35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force to intercede in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics.

36. According to the Gospels, from the Christian standpoint, Jesus was the most important person to ever live. From the Roman standpoint, Jesus was a huge pain in the ass because of his political activities. Explain why nothing was written about his life for over thirty years after his death, and nothing except the Gospels was written until the third century CE.

37. Explain why you believe a person whose life is so poorly documented (see #36) was even ever born.

38. Define the word "Christ," including references to the pagan origins and meaning of the word.

39. Explain why Jesus, who was anti-Gentile (see Mark 7:25-29) and anti-sex (see Luke 14:26 and Matthew 19:12), would want to be anointed with oil in a pagan sexual rite after his death (see your definition for #38).

40. In light of Matthew 10:34, explain why Jesus is called the Prince of Peace.

41. The name "Jesus" has been anglicized. What was the original (Hebrew) name of Jesus? Where did you get this information? This is a bonus question.

42. Why is it that the life of Jesus was so similar to the lives of pagan Christs, particularly Herakles, Dionysios, and Asklepios?

43. If your god requires that people believe in him and follow his orders through their own free will, why do Christians push their views on public policy?

44. Explain why being a good Christian requires you to push your beliefs on others. If you do not believe that you have to push your views on others (no matter how much this annoys them), explain why you do not believe this despite the fact that the New Testament seems to suggest that you must do this to get to Heaven (for instance, in Matthew 28:19-20).

45. Explain why spreading the "truth of Christ" requires you to spread lies about other religions, such as the idea that Wiccans (so-called "white witches") worship the Christian devil. (Incidentally, they don't, and this rumor has been persistently spread by Christians since the second century CE).

46. At no point in the four Gospels did Jesus claim to be the son of your god. (He said "son of man" quite frequently, and at one point referred to himself as "a son of god," but that was a common Hebrew expression at the time. Someone who was "a son of god" was a Jew. This reflected the Israelites' belief that they were the chosen people of your god. See Job 1:6). Why, then, do you believe that Jesus was divine? If you don't believe that Jesus was divine, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

47. Given the fact that Jesus did not say anything original (the Golden Rule and the "turn the other cheek" idea were stolen from Buddhism; and the Beatitudes were common in the Jewish devotional literature at the time), why do you see Jesus as such a great thinker/philosopher/ethicist?

48. When Jesus said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," why do you suppose that most Christians fight for their rights? To put it another way, why don't we, as a country of 85% Christians, let the government abuse us?

49. Why are so many Christian holidays on the same day as Pagan holidays? Couldn't the early Church fathers have converted pagans only by appealing to their reason and/or faith if Christianity is the true religion?

50. Explain how your god can be "just and merciful" in light of Exodus 20:5.

51. Do you believe that the Old Testament should be accepted as part of Christian theology? If so, explain how you can worship such a cruel, sadistic asshole (see Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5, etc.); if not, explain how you can believe that Jesus is the promised savior sent by your god without the messianic prophecies and the ruling rights of the line of David, both of which are in the Old Testament in books such as Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Psalms, etc. (as opposed to, say, believing that Jesus was an irritating nut wandering around saying things that people didn't like much).

52. Explain why your "just and merciful" god sent bears to kill forty-two children who called his prophet Elisha "baldhead." (See 2 Kings 2:23-24).

53. If prostitution is wrong, why are there so many examples of it in Genesis? (For instance, Gen 19:8, where Lot offers his daughters to a mob so that his guests can avoid gang rape).

54. What is the sin that people committed that is so incredibly bad that your god had to become flesh and die to correct?

55. Are all members of other faiths bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible.

56. Are all atheists/agnostics/humanists bad? Are they all damned to Hell? Justify your answer with quotes from the Bible.

57. What was your motive in proselytizing to me?

58. Where is Heaven?

59. Where is Hell?

60. Why don't animals go to heaven or hell when they die? What makes us so special?

61. Why does Satan try to get peoples' souls?

62. Once Satan has someone's soul, what does he do with it?

63. Is your god perfect? Justify your answer.

64. Where does our soul stay while we are alive?

65. Explain how you can believe in Satan when your faith is directly descended from the Jewish faith, when the Jews did not even believe in Satan until they absorbed the Egyptian god Set while they were captives in Egypt.

66. Why do evil people often prosper? Justify your answer.

67. Why do good people so often fail to prosper? Justify your answer.

68. When the end of the world comes, will your god raise our actual bodies, or just our souls? Explain.

69. Explain why your god lets airplanes with sinless infants on board crash.

70. What is sin, exactly?

71. If Jesus is perfect, justify the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:17-19, Mark 11:14-20).

72. Explain why Christians have harassed Wiccans ("white witches") for almost two thousand years now, when the central rule of the Wiccan ethical system is "an it harm no one, do what thou wilt."

73. Explain why Christians (yes, that includes all branches of Christianity) have spread the lie that Jews put Jesus to death when, in actuality, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death. (For a good example of New Testament anti-semetism, see 1 Thessalonians 2:15).

74. Explain why your god created humans as imperfect, then set his standards so high that no one could possibly live up to them, then punishes us for not living up to his standards. Doesn't this also constitute "entrapment?"

75. If we are created in your god's image and likeness (Gen 1:27), how can we also be imperfect?

76. Why was it OK for the ancient Israelites to sacrifice animals to their god, while it is wrong for modern religions to sacrifice animals to their gods? Justify your answer.

77. Why would your god confuse people? (See 1 Sam 7:10 and Gen 11:9). Isn't life confusing enough already?

78. Why would your god cause blindness, deafness, and dumbness? (See Ex 4:11)

79. Why would your god want to damn people by making them believe false things? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

80. Should the book of Revelation be taken literally? Explain your answer.

81. Would it be good for men to castrate themselves? Justify your answer, taking Matthew 19:12 into account.

82. What exactly is faith?

83. All of the various Christian sects ignore parts of the Bible, usually because those parts of the Bible are inconvenient. Explain which parts of the Bible your sect ignores, and explain why it is OK to ignore those parts of the Bible.

84. Why did your god allow Satan to do evil things to Job (Job 2:7 etc.)? Wouldn't your god better spend his time punishing unbelievers?

85. If Jesus and his father are one (John 10:30), then why does Jesus have to pray (i.e. Matthew 26:39)?

86. Explain your belief in heaven in light of Job 7:9 and Ecclesiastes 9:5.

87. Christ giving himself up on the cross was a great gesture, true, but wouldn't it have been more sensible for him to continue spreading his message until he died a natural death? Answer this question in light of your answer to question #1.

88. What is your interpretation of the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9)?

89. In view of Matthew 6:5-6, shouldn't prayer in public schools be discouraged? Support your answer with scripture quotes.

90. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"; Luke 23:46: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"; John 19:30: "It is finished").

91. Matthew and Mark say that the last words of Christ were, in Hebrew, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" This has traditionally been translated as, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" However, a more accurate translation would be, "My El, My El, why has thou forsaken me?" El is the name of a specific pagan god. Why would Jesus call out to a pagan god at the moment of his death?

92. A commonly recited litany in many forms of Christianity is "The LORD is my shepherd." (Psalm 23:1). Given the fact that the only reasons that people raise sheep are to rob them of their clothes and to kill them for meat, and the fact that sheep will often follow the shepherd to their destruction, do you think that this is any appropriate image for your god? Justify your answer.

93. Why is the theory of the big bang any more (or less) likely that the idea that your god created the universe? Justify your answer. NOTE: I admit that science has not explained where the original supercondensed particle came from, but no one has ever explained where your god came from, either.

94. If your god is everywhere at the same time, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipresent?

95. In the Genesis story, your god tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat from the tree of knowledge they will surely die (Gen 2:17). The devil tells them that they will not die, but that their eyes would be opened and they would know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:5). Wasn't Satan telling the truth here? Is your god a liar? Justify your answer in light of Jeremiah 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.

96. If Lucifer is not as powerful as your god, then he cannot possibly be omnipresent. How could he possibly get as many followers as you seem to think he has?

97. The Bible constantly describes your god as male. In view of the fact that your god supposedly created everything, and creation is very much a female function, isn't this at least a little bit absurd? Justify your answer.

98. In light of the Trinity, angels, the Virgin Mary, etc., isn't Christianity polytheistic? If the Trinity is three who are one, why the three names? Justify your answer.

99. Have you read the entire Bible? If not, how can you be devoted enough to try and convert me to a religion that you don't know that much about? Isn't knowing as much as possible about something necessary to understanding it? Isn't understanding something necessary to being completely devoted to it?

100. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly identical to Isaiah 37?

101. Is Jesus's three days in Hell really an ultimate sacrifice, when more than half of humanity going to spend eternity there (see question #11)?

102. If your sect considers the King James Bible to be the official and/or authoritative translation, justify this in light of the fact that when King James commissioned his translation to be poetic rather than accurate. How can you possibly use an inaccurate translation as your reference for what is/is not the word of your god? If your sect does not use the King James Bible, what translation do they use? Justify the use of that particular translation.

103. Assume that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins, or that if he did, that necessarily means I will go to your heaven. Name one thing that Jesus ever did for me.

104. Before Mary was knocked up by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, she was never asked for her consent. (She was warned; see Luke 1:31). Mary was also asleep when your god knocked her up; this strongly suggests that he didn't want her to protest. Does this mean that Mary was raped by your god? Do you think rape is wrong? Explain.

105. According to Luke, Mary knew that she was pregnant with the Messiah. Living in the times she lived in, she must have known the scripture; therefore, she must have known that he would have to suffer horribly during his life. Was it moral for Mary to carry her baby to term, or would it have been more humane for her to have an abortion? Explain.

106. If it was foretold that Jesus was to be crucified, and if he knew this, and if he was the son of your god, why did he do everything he could to avoid being crucified? (See, for instance, Matthew 26:39).

107. If the Holy Spirit/Ghost is the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35), then why is the central figure of your trinity called God the Father?

108. Mary and Jehovah were never joined in wedlock. Does it bother you that Jesus is technically a bastard?

109. The original Hebrew word for the Holy Ghost/Spirit includes the idea that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is female in gender. Isn't this rather silly when you consider the fact that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is actually the father of Jesus (Luke 1:35)?

110. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn't the other three gospels mention it? Why didn't the Roman soldiers get into trouble?

111. Jews believe that people are basically good people and can work to overcome their sinful tendencies. Most Christian sects, following the teaching of Psalm 51:5, 1 Kings 8:46, Ezekiel 18:4, Isaiah 59:2, and Psalm 143:2, believe that people are completely debased and hopelessly lost in sin, and that only your god can lift us out of this state if he decides to bestow his gift of grace on us? Isn't this an incredibly negative view of people? Isn't Judaism a more mature faith just for this reason?

112. How do you, as an individual, feel about Psalm 51:5?

113. What does your sect teach about Psalm 51:5 (and 1 Kings 8:46, etc.), predestination, and similar matters?

114. Don't you think that the idea that no matter what we do, we can never be good and righteous without help from your god (Isaiah 64:6) fosters an unnatural and unhealthy dependency on him?

115. Revelation 22:16 says that Jesus is the "offspring of David." Mary was not descended from David, but Joseph was. Doesn't this mean that Jesus wasn't the son of your god at all, but the (mortal and not divine) son of Joseph?

116. What would the correct thing to do be if your god gave you a command that was harmful and/or destructive to you? A common argument, which comes from Paul, states that because clay pots don't complain about what the potter does with them, people shouldn't complain about what their maker (supposedly, your god) does with them, but this completely ignores the vitally important argument that clay pots have no sense of self-awareness and cannot think or feel love, pain, anger, etc. If you want to make this argument, you have to deal with this difference.

117. What (or who) does your sect believe the number 666 represents? Justify your answer.

118. If your god is "just and merciful," why would he take Solomon's kingdom away from Solomon's son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon's son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12).

119. Why is Solomon commonly considered to be the paragon of wisdom by many Christians, when he constantly sinned against your god (1 Kings 11:4-10, etc.)? Personally, if I had a god talking to me, I'd do what he said.

120. Don't you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book "Song of Solomon" is a piece of erotic poetry? (For instance, in Song of Solomon 8:2, the bridegroom proposes to "drink of spiced wine of the juice of the pomegranate." The pomegranate was a symbol of the female genitalia, and the "spiced wine" represented menstrual blood).

121. Does it bother you that the cross, supposedly a Christian symbol, was actually stolen from the Egyptians? Why or why not? (The Egyptian cross, the ankh, was a male-female symbol similar in concept to the yin-yang. When the Christians stole the ankh from the Egyptians, they removed the female symbol, or yoni, leaving only the masculine symbol-- a subtle way of reinforcing the idea that women are lesser beings).

122. How do you explain that Christians are twice as likely to have sadomasochistic tendencies as non-christians?

123. What is the incredibly important doctrinal difference that requires the fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland?

124. Even if your god did create the universe, why does he want to be worshipped? Is your god an egomaniac?

125. What are your beliefs concerning Wicca? ("white witchcraft"). How much do you know about Wicca?

126. What do you think the word "Satanist" means?

127. How do you explain the fact that the word "blood" occurs over 400 times in the Bible? Isn't this a rather savage way to write a book that is supposed to be at the center of an ethical system?

128. Throughout the Bible, your god commands his followers to wage merciless war on unbelievers (Luke 22:36, Deuteronomy 13:8, Exodus 20:23-25, Deuteronomy 20:16, Matthew 10:34, Numbers 31:17-18, etc). If you are one of his followers, why aren't you out waging merciless war on unbelievers?

129. Numbers 23:21 says that your god "has not seen wickedness in Israel." If this is so, explain why your god burned Israelites for complaining (Num 11:1), sent a plague against them for eating the meat he had given them (Num 11:33), why he burned people for using incense (Num 16:35), why he sent a plague against the Israelites who accused Moses of wrongdoing (Num 16:44-49), and why he sent fiery snakes among the Israelites (Num 21:5). Is your god a liar, or was it just more convenient for him to lie at that particular place and time, or what?

130. What was it that was so bad about eating an apple that death had to result from that act?

131. What was it about humanity's torturing and killing of your god's only son that made your god so happy that he again promised eternal life to everyone who believed in him.

132. How do you explain that Matthew and Luke give different genealogies for Jesus?

133. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?

134. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament?

135. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an ass and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ass, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one ass (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)?

136. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this?

137. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament?

138. Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Why does no one (not even his parents) call him Immanuel at any point in the New Testament?

139. How many inconsistencies in the Bible, other than those mentioned in this paper, do you know of? Cite chapter and verse for as many as you have room for.

140. If even the contemplation of sinning is a sin (i.e. "sinning in your heart"; see, for example, Matthew 5:28) and if Jesus was tempted by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:5-8, Luke 4:5-9), how can you say that Jesus was without sin?

141. Does your sect believe that the existence of your god can be established through a formal proof? Why or why not?

142. Pick a famous argument for the existence of your god, then criticize that argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of criticize).

143. Pick an argument against the existence of your god. If it is not a famous argument, copy it down here. Criticize this argument. (Assume I mean for you to use the academic definition of the word criticize).

144. What does your sect think of the government? Read Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 13. Now what do you think of the government? If necessary, reconcile the two views.

145. What is your definition of the word Christian?

146. Why do you think it is that the ancient Greeks, who had a very liberal sexual morality, had many fewer sex crimes (compared to the population) than the United States, which is 85% Christian?

147. If someone accepts Jesus, and is "saved," but then turns away from Jesus, is that person still saved?

148. Where did your god come from?

149. What are the requirements for being saved? Some sects says that faith alone is enough; others say that faith without works is dead. The Bible supports both these viewpoints. What does your sect think?

150. If I decide I like the answers to the above questions, where can I get in touch with you? (Give name, address, phone and email if available).

151. What is the name of your sect?

152. How is your sect organized?

153. How can I get in touch with a priest (minister, etc.) of your sect?

I do not smoke. I have never tried. I have no intention of trying.
None of my ministers smoke. I believe the leader of the opposition party is the only person in this government at this time who smokes. None of us support the habbit, and endorse campaigns to discourage the habbit, and assistance in quiting.
HOWEVER, we do respect the right to smoke, and our medical facilities certainly won't turn anybody away for smoking-related illnesses.

A UN resolution to ban smoking? There should not have been.

Actually I find the CDC results on Smoking figures relatively stupid... 400,000 people die a year due to smoking by the SAMNEC software that computed the mortality rates..... however, if you break down that figure you'll find...

1.) The smoking "victims" average life expectancy is 71.9 years (the average life expectancy for non-smokers is 70)

2.) About 17% of the group computation died "prematurely" at ages greater than 85.

3.) About 0.5% of the smoking "vicitims" died at ages less then 35, while almost 8% of the general population dies at ages less then 35.

Hmmm, if you look at the statistics right... smoking is actually MORE HEALTHY :lol:

Actually I find the CDC results on Smoking figures relatively stupid... 400,000 people die a year due to smoking by the SAMNEC software that computed the mortality rates..... however, if you break down that figure you'll find...

1.) The smoking "victims" average life expectancy is 71.9 years (the average life expectancy for non-smokers is 70)

2.) About 17% of the group computation died "prematurely" at ages greater than 85.

3.) About 0.5% of the smoking "vicitims" died at ages less then 35, while almost 8% of the general population dies at ages less then 35.

Hmmm, if you look at the statistics right... smoking is actually MORE HEALTHY :lol:

first of all, quote sources - put a web address on here. I found the cdc website, but could not find your premature figure anywhere. If I could find it, I'd find it rather silly that an anti-smoking site could suggest you live longer by smoking :)

Secondly, you can use one study to easily discredit another (especially point 1)

The best source I found it http://www.smhs.com/healthinfo/archive/052802.asp It was talking about how quiting at 35 can give you years longer life expectancy

According to the Duke study, male smokers who quit by age 35 increase their life span by 6.9 to 8.5 years, and female smokers by 6.1 to 7.7 years.

On average, compared to men who smoked until they died, male smokers who quit at 35 would live to be 76 instead of 69. Women who quit would live to be 80 instead of 74.

Nonsmoking men live to an average of 78 years, while women live to be 81, according to the study.
.....
Older Americans can also benefit from quitting smoking. The study suggests that male smokers who quit at age 65 increase their life span by 1.4 to 2 years, and women smokers by 2.7 to 3.7 years.

For men, that means a typical increase in life span from 69 to 71 years; for women, from 74 to 77.

How could anyone in the modern era believe that atheism, the certainty that there is no God or unifying spiritual force in the Universe, is anything but a vice?

but since you insist....the certainty???? Go ahead then and PROVE it. PROVE that there is a God. In fact, go ahead and convert me....Explain these things to me please. ...

No. You misunderstand.

We did not assert a certainty that there is a God. Nor did we describe failure to share certainty in The One True God as a vice. We asked how anyone could believe that "atheism, the certainty that there is no God" is anything but a vice. We did not assert that there is a God, merely that atheism, the dogmatic assertion that there is none, must be supported and proven just as thoroughly as your 153 questions would ask of any religion. So go ahead. Prove there is no God, and we will stop considering atheism to be an intellectual vice.

We did not describe agnosticism as a vice, nor did we ask any other nation to consider agnosticism a vice. Nor did we claim that all vices are harmful.

Cordially,
Archibald Buttle
Commissar of Transnational Counter-Confusion
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

So go ahead. Prove there is no God, and we will stop considering atheism to be an intellectual vice.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

The primary basis I use to justify being aethist is the failure of any religon to actually prove the existence of God.

It's more a case of religons failures to prove their "way" is the right way and it's abysmal track record when it comes to human rights that encourage me to become aethist rather than any intense appeals to become aethist. If any organised faith could prove their answers on life and the other big questions, I'd happily reconsider.

In short, I'm aethist because the other options are currently less attractive. That's why I invited you to convert me.

EDIT: GMC explained it much better than I have :)

"The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. ... As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof: "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

This would be a pertinent criticism if we were asserting that God does exist, which we are not. We just explained this in plain english in our last post, if you bothered to read carefully before replying rather than quote knee-jerk from your silly high school debate textbook.

We are saying that atheists, who are actively asserting that God does not exist, then clearly bear the burden of proof to back up their assertion about the fundamental nature of the universe.

In religious debates, the only person who does not bear burden of proof is an agnostic, because they are the only ones not making claims as to the so far unproven fundamental nature of the universe.

Example of Burden of Proof: "You cannot prove that God does exist, so He does not."

Cordially,
Archbishop Falwell
Ministry of Ministries
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

The primary basis I use to justify being aethist is the failure of any religon to actually prove the existence of God.

In short, I'm aethist because the other options are currently less attractive. That's why I invited you to convert me.

We have no desire to convert you.

Your argument only supports an agnostic position, not an atheist one. In order to support an atheist argument, you must prove that God does not exist. The failure of others to prove the existence of God is not enough to prove that God does not exist.

If such reasoning were true, up until the moment someone discovered and proved electricity or gravity those forces did not exist, thus everything floated into space and lightning did not exist.

Cordially,
Archbishop Falwell
Ministry of Ministries
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

We are saying that atheists, who are actively asserting that God does not exist, then clearly bear the burden of proof to back up their assertion about the fundamental nature of the universe.

Semantics. In denying that the atheist's point is true you are asserting there is a God. The burden of proof rests squarely on the side asserting a positive. That's you.

In religious debates, the only person who does not bear burden of proof is an agnostic, because they are the only ones not making claims as to the so far unproven fundamental nature of the universe.

Or a deist. Or an atheist. There is no objective evidence whatsoever of supernatural involvement in the universe, so Occam's Razor demands that we assume the universe functions without outside interference.

Example of Burden of Proof: "You cannot prove that God does exist, so He does not."

Missed this, huh?

As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

The failure of others to prove the existence of God is not enough to prove that God does not exist.

If such reasoning were true, up until the moment someone discovered and proved electricity or gravity those forces did not exist, thus everything floated into space and lightning did not exist.

False analogy. Electricity and gravity can be demonstrated to exist by the fact that lightning occurs and we do not fly off into space. The fact the we didn't know how they worked didn't change the fact that they did, theory follows observation.

There are no scientific observations of the existence of the Biblical God, therefore there is no logical reason to suppose He exists.

Semantics. In denying that the atheist's point is true you are asserting there is a God. The burden of proof rests squarely on the side asserting a positive. That's you.

Wrong. In order to deny the atheist position any greater claim to truth than any religious perspective, one must only assert that there may or may not be a God, and that the matter is as yet unresolved. Which is obvious to anyone with their head in the real world rather than buried in obscure tomes of arbitrary rules set down by some person or other for arrogant, know-it-all high school debate clubs.

The burden of proof rests on whoever claims to know how the universe works beyond our current level of understanding, whether a refinement of current quantum physics theory or an assertion of religious faith such as "there is a God and He is merciful." This includes atheists, who positively assert that "the universe functions without outside interference." That is a claim to knowledge of the functioning of the universe beyond current scientific understanding. Therefore not demonstrably true or false, just like every religious position. I'm talking science here, not debate club.

Example of Burden of Proof: "You cannot prove that God does exist, so He does not."

Missed this, huh?

No. What you intentionally "missed" was how we pointed out... yet again... that we were not making any such claim, despite your high school debate team nonsense.

The failure of others to prove the existence of God is not enough to prove that God does not exist.

If such reasoning were true, up until the moment someone discovered and proved electricity or gravity those forces did not exist, thus everything floated into space and lightning did not exist.

Red Herring. Electricity and gravity can be demonstrated to exist by the fact that lightning occurs and we do not fly off into space. The fact the we didn't know how they worked didn't change the fact that they did, theory follows observation.

Wrong again. You are really good at being wrong, despite the guidance of your little high school debate textbook. It is truly remarkable. :roll:

Like we've said, what, a dozen times here, we are not claiming God exists. We were asked about the atheism component of our resolution. We have still made no claim that God exists, but you continue to beat that straw horse mercilessly.

There were significant periods of history when, due to our own limited tools, reasoning, or observations, humans were unable to demonstrate the existence of electricity or gravity. We were not even aware that there was "space" for us to "fly off into." Similarly, we did not understand what lightning was or how it worked, we only saw its effects. Similarly, other forces could be at work which we do not see currently or comprehend. Notice: COULD BE is not the same as ARE.

However, with a brief peek at the history of science, it is virtually guaranteed that there are forces at work that we do not yet comprehend, since the entire history of science is chock full of discovery after discovery of forces we did not previously understand. It is an untenable assertion to claim we have reached the zenith of possible understanding - which the atheist position implies.

There are no observations of the existence of God, therefore there is no reason to suppose He exists.

Your straw horse. Again. We did not assert He exists.

Cordially,
Archbishop Falwell
Ministry of Ministries
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

The burden of proof rests on whoever claims to know how the universe works beyond our current level of understanding, whether a refinement of current quantum physics theory or an assertion of religious faith such as "there is a God and He is merciful." This includes atheists, who positively assert that "the universe functions without outside interference." That is a claim to knowledge of the functioning of the universe beyond current scientific understanding. Therefore not demonstrably true or false, just like every religious position. I'm talking science here, not debate club.

Stacking false ad hominems about my age on top of flawed arguements doesn't make you look smart, you know. Atheism assumes there is nothing more to the universe than the mechanisms we can observe and understand, it makes no positive statement of belief of any kind whatsoever.

The failure of others to prove the existence of God is not enough to prove that God does not exist.

If such reasoning were true, up until the moment someone discovered and proved electricity or gravity those forces did not exist, thus everything floated into space and lightning did not exist.

False analogy. Electricity and gravity can be demonstrated to exist by the fact that lightning occurs and we do not fly off into space. The fact the we didn't know how they worked didn't change the fact that they did, theory follows observation.

Wrong again. You are really good at being wrong, despite the guidance of your little high school debate textbook. It is truly remarkable. :roll:

Ad hominem. You really think mocking your imaginary version of me is getting to me, don't you?

Also, mind explaining why you believe a High Schooler's arguments would be any less valid than anyones elses'?

Like we've said, what, a dozen times here, we are not claiming God exists. We were asked about the atheism component of our resolution. We have still made no claim that God exists, but you continue to beat that straw horse mercilessly.

Straw man, idiot. Perhaps you should get a 'High School Debating Textbook' yourself.

There were significant periods of history when, due to our own limited tools, reasoning, or observations, humans were unable to demonstrate the existence of electricity or gravity.

Times in which you couldn't drop a stone or see a bolt of lightning? Times in which houses didn't fall down if they were badly built and clothing didn't crackle with static? Don't make me laugh.

We were not even aware that there was "space" for us to "fly off into." Similarly, we did not understand what lightning was or how it worked, we only saw its effects. Similarly, other forces could be at work which we do not see currently or comprehend. Notice: COULD BE is not the same as ARE.

We could always see lightning and the effects of gravity. Your false analogy isn't fooling anyone. If other forces are at work, they must be observed and then theorised about. That's the scientific method. If there is absolutely no evidence for something it is not logical to suppose it exists. Do you believe it's reasonable to suppose there 'may or may not' be invisible pink unicorns living under my bed until I can provide proof there isn't?

However, with a brief peek at the history of science, it is virtually guaranteed that there are forces at work that we do not yet comprehend, since the entire history of science is chock full of discovery after discovery of forces we did not previously understand.

Which were observed before they were described, because that's the scientific method. Saying there is doubt about something isn't reason in itself to believe anything.

It is an untenable assertion to claim we have reached the zenith of possible understanding - which the atheist position implies.

False. Atheism merely states that until there is any positive evidence of a supernatural existence it is not logical to believe there is one.

Just because I'm mildly bored, I'll answer some of your questions. Not all, but I'm not trying to convert or defend anything...

1. Explain why your god's only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.

Good question. Since the punishment for sin (which everyone's got) is going to Hell, everyone was pretty much screwed. Jesus went to Hell instead of us, so that he would suffer for us all. Think of him as a bond card, if you want.

2. Did everyone who died before Jesus died go to Hell? Justify your answer.

Newp. Animal sacrifice (pure, young lamb, etc. etc. etc.) were sacrificed instead, and were to represent the future sacrifice made by Jesus.

3. If a Catholic,

I'm not.

4. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not Christian.

5. Explain why your sect (whether Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) pursued, tortured, and killed people who were not members of your particular sect.

My sect never did any of that.

6. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).

7. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe the idea that racism is morally acceptable.

8. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable.

9. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to run a society.

10. Explain why children should submit to their parents' decisions even when those decisions are clearly evil. Answering this question entails refuting Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, and Hebrews 12:7-8.

Here's where I partially beg off by not being the target of this. Also, I don't have a Bible handy, nor do I care to websearch.

However the Bible was written by man. As far as I'm concerned "God breathed", or whatever the line is, simply means that God insprired it. He did lift the pen, though. In otherwords, much of that is either out and out inaccuracy, or misinterpritation, or... lies.

Have you guessed my sect yet?

11. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: "Many are called but few are chosen," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it." If your god loves all of us, couldn't he find a better way?

"God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might have the glory of God."

In other words, it's not the most outrageous of requests (believe that Jesus died for your sins). Or, if you prefer, God's a hardass.

12. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). Do not exceed 100 words.

God's world, God's rules.

13. Explain how your god can be both just and merciful, when these terms apparently contradict each other.

One can have mercy in light of justice. I don't see these as being contradictory...

14. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.

Yup. Psychosis.

15. Explain why, if the personality resides in the soul, things like drugs and brain damage can affect someone's personality.

Good question, actually. That's worth pondering.

16. If heaven is a place where everyone is perfectly happy, then explain how I could be happy in heaven if I had loved ones in Hell.

17. What is Heaven like?

Most theologins tend to claim that Heaven is being in the presence of God, praising him. One is supposed to be completely consumed by said praise, and doesn't think about anything else.

18. What is Hell like?

Bible doesn't say, actually. Hopping to people who get paid to think about this stuff, it is the total absense of God. And thus also the absense of hope, joy, peace, etc.

19. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.

By the time one has free will, one sins, either in action or in thought. This point is moot for all things save the death of an infant.

20. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #19.

It doesn't.

21. If your god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why did he put the tree in the garden of Eden (and at the center, no less)? Was it for shade? If so, why use something so dangerous as a shade tree? If the purpose of the tree was to tempt Adam and Eve, explain why it's OK for your god to engage in a practice that our modern-day courts of law refer to as "entrapment."

Test of faith, one would assume.

22. Explain why sex, potentially one of the most wonderful, beautiful things in human nature, is considered "bad" by your particular sect. If your sect does not consider sex to be "bad," then refute Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7 (particularly verses 1 and 9), Galatians 5:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, James 1:14-15, Matthew 24:38, Luke 17:27, and Revelation 14:4.

See above about how the Bible is inspired, not penned directly.

23. Explain why, if Jesus was perfect, he thought that the end of the world was coming soon, when it has clearly not come yet. See Matthew 16:27-28.

Again, don't have the particular verse handy. I could, if you want, give a line about perspective, and allegory vs. literal.

24. Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.

Allegory.

25. Why are the stories of the resurrection inconsistent?

Ask Elizabeth Loftus why eyewitness testimonies can vary so much.

26. If you are a Protestant or a member of an Eastern Orthodox church,

N/A

27. If your god is kind and gentle, why do some animals have to eat meat?
28. If your god is kind and gentle, why did he create parasites?


Um... irrelevant.

29. If your god wants us to worship him through our own free will, why does he threaten us with Hell? If you have someone threatening you with a punishment, it isn't free will.

Isn't it though? You don't believe.

30. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart."). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.

Since you saved asking for my sect for last, I'll simply say "allegory" for now.

Guessed yet?

31. If Jesus did have to die, why did someone (specifically, Judas) have to be damned in order accomplish the death and resurrection of Jesus? Jesus was at least a volunteer for the cross; I doubt that your god asked Judas if he was willing to go to Hell so that the resurrection could be accomplished.

Someone would have done it anyway. Of course, I'm just contrarian enough to say that Judas went to Heaven for his role in the death of Christ. Of course, I don't know what happened. Bible only says he hung himself, and there's nothing else to go on.

32. If Judas was willing to go to Hell for humanity (see #31), didn't he make more of a sacrifice than Jesus, who spent only three hours in pain? Shouldn't we then be worshipping Judas?

See above.

33. Why should we accept the words of the gospel writers as truth when they are known to be liars? (See Romans 3:7).

Strawman would say that everyone lies.

34. Do you believe that your god is anti-homosexual? If so, explain why he would create homosexuals in the first place. If not, refute or explain away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27.

Leviticus is no more the Word of God than the US Constitution is; it's ancient Hebrew law. I pay that passage no more attention than the one forbidding clothing woven of two different fibers, or the ban on shellfish, or any of that other crap. I mean, when was the last time a woman on her period let off doves?

Romans, like most of the NT was a letter to a group of people. That's Paul speaking, not God.

35. Explain why prayer is OK, but spell casting is not, when both amount to the same thing: requesting that a superior supernatural force to intercede in a way that would be impossible according to the normally accepted laws of physics.

Both aren't particularly useful. However, the distinction would be that spell casting is trying to alter reality yourself, prayer is asking God to alter reality, if He sees fit. Taking $20 from your uncle's wallet is wrong, asking him for $20 is fine.

36. According to the Gospels, from the Christian standpoint, Jesus was the most important person to ever live. From the Roman standpoint, Jesus was a huge pain in the ass because of his political activities. Explain why nothing was written about his life for over thirty years after his death, and nothing except the Gospels was written until the third century CE.

The Romans would probably just assume forget about him, and had better things to do. The Hebrews were probably busy shitting themselves over everything that happened. But, since I don't have a Waybac Machine...

37. Explain why you believe a person whose life is so poorly documented (see #36) was even ever born.

Faith's a bitch like that.

38. Define the word "Christ," including references to the pagan origins and meaning of the word.

Er. Irrelevant. Or are you arguing that everyone go back to using Emmanual?

Okay... I'm not this bored. Allow me to skip ahead a bit...

149. What are the requirements for being saved? Some sects says that faith alone is enough; others say that faith without works is dead. The Bible supports both these viewpoints. What does your sect think?

Faith. In theory, having faith leads to good works, but good works don't cut it alone.

150. If I decide I like the answers to the above questions, where can I get in touch with you? (Give name, address, phone and email if available).

Telegram.

151. What is the name of your sect?

Deist (essentially).

152. How is your sect organized?

153. How can I get in touch with a priest (minister, etc.) of your sect?

N/A

Kill all Humans! :twisted:

wow. this really is the stupidest argument ever.

duh, everyone knows the difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics are really what GMC says atheists are (just sticking to observed reality, making no greater claims), and atheists say that 'there is no god.' period.

being an anarchist, i want to hate america here, and do. :twisted: but wow, GMC, you're really making yourself look stupid by calling him or her an "idiot" for irrelevant typos and ignoring all his or her real points, along with ignoring the generally accepted definitions for common terms. c'mon, represent better for the anti-religion team! keep it tight! you're slacking!

score...

america: 1

gmc: 0

everyone knows it's easier to back up the agnostic position than atheism, and that's clearly all amerca is doing here (unfortunately - i'd like to see them slip up and claim there's a god, then just about everyone here would easily tear them apart). there are two different words for a reason. and everything america's saying, that atheism is as much an assertion about the fundamental basis of reality as religion is true. and obviously neither has been "proved" or this stupid argument wouldn't even be happening.

come on, america, throw us a bone! say there's a god, say there's a god... :twisted:

Wrong again. You are really good at being wrong, despite the guidance of your little high school debate textbook. It is truly remarkable. :roll:

First of all, perhaps in future you will be a little slower to point out other people being insulting. After all, nobody likes being called a hypocrite, and I’m sure you are the same.

Like we've said, what, a dozen times here, we are not claiming God exists

Although you have made your position on it quite clear by listing atheism amongst drugs.

However, with a brief peek at the history of science, it is virtually guaranteed that there are forces at work that we do not yet comprehend, since the entire history of science is chock full of discovery after discovery of forces we did not previously understand.

Oh, certainly.

It is an untenable assertion to claim we have reached the zenith of possible understanding - which the atheist position implies.

That’s untrue. Established faiths much more inclined to explain everything – normally referring to the object of their faith. All but the most hardcore atheists would be much more flexible to revelations on the greater meaning of life than the average bible-hugger.

I think we have wondered off track here.

You still appear to have failed to respond to why you saw fit to include aethism in the list of vices alongside drugs.

Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that atheism is less vulnerable than Christianity to “sins”

Official September 1998 statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau indicated that that the "Bible Belt" harbours six of the seven most "highly criminal" states in the country (the other one is Hawaii).
A survey, conducted by the Roper Organization, has found interesting behaviour on born-agains from "Freethought Today", September 1991. 12% of the respondents have claimed to driving intoxicated after being-born again, compared to 4% before. Same result for drugs - 5% were drug-users before they converted, and 9% take drugs now. Also, interestingly, illicit sex was also more frequently done by born-agains (the percentage after being born-again jumps from 2% to 5%).

The Barna Research Group is the author of a much celebrated study. Its president, George Barna, is an avowed born-again. His group has a religious clientele and tends to their prejudices. However it is a tribute to his honesty that he does not lie about the results of his studies. He reports that the present Christian church has failed in its mission of instilling a greater sense of morality in its parishoners.

Statistics given in his book, The Second Coming Of The Church, include :

Took medication for depression in the past year - born-agains 7%, non-christians 8%
Feel completely or very successful in life - born-agains 58%, non-christians 49%
Impossible to get ahead because of financial debt - born-agains 33%, non-christians 39%
Have not figured out the purpose of your life - born-agains 36%, non-christians 47%
Satisfied with your life - born-agains 69%, non-christians 68%
Personal financial situation is getting better - born-agains 27%, non-christians 28%

Barna is forced to admit on page 7 of his book that : "We think and behave no differently from anyone else."

According to the Skeptic magazine vol.6 #2 1998, in multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality; By Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between religiousity (spelling?) and honesty. Ross’ 1950 study shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.

A recent study commissioned by the National Catholic Educational Association covering 16,000 high school seniors show that Catholic school seniors consistently have a worse record than public school seniors in use of alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and shoplifting (overall, 40% of Catholics, only 29% of non-Catholics).

interestingly, on a totally different tangent which rears it’s head up from time to time – abortion. If you don't like abortion, you should recommend against religion. The Janus Report shown that only 22% of non-religious people have had abortions, compared to 32% for Protestants and 29% for Catholics.

So how can you support your assertions that atheism is sinful?

Abatoir: Thanks for responding to some of them – I’ll have to read your responses sometime :) Incidentally, deism is one of or the best of the bunch - has great ideas.

duh, everyone knows the difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics are really what GMC says atheists are (just sticking to observed reality, making no greater claims), and atheists say that 'there is no god.' period.

Because it is not logical to assume the existence of something there is absolutely no objective evidence for. Do you believe there may be invisible pink unicorns too?

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html also disagrees with your definition.

Actually I find the CDC results on Smoking figures relatively stupid... 400,000 people die a year due to smoking by the SAMNEC software that computed the mortality rates..... however, if you break down that figure you'll find...

1.) The smoking "victims" average life expectancy is 71.9 years (the average life expectancy for non-smokers is 70)

2.) About 17% of the group computation died "prematurely" at ages greater than 85.

3.) About 0.5% of the smoking "vicitims" died at ages less then 35, while almost 8% of the general population dies at ages less then 35.

Hmmm, if you look at the statistics right... smoking is actually MORE HEALTHY :lol:

first of all, quote sources - put a web address on here. I found the cdc website, but could not find your premature figure anywhere. If I could find it, I'd find it rather silly that an anti-smoking site could suggest you live longer by smoking :)

Secondly, you can use one study to easily discredit another (especially point 1)

The best source I found it http://www.smhs.com/healthinfo/archive/052802.asp It was talking about how quiting at 35 can give you years longer life expectancy

According to the Duke study, male smokers who quit by age 35 increase their life span by 6.9 to 8.5 years, and female smokers by 6.1 to 7.7 years.

On average, compared to men who smoked until they died, male smokers who quit at 35 would live to be 76 instead of 69. Women who quit would live to be 80 instead of 74.

Nonsmoking men live to an average of 78 years, while women live to be 81, according to the study.
.....
Older Americans can also benefit from quitting smoking. The study suggests that male smokers who quit at age 65 increase their life span by 1.4 to 2 years, and women smokers by 2.7 to 3.7 years.

For men, that means a typical increase in life span from 69 to 71 years; for women, from 74 to 77.

Actually the point I make is with the CDC/AHA studies... they both use a software package called SAMNEC, developed by statisticians off of a mathmatical study by a group of currently unknown epidimiologists in the 1960's... basically the software is input the causes of death within a group of people, the software is designed to assume x% of certain causes to be related to smoking, it then plugs out a figure. In all cases it is what any mathematition would call "lying by mathmatics" because the numbers derived are based on no evidense what-so-ever, including the Duke study, based off the same SAMNEC software figures. In any case any numbers produced by any of these groups currently should be held HIGHLY suspect, as none of them are actually based on interviewing or studying the medical background of a single individual nor assistance of their prespective doctors. The SAMNEC is what is used to plug out the ~400,000 deaths per day in the U.S. for smoking.... The software in no way even knows if any of the individuals plugged into the system were even smokers or not, it goes off "morbility" data from death certificates.. So basically all the numbers are the widest assumptions you can make mathmatically, not based on any hard evidence, but spouted by the majority as fact....

As an example from the AHA 30% of those suffering from heart disease are smokers.... ok what about the other 70%? Where is the DIRECT evidence of the link? Above is not a direct piece of evidence....

My point is, before people should be banning, they should be putting forth the effort for honest to god studies that would proove, directly, the links that the AHA, CDC, and the plethora of other organizations spout on a daily basis, and that they could do (if they could get their heads out of their asses long enough) themselves to give HARD evidence.

Or maybe we should consider this....

Milk has been known to cause digestive problems in some inviiduals, so should we ban milk?

Salt consumption has been known to cause high-blood pressure, so should we ban that too?

refined sugar (sucrouse) has been known to cause a plethora of diet related problems, diabetes, and hypoglosemia.. so should we ban that too?

Pollen in the air has been known to cause respitory problems, so should we ban all flowering plants?

In the end it's the same, some-people have problems where others don't... we are all similar, but each individual has a different metabolism capable of handling and processing different things to different extents.... I can drown myself in salt, eat red meat almost raw and smoke my damn head off like the rest of my family and live to ripe old ages in my 90's... somebody else would probably die of a massive cooronary in their 30's on the same lifestyle...... it in no way means one lifestyle is "more healthy" then the other.... just that we can each hold to different things, and it should be up to our doctors and our own reasoning to determine which is best for each of us.... not up to gov't legislation.....

I do of course realize that "second-hand" smoke has an effect on others.... but it is still left up to disgression.... I firmy believe that it should be ok to ban smoking in public buildings... a business should determine itself if it wants to allow smoking in it's premises..... The international community at large may think the idea of a complete ban on tobacco is ok.... but then again they think same-gender indivduals reaming one another is ok, alot of them don't have any problem with people screwing barnyard animals in public, and shooting up any number of mind-altering drugs... Let's fact it, the international community at large would find it ok for me to give some other guy a BJ while screwing a sheep and inhecting heroine into myself on a street corner...... but would not want me smoking a cigarette in the comfort of my own home.......

Maybe someone can tell me what ever happened to the concept of ethics and priorities.....

*furrows brows deeply*

Ladies and Gentlemen of the UN.

I am deeply disturbed that such an innocuous and facetious topic has become yet another motivation to bash each other aside the head on the issue of god and his/her/their existence.

When we will leave our religious differences at the door, and begin to cooperate cohesively to better the world?

When will we realize that greater good is not an issue for theological debate?

Greater good= the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the greatest amount of time.

It does not require morals to discern this. It requires ethics.

Ethics have no religious taintings. They are simple, universal truths of what should be allowed in civilized society.

But putting all this behind us, please UNDERSTAND that the goal of the intended proposition was NOT to motivate debate over religion, NOR to promote smoking. A careful reading of the proposition does nothing more than LIMIT the UN from making proposals that are intended to reduce national sovereignty in the issue of smoking.

See the satire for what it is.

Kill all Humans! :twisted:

duh, everyone knows the difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics are really what GMC says atheists are (just sticking to observed reality, making no greater claims), and atheists say that 'there is no god.' period.

Because it is not logical to assume the existence of something there is absolutely no objective evidence for. Do you believe there may be invisible pink unicorns too?

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html also disagrees with your definition.

infidels.org disagrees, but the OED and websters' that they quote both clearly define atheism consistent with the way america was using it - denial that there is a god. that's the way normal english-speaking people use it who are not specialists in the theology of atheism. that's also why people say 'agnostic' when they're talking about anyone who just says "we don't know if there's a god." that's the common, modern definition - like OED and webster say.

you are arguing against america's asserion that atheism is a vice, and they obviously were using the common definition, not your more obscure one.

i don't believe or deny the existence of "invisible pink unicorns." anyone who spends a lot of effort to DENY the existence of "invisible pink unicorns" (or god) is likely as off their rocker as those who assert there are. as soon as i'm shown that one exists, i'll believe it. until then, i don't care.

p.s. there's no such thing as "objective evidence."

Atheism means simply 'lack of theism' as in 'lack of belief in a god / gods.' It doesn't imply anything about denial at all. The fact that a lot of people use an incorrect definition doesn't actually make any difference to the meaning of the word, any more than a lot of people using 'chaingun' to refer to miniguns makes that correct.

And hiding behind a puppet isn't very honest, now is it?