NationStates Jolt Archive

Anything siggable yet?
Not yet.
And? Am I not the best of Christians?
LOL
And do I not know the verses?
Yes

He allowed it.

Yes he did to show the devil that he had people that would believe in him. Huh Kinda like me.

God didn't kill Job's family. Satan did.
But God let him do it. He literally told him that he could do anything to Job, except killing him. He enabled him.

Hey Bene, I want to be nice to TI, could you go kill his family for me?

Yes he did to show the devil that he had people that would believe in him. Huh Kinda like me.

And that was being nice to Job?

YesYou think I am ignorant of the verses??

Hey Bene, I want to be nice to TI, could you go kill his family for me?

But I'm supposed to be the benevolent one. :(

And that was being nice to Job?

No but like I said the Bible says nothing about God being nice.

But I'm supposed to be the benevolent one. :(

Job also got all he lost back!

No but like I said the Bible says nothing about God being nice.

He's supposed to be omni-benevolent, or all-loving.

You think I am ignorant of the verses??

Sorry, I screwed up my answer/misread the question apparently. What I meant was Yes, you know the verses.

He's supposed to be omni-benevolent, or all-loving.

That doesn't mean He's Nice. The Bible sys he's Merciful.

Job also got all he lost back!

Umm, yeah... But the dead children were still dead. How would you feel if I killed your child, then said 'oh, it's okay. Have another one!'.

No but like I said the Bible says nothing about God being nice.

Apparently you have short term memory loss:
He's nice to those that follow his rules.Job wasn't following his rules?Ha! Shows how much you know about the Bible! Job was one of God's most faithful followers.


Which is it? Is he nice to those that follow his rules or is he a bastard that doesn't give a fuck about his followers as long as he gets to show-off to satan?

Apparently you have short term memory loss:


Which is it? Is he nice to those that follow his rules or is he a bastard that doesn't give a fuck about his followers as long as he gets to show-off to satan?

I'm not gonna answer a question that is so stupid!

Umm, yeah... But the dead children were still dead. How would you feel if I killed your child, then said 'oh, it's okay. Have another one!'.

Well, I know I'd still love God.

Well, I know I'd still love God.

Er, yeah... Have fun with that.

Er, yeah... Have fun with that.

Ok I'll be sure to say hi to god for you when I die. I mean on acount you won't be in heaven.

Ok I'll be sure to say hi to god for you when I die. I mean on acount you won't be in heaven.

Oh, I'll be in Heaven. Atheist Heaven.

I'm not gonna answer a question that is so stupid!

That is how you are presenting your god.

Ok I'll be sure to say hi to god for you when I die. I mean on acount you won't be in heaven.
Oh, don't worry, I've got his cell number.

Infinity, obviously, but I've had my phone adapted to divide by zero on that particular speed dial, so that works out okay.

Oh, don't worry, I've got his cell number.

Infinity, obviously, but I've had my phone adapted to divide by zero on that particular speed dial, so that works out okay.

You mean you didn't have a God Button put on your phone? It makes it SOO much easier, and you don't risk blowing up the universe in the process.

*wonders what this thread has become*

*looks around*

*leaves*

GO CATHOLICS!! YAY GOD! Now i don't wanna get involved in this, so don't reply to my topic. I am a Catholic, but i don't believe everything in the Bible. The world was not created in 7 days, and evolution has been proven. There was no Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, or the Tower of Babel. The Jewish people who wrote this wanted to show the power that God had by writing down these legends. However, Abraham and the Patriarchs are real, King David lived, and the Temple of Jerusalem actually exists. God sent Jesus to save our souls from Hell. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us in living the way God wants us to live. God DID create the world, but as i said before, not in 7 days. If you ever read the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, you will see that the world could not only be made by co-insidence (I dont know how to spell well). Now i dont care if your Jewish Muslim or Catholic (Protestants can kiss my ass), many people believe in God and it is kind of hard not to. In fact, Many countries have official religions and you have to follow that religion (Saudi Arabia and Islam). America is really one of the only countries in the world where Atheism exists. So that has to show that people in the world do believe in a divine power. So thats all i have to say on this, and once again Catholics rule and Evangelicals can kiss my ass.

You mean you didn't have a God Button put on your phone? It makes it SOO much easier, and you don't risk blowing up the universe in the process.
The effect is more or less the same. Though admittedly, there is always a sort of "non-explosion" every time I call. Maybe I should get that replaced...

Ok I'll be sure to say hi to god for you when I die. I mean on acount you won't be in heaven.

Do you actually think that is something that would concern us?

The effect is more or less the same. Though admittedly, there is always a sort of "non-explosion" every time I call. Maybe I should get that replaced...

It might help, but you'll have to deal with the annoying gits at the call center either way. It's always "God would like to take your call but is presently busy. Please hold on the line." and then an hour of elevator music. It must be the reward he gives to people who are blindly faithful. Blindly following orders at the Great Help Desk in the Sky for eternity.

GO CATHOLICS!! YAY GOD! Now i don't wanna get involved in this, so don't reply to my topic. I am a Catholic, but i don't believe everything in the Bible. The world was not created in 7 days, and evolution has been proven. There was no Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, or the Tower of Babel. The Jewish people who wrote this wanted to show the power that God had by writing down these legends. However, Abraham and the Patriarchs are real, King David lived, and the Temple of Jerusalem actually exists. God sent Jesus to save our souls from Hell. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us in living the way God wants us to live. God DID create the world, but as i said before, not in 7 days. If you ever read the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, you will see that the world could not only be made by co-insidence (I dont know how to spell well). Now i dont care if your Jewish Muslim or Catholic (Protestants can kiss my ass), many people believe in God and it is kind of hard not to. In fact, Many countries have official religions and you have to follow that religion (Saudi Arabia and Islam). America is really one of the only countries in the world where Atheism exists. So that has to show that people in the world do believe in a divine power. So thats all i have to say on this, and once again Catholics rule and Evangelicals can kiss my ass.Why would Abraham be real but not Cain? Where is the difference?

America is really one of the only countries in the world where Atheism exists.Europe is practically atheistic. Religious adherence exists only on papaer.

GO CATHOLICS!! YAY GOD! Now i don't wanna get involved in this, so don't reply to my topic. I am a Catholic, but i don't believe everything in the Bible. The world was not created in 7 days, 1) and evolution has been proven. There was no Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, or the Tower of Babel. The Jewish people who wrote this wanted to show the power that God had by writing down these legends. However, Abraham and the Patriarchs are real, King David lived, and the Temple of Jerusalem actually exists. God sent Jesus to save our souls from Hell. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us in living the way God wants us to live. God DID create the world, but as i said before, not in 7 days. If you ever read the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, you will see that the world could not only be made by co-insidence (I dont know how to spell well). Now i dont care if your Jewish Muslim or Catholic (Protestants can kiss my ass), 2) many people believe in God and it is kind of hard not to. In fact, Many countries have official religions and you have to follow that religion (Saudi Arabia and Islam). 3) America is really one of the only countries in the world where Atheism exists. So that has to show that people in the world do believe in a divine power. So thats all i have to say on this, and once again Catholics rule and Evangelicals can kiss my ass.

1) No it hasn't, it hasn't been disproven either though.
2) Actually, I find it quite easy to not believe in god.
3) Wrong again.

America is really one of the only countries in the world where Atheism exists.
Not to rain on your parade or anything, but see also China, Russia (sorta) and much of Western Europe.

Why would Abraham be real but not Cain? Where is the difference?

Europe is practically atheistic. Religious adherence exists only on papaer.

They are different actually because Abraham would have been about 1000 years after Cain and ABLE, not Abraham. Second, I went to France and Ireland over the summer for 3 weeks and every Sunday the churches were full.

Also i stated clearly in my topic not to reply to it. I hate religious arguments because they are pointless. I dont care if you believe in God or not i was just stating my beliefs.

They are different actually because Abraham would have been about 1000 years after Cain and ABLE, not Abraham. Second, I went to France and Ireland over the summer for 3 weeks and every Sunday the churches were full.

Also i stated clearly in my topic not to reply to it. I hate religious arguments because they are pointless. I dont care if you believe in God or not i was just stating my beliefs.

This is a debate forum, kid. If you didn't want to get pulled into an argument, you probably shouldn't have started one.

It might help, but you'll have to deal with the annoying gits at the call center either way. It's always "God would like to take your call but is presently busy. Please hold on the line." and then an hour of elevator music. It must be the reward he gives to people who are blindly faithful. Blindly following orders at the Great Help Desk in the Sky for eternity.
Funnily enough, I've never got that. God always seems to have answers before I even ask. It's weird.

Incidentally, ever noticed how much God sounds like James Taylor?

They are different actually because Abraham would have been about 1000 years after Cain and ABLE, not Abraham.What? Abraham would have been a lot more than 1000 years after Cain and ABEL.
So the criterion for what is real is time? Again, why would Abraham be real but not Cain? Where is the difference?

They are different actually because Abraham would have been about 1000 years after Cain and ABLE, not Abraham. Second, I went to France and Ireland over the summer for 3 weeks and every Sunday the churches were full.

And you find full churches in the U.S. too, so what?

And you find full churches in the U.S. too, so what?

Not full enough.

Not full enough.

and not burned enough :mp5:

and not burned enough :mp5:

I'm sorry you feel that way.

and not burned enough :mp5:Yep. Do with churches what Abimelech did to the temple of Baal Berith (=YHVH).

Funnily enough, I've never got that. God always seems to have answers before I even ask. It's weird.

Incidentally, ever noticed how much God sounds like James Taylor?

James Woods, you blasphemer! *Crusades*

GO CATHOLICS!! YAY GOD! Now i don't wanna get involved in this, so don't reply to my topic. I am a Catholic, but i don't believe everything in the Bible. The world was not created in 7 days, and evolution has been proven. There was no Garden of Eden, Cain and Able, or the Tower of Babel. The Jewish people who wrote this wanted to show the power that God had by writing down these legends. However, Abraham and the Patriarchs are real, King David lived, and the Temple of Jerusalem actually exists. God sent Jesus to save our souls from Hell. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us in living the way God wants us to live. God DID create the world, but as i said before, not in 7 days. If you ever read the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, you will see that the world could not only be made by co-insidence (I dont know how to spell well). Now i dont care if your Jewish Muslim or Catholic (Protestants can kiss my ass), many people believe in God and it is kind of hard not to. In fact, Many countries have official religions and you have to follow that religion (Saudi Arabia and Islam). America is really one of the only countries in the world where Atheism exists. So that has to show that people in the world do believe in a divine power. So thats all i have to say on this, and once again Catholics rule and Evangelicals can kiss my ass.

*kisses your ass*

Bet you liked that didn't you, you CATHOLIC WHORE!!!!@!@!@!@!@122122

Yep. Do with churches what Abimelech did to the temple of Baal Berith (=YHVH).

It's gonna suck when you die. Tell Satan I said hi when you meet him.

Not full enough.

I'm sorry you feel that way

What? Abraham would have been a lot more than 1000 years after Cain and ABEL.
So the criterion for what is real is time? Again, why would Abraham be real but not Cain? Where is the difference?

Abraham is traditionally said to have lived about 1800 B.C. I am not certain how long after creation (by Bishop Usher's count as used by YEC proponents in 4004 B.C.) the story of Cain and Abel is supposed to have taken place, but you're right; it would have been more than 1000 years from them to Abraham.

It's gonna suck when you die. Tell Satan I said hi when you meet him.

You can tell him yourself chump.

You can tell him yourself chump.

Too bad I'll be w/ God.

It's gonna suck when you die. Tell Satan I said hi when you meet him.You do not impress me at all.

Too bad I'll be w/ God.

I doubt it.... you follow a false religion. You are going with Satan buddy... you had a chance and you lost it.

NOTE: do not commen on my spelling. its not good i know it and i could not care any less. This is an online game/community not an english lesson.

I have to say that this thread is the reason i validatedmy email to be able to post on the forums. Its one of those stupid places where you shouldnt say anything but you cant stop yourself. You know like when you walk into a café and people are ordering apple pie instead of blueberry pie. I mean WTF?! everyone know blueberry is tastier, more easily digested and takes less time to eat(less commitment needed).

So tell me why would you need a god?
It has loads of things thatprohibits the full enjoymentof being human, its unpleasent to have to argue all the time with the smarter and more sofisticated atheists and it needs shitloads of commitment? Its like the applepie compared to blueberry pie.


let me tell you why. YOU ARE WEAK. A famous philosopher once said "god is for those with no faith in themselves. They need someone to blame for their misstakes and hardship."

I should not have said that and it will cost me but it was worth it. Becuse at the end of the day i stand for what i say and take the consequenses and blame ME for the hardship and misstakes, thereby the flaw of the logic which holds your god alive is the very figment of the immagination of those who forced the picture upon you as a measure of controll.

SIDENOTE: I haveto say though i sometimes i wish i could belive in this religion BS. it would make life soooooo much easier to deal with =P.

and not burned enough :mp5:

You and Stalin would've gotten along famously... So many people oppose organized religion because of tragedies like the Crusades and the Holocaust. They forget that some of the greatest atrocities of the last century have been in the name of Atheism.

As for the Job being tested thing, there are lots of perspectives you can take.

I don't believe that the future is set, but I do believe that if there was a God, he'd be able to predict it pretty accurately based on the knowledge at hand. Even without predestination, God may have known that Job would stay faithful, but tested him anyway- not to prove a point to God or to Satan (who I don't believe in), but to prove something to Job.

No matter how faithful we think we are, no matter how much praise we get for our devotion, we never really know the depth of our belief until it's tested. Job had to lose everything and still praise God before he himself realized how faithful he was. After that incident, Job would never doubt his own faith again.

My opinion is that Job represents humanity as a whole, and shows that we don't know enough to question God when things go bad.

You can tell him yourself chump.

I thought you were non-religious...? Maybe I have you confused with someone else.

You and Stalin would've gotten along famously... So many people oppose organized religion because of tragedies like the Crusades and the Holocaust. They forget that some of the greatest atrocities of the last century have been in the name of Atheism.


Nobody forgets those. Actually most of the time atheist are framed with some of the religious ones too.

Too bad I'll be w/ God.

As I posted earlier, God summoned a gun that could kill even him, and shot himself to avoid existing in a universe where someone would post what you did about curve balls.

You and Stalin would've gotten along famously... So many people oppose organized religion because of tragedies like the Crusades and the Holocaust. They forget that some of the greatest atrocities of the last century have been in the name of Atheism.What?

I thought you were non-religious...? Maybe I have you confused with someone else.

Im an atheist... everybody knows atheist hate Jesus and praise Satan. Its the only logical thing to do. Duh!:D

Abraham is traditionally said to have lived about 1800 B.C. I am not certain how long after creation (by Bishop Usher's count as used by YEC proponents in 4004 B.C.) the story of Cain and Abel is supposed to have taken place, but you're right; it would have been more than 1000 years from them to Abraham.wtf?
ok, wiki helps. what a rubbish.

* 4004 BC - Creation
* 2348 BC - Noah's Flood
* 1921 BC - God's call to Abraham
* 1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt
* 1012 BC - The founding of the Temple in Jerusalem
* 586 BC - The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity
* 4 BC - The birth of Jesus

God wanted Satan to give Job a test. Obviously God did not know all about Job. Hence the test.

I find it extremely curious that you go from God wanting Satan to test Job, to God not knowing if Job would pass or not ('not know[ing] all about Job').

If we assume God to be an omniscient being (in the usual sense, though what 'omniscience' means is a matter of significant debate), then God knew the depth of Job's faith, at the very least. Furthermore, if we accept that God allows for free will--a necessary part of faith, and Christianity in general (for non-Calvinists anyway)--then it is *logically impossible* for Job to have free will *and* for God to foreknow how Job will respond to a test. Job could always decide one day that he doesn't like God anymore.

Is it not at all possible that God was *actually* testing Satan? That God is saying, "Look, mister tempter, you want to see what devotion to Me looks like? Check out Job. It might be a learning experience for you."? I think that we're seeing something of a false dichotomy here, in the options you give us for interpreting this.

I also notice that it appears nobody has looked up the works of certain very significant people in the formation of Christianity. Like, oh, I dunno, St. Augustine, or St. Aquinas, or perhaps even *gasp!* Jesus.

St. Augustine, widely regarded as one of the greatest Christian authors and philosophers during the first millennium AD, advocated a non-literal interpretation of the New Testament, especially in regards to Creation (he himself believed it happened instantaneously). He applied this to all the "story" parts of the Bible, which he saw as being true on a spiritual level (God did create the world) rather than a narrative/newspaper-esque level (i.e. God did not create the world in exactly six periods of 24 hours).

Augustine also unequivocally advocated that Christians should never on any account argue against that which can be plainly seen by reason (because Reason is a God-given faculty in his estimation.) He felt that doing so only made Christians look like fools (which it does) and made it that much harder for us to show more people the truth.

((Also, just in case the implied statements were not clear, I am a Christian as well. I also believe that evolution occurs, that the universe very likely began with a Big Bang, etc. I know some Christians would not like the fact that I believe both of these things simultaneously--and that *many* 'freethinkers' would strongly dislike it--but that's what I believe.))

let me tell you why. YOU ARE WEAK. A famous philosopher once said "god is for those with no faith in themselves. They need someone to blame for their misstakes and hardship."

Really? I'm weak. I don't really think so, personally. But you're entitled to think otherwise. Incidentally, I don't tend to blame my God for the things that go wrong with my life.

As I posted earlier, God summoned a gun that could kill even him, and shot himself to avoid existing in a universe where someone would post what you did about curve balls.

I still groan when I think about it. How could someone be so foolish as to say that.

NOTE: do not commen on my spelling. its not good i know it and i could not care any less. This is an online game/community not an english lesson.

Lucky you.

I have to say that this thread is the reason i validatedmy email to be able to post on the forums. Its one of those stupid places where you shouldnt say anything but you cant stop yourself.

Unfortunately, it seems you can't... :rolleyes:

You know like when you walk into a café and people are ordering apple pie instead of blueberry pie. I mean WTF?! everyone know blueberry is tastier, more easily digested and takes less time to eat(less commitment needed).

This is definitely going to lead to something...

So tell me why would you need a god?

Flawless transition! Straight from blueberry pie to God... I can trace your line of thought perfectly.

It has loads of things thatprohibits the full enjoymentof being human, its unpleasent to have to argue all the time with the smarter and more sofisticated atheists and it needs shitloads of commitment?

It does require more commitment? But rather than join the herd of people who think that being smart involves shutting out the possibility of a higher power, I try to keep an open mind? Rather than give myself over to the desires of every animal (to eat, to fuck, to walk around naked, to pee in random places... etc) I chose something more? And the fact that I deny these animal impulses is actually what makes me human, not the other way around? The fact that I don't take the easy way out might not make me smart and sophisticated, but luckily I'm not a slave to public perception? I can't stop ending these statements with question marks?
I'm sorry, I forgot, this isn't an English lesson...
?

Its like the applepie compared to blueberry pie.

Atheism is easier to digest and requires less work? And somehow, accepting it makes you smarter? Buddy, the self-indulgent slacker attitude does not convey strength and certainly does not convey intelligence.

let me tell you why. YOU ARE WEAK.

Ahh, for spending the greater part of my life challenging my faith, for being one of the few even slightly religious people in this thread among numerous Atheists (not that I don't love you guys ;) ) and for living my life according to standards that are almost impossible to meet... I'm weak? After you just said that Atheism is easier, requiring less commitment and involving more enjoyment, you call religious people weak?
Can you hear yourself?

A famous philosopher once said "god is for those with no faith in themselves. They need someone to blame for their misstakes and hardship."

I'm interested to hear which philosopher. Clearly, he must be a philosopher who is superior to Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Abraham, and Moses. Otherwise, displaying these words as absolute truth simply because someone famous said them would be no different than me saying that the Bible is "proof" of God's existence... simply because the Bible is famous.

I should not have said that and it will cost me but it was worth it.

I certainly hope so.

Becuse at the end of the day i stand for what i say and take the consequenses and blame ME for the hardship and misstakes, thereby the flaw of the logic which holds your god alive is the very figment of the immagination of those who forced the picture upon you as a measure of controll.

Supposedly, you have been following this thread for some time and have heard our discussion about Job. If you took the initiative to actually read the book of Job, you would realize that it is all about how we are in no place to blame God for our hardships. We don't know enough to question God.

The people who are being controlled are the very ones who think they're being rebellious. The media has brainwashed people into thinking that by resisting authority, or going against the mainstream, or even wearing the right T-shirt, that they're unique. Nothing is further from the truth. The people being herded are the people who call everyone else sheep. People who are so afraid to be "ordinary" or "normal" or "average" go out and seek ways to set themselves apart. And eventually, they all blend together as one pathetic mob of human beings desperately in need of an identity. Usually, they think they can define themselves as being "smart and sophisticated" by loudly proclaiming that they're Atheist and don't care who knows it.

I'm not saying you're one of these people. I'm saying I've only met one or two Atheists who aren't, as compared to fifty or sixty who are.

SIDENOTE: I haveto say though i sometimes i wish i could belive in this religion BS. it would make life soooooo much easier to deal with =P.

Once again, you leave it unclear as to whether you believe that living a life of faith is easier or harder than living a life of faithlessness.

Different thing. The DaVinci Code is a movie. Look up The Bible Code.

No shit. :)

Nobody forgets those. Actually most of the time atheist are framed with some of the religious ones too.

So Stalin's great purge of Russia and the destruction of numerous churches (which had stood for hundreds of years) was the result of... religious fanatics?

Or are you talking about other incidents?

Im an atheist... everybody knows atheist hate Jesus and praise Satan. Its the only logical thing to do. Duh!:D

Haha but seriously... you just seemed kind of pissed when Tucker Island insinuated that you were going to hell. And I was wondering why you would care.

Just a question. Anyhow, that's all I wanted to know. Good luck with eating babies and throwing blood orgies, you dirty Atheist scum!!!

...

Okay, that was intended to make you laugh, so don't take it seriously. Juuuuuust in case ;)

God created the heavens and the earth I don't doubt his power.

Again, irrelevent.

You're not debating, my friend - you're preaching. And you're not very good at it. Little one liners without scriptural support, and in ignorance of evidence to the contrary is just bad preaching. If you want to see how to do it effectively, try hunting down some sermons by Lester Roloff.

Here, I found you a resource with some of his radio sermons.

http://www.trumpetoftruthonline.org/id63.html

So Stalin's great purge of Russia and the destruction of numerous churches (which had stood for hundreds of years) was the result of... religious fanatics?

In a sense, yes.

I still groan when I think about it. How could someone be so foolish as to say that.

Say what?

Satan asked God to let him test one of God's most loyal followers, which God said was Job. Satan was allowed to do anything to Job except kill him.

Try reading it again - that's not how it happened.

God doesn't care.

You're not the first person to say that.

In a sense, yes.

Only in the sense that Stalin was fanatically devoted to spreading Atheism... I think. I could be mistaken. Why, is there a different perspective on this?

Try reading it again - that's not how it happened.

Tucker Island doesn't seem to completely know what he believes, or necessarily what he's talking about.

Only in the sense that Stalin was fanatically devoted to spreading Atheism... I think. I could be mistaken. Why, is there a different perspective on this?

He didn't care about atheism. He wanted to be the only power figure around, and saw gods and such as rivals, whether they exist or not, so he wanted to get rid of anyone who presumed to speak for them.

Say what?

:rolleyes: That atheists believe in math and science, but it's mathematically impossible to throw a curveball. Yet pitchers do it every day.
Yeah... not the best argument for God's existence that I ever heard.
But God hasn't been mathematically disproven, so there's no need for the more religious types to try to disprove math (although that's certainly not beyond them...).

He didn't care about atheism. He wanted to be the only power figure around, and saw gods and such as rivals, whether they exist or not, so he wanted to get rid of anyone who presumed to speak for them.

Yes. Eliminating religion in favor of secularism. Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of a belief. Exterminating all other beliefs leaves no beliefs at all. Thus, Stalin was spreading atheism.

Only in the sense that Stalin was fanatically devoted to spreading Atheism... I think. I could be mistaken. Why, is there a different perspective on this?

Marxist Communism is not atheist, it is anti-theist, and thusly Stalin was fanatically devoted to spreading Anti-theism.

Atheism = Lack of belief in god
Anti-theism = Belief in lack of god

Not the same thing.

Tucker Island doesn't seem to completely know what he believes, or necessarily what he's talking about.

There's really not much excuse for someone arguing in favour of biblical literalism to not know simple things like the chronology of the events they debate.

Too much to ask?

Yes. Eliminating religion in favor of secularism. Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of a belief. Exterminating all other beliefs leaves no beliefs at all. Thus, Stalin was spreading atheism.

But he didn't do it in the name of atheism. I don't really see the reasoning behind 'I don't believe in gods, therefor all believers must die'.

Marxist Communism is not atheist, it is anti-theist, and thusly Stalin was fanatically devoted to spreading Anti-theism.

Atheism = Lack of belief in god
Anti-theism = Belief in lack of god

Not the same thing.

I know what you mean, but it just feels like splitting hairs to me.
Under your definition, it would be impossible for an Atheist to commit an atrocity in the name of Atheism, because doing so would be Anti-Theism. Forgive me if this sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

There's really not much excuse for someone arguing in favour of biblical literalism to not know simple things like the chronology of the events they debate.

Too much to ask?

Definitely not too much to ask, no.

But he didn't do it in the name of atheism. I don't really see the reasoning behind 'I don't believe in gods, therefor all believers must die'.

Nor do I, any more than I see the reasoning behind "I don't believe in Mohammed, therefore all Muslims in the Holy Land must die."

Nor do I, any more than I see the reasoning behind "I don't believe in Mohammed, therefore all Muslims in the Holy Land must die."

Um, okay? I wouldn't see the reasoning behind such a thought either.

I know what you mean, but it just feels like splitting hairs to me.
Under your definition, it would be impossible for an Atheist to commit an atrocity in the name of Atheism, because doing so would be Anti-Theism. Forgive me if this sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

More a matter of someone who is an atheist probably isn't going to bother, an anti-theist on the other hand...

Not saying that it is an impossibility, it just is unlikely.

Um, okay? I wouldn't see the reasoning behind such a thought either.

I don't see the reasoning, either... that's my point. I'm just trying to say that even though I can't imagine why people would do these terrible things, the fact remains that they did them. I don't know why Stalin would want to stomp out religion in Russia (although someone posted, probably correctly, that Stalin didn't want any higher powers in his country), but stomp it out he did. And violently so.

I don't see the reasoning, either... that's my point. I'm just trying to say that even though I can't imagine why people would do these terrible things, the fact remains that they did them. I don't know why Stalin would want to stomp out religion in Russia (although someone posted, probably correctly, that Stalin didn't want any higher powers in his country), but stomp it out he did. And violently so.

Indeed... History is quite bloody.

Personally I find that religion was mostly used as an excuse. It was easier to make people follow your orders and remove their compassion for the enemy if you said that some god told you to do this and that the enemy is worshiping demons or something.

I don't see the reasoning, either... that's my point. I'm just trying to say that even though I can't imagine why people would do these terrible things, the fact remains that they did them. I don't know why Stalin would want to stomp out religion in Russia (although someone posted, probably correctly, that Stalin didn't want any higher powers in his country), but stomp it out he did. And violently so.

A matter of degree, perhaps?

Most of us can probably agree that it is preferable not to have a government that is in the pocket of one religion over all others.

By extension, most of us can see a real advantage to secular government.


MOST of us would stop here... but...


By extension, there is advantage to a 'secular' population.

By extension, there is advantage to removing differences of religion among your citizenry.

By extension, there is good cause to abolish (by force, if necessary) religious observation.


Taking even a good idea to the extreme can be a bad thing.

Yes. Eliminating religion in favor of secularism. Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of a belief. Exterminating all other beliefs leaves no beliefs at all. Thus, Stalin was spreading atheism.

I see. So any time an atheist kills a theist, he's doing it for atheism? After all, by your reasoning, any time a theist dies, that's "spreading atheism" since apparently BEING A CORPSE is the same as BEING ATHEIST?

I don't see the reasoning, either... that's my point. I'm just trying to say that even though I can't imagine why people would do these terrible things, the fact remains that they did them. I don't know why Stalin would want to stomp out religion in Russia (although someone posted, probably correctly, that Stalin didn't want any higher powers in his country), but stomp it out he did. And violently so.

Stalin wanted to stomp out any and all things that might conceivably interfere with his megalomania. Attributing this somehow to atheism is really very silly. Beliefs and "isms" don't do any of these things. People do.

I see. So any time an atheist kills a theist, he's doing it for atheism?

If he kills the theist for being theist, then yes, absolutely.

After all, by your reasoning, any time a theist dies, that's "spreading atheism" since apparently BEING A CORPSE is the same as BEING ATHEIST?

Only in the sense that, to my knowledge, corpses do not believe in any deity. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

Stalin wanted to stomp out any and all things that might conceivably interfere with his megalomania.

The same could be said of numerous religious leaders who used faith to provoke violence, in order to achieve secular goals (land, wealth, political influence, etc). However, this does not stop numerous people from blaming these atrocities on religion.

Attributing this somehow to atheism is really very silly. Beliefs and "isms" don't do any of these things. People do.

I absolutely agree with you. I don't believe that Atheism should be blamed for Stalin's great purge or Mao's cultural revolution any more than I think Christians should be blamed for the Crusades or the Holocaust. It was the actions of people.

A matter of degree, perhaps?

Most of us can probably agree that it is preferable not to have a government that is in the pocket of one religion over all others.

By extension, most of us can see a real advantage to secular government.


MOST of us would stop here... but...


By extension, there is advantage to a 'secular' population.

By extension, there is advantage to removing differences of religion among your citizenry.

By extension, there is good cause to abolish (by force, if necessary) religious observation.


Taking even a good idea to the extreme can be a bad thing.

Having the government in the pocket of strict secularism is just as bad as having it in the pocket of one religion over another. I think that was your point, but I just wanted to make sure.

If he kills the theist for being theist, then yes, absolutely.

Only in the sense that, to my knowledge, corpses do not believe in any deity. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

The same could be said of numerous religious leaders who used faith to provoke violence, in order to achieve secular goals (land, wealth, political influence, etc). However, this does not stop numerous people from blaming these atrocities on religion.

I absolutely agree with you. I don't believe that Atheism should be blamed for Stalin's great purge or Mao's cultural revolution any more than I think Christians should be blamed for the Crusades or the Holocaust. It was the actions of people.
Agreed

Wow an actual pause of more than a few minutes... it only took 40 pages.
Hm. If only we had someone to randomly show up and say something inflammatory to make this thread exciting again...

Hm. If only we had someone to randomly show up and say something inflammatory to make this thread exciting again...
Ancient Greece's success as a civilisation invalidates the idea of the Jewish people being God's chosen, since the Greeks contributed more to human civilisation than any culture before or since, whereas all the Jews did was jump from one occupation to the next. Consequently, the Abrahamic religions are based on false grounds.

Will that do? :p

Ancient Greece's success as a civilisation invalidates the idea of the Jewish people being God's chosen, since the Greeks contributed more to human civilisation than any culture before or since, whereas all the Jews did was jump from one occupation to the next. Consequently, the Abrahamic religions are based on false grounds.

Will that do? :p

*puts on angry face, thumps Bible* You, sir, are going STRAIGHT TO HELL!

Damn it! I wanted to come to this board to argue with protestants, not atheists! Listen guys if you're an atheists that's cool. Some great people like Gandhi weren't Christian and they're probably chillin with God in heaven right now. But if you don't believe in God don't criticize people who are! It is their choice to believe what they want to believe. You may think it is retarded to believe in a loving God who created the world, but many other people in the world do. Religion, i believe, has way too much to do with the world today, and it would be easier if either everyone followed one religion or if all people were atheists. But don't criticize someone who believes that God is real! It is discussions like this which makes the world so messed up today! Let Christians talk about the Bible to each other and atheists can talk about whatever atheists talk about.

Wow an actual pause of more than a few minutes... it only took 40 pages.
Hm. If only we had someone to randomly show up and say something inflammatory to make this thread exciting again...

Fuck Christians. I advocate the extermination of their pathetic, ill thought out faith and all who practice it.


Inflammatory enough for ya?;)



My work here is done.:p




ps- Anyone who takes my inflammitoty comment seriously should be beaten with a really, really heavy stick.

*puts on angry face, thumps Bible* You, sir, are going STRAIGHT TO HELL!That's where the party is. :D

But don't criticize someone who believes that God is real!

Why not?

When religion takes an evangelical form and actively tries to convert children, where anyone is criticised, if not blamed, for tragic events from 9/11 to Katrina to Sichuan - ref. Sharon Stone karma comments - due to religious doctrine, why should atheists idly sit by and allow all manner of legislation to be passed, actual lives affected out of some undue respect for religious belief.

In some sense, it is as much the duty of every atheist to fight for their right not to believe, not to be blamed every week for some sin or another, to enjoy a world where realistic views can be sensibly discussed rather than whether God will send you to hell for abortion, or for being female and wanting to drive or any manner of freedoms curtailed due to a certain sect's misguided translation of what a possible God might want from us.

If nothing else, why can't debate be allowed without people getting all Chris Crocker and crying 'Leave me alone' - you could just leave if you don't want your beliefs challenged and that goes for political beliefs, personal beliefs or any kind of belief.

But if you don't believe in God don't criticize people who are!


No. Religion does not get a free pass.

If an adult still believed in Santa Claus (St. Nick, Father Christmas, whatever) they would rightly be rediculed for it. Why should a big all powerful imaginary friend be any different?

But don't criticize someone who believes that God is real! Why? It's the same as criticizing someone who believes that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Xenu, Moroni, Pink Flying Unicorns, or the Spagetthi Deity are real.

The Bible sys he's Merciful.
...says an awful lot of other things too.
I don't think i can toot a lot of benefits of a guy who, at the few moments it occurs, is "merciful" (just how relative is something supposed to be anyway?) as compared to how he usually is.

Umm, yeah... But the dead children were still dead. How would you feel if I killed your child, then said 'oh, it's okay. Have another one!'.
Actually that explains the mentality of certain splinters of "christian" faith ....

He's supposed to be omni-benevolent, or all-loving.He doesn't even make that. Faeces on faces & the like.

We'll find out who's right when you die.
Or, not, since "we"'ll be dead and all. Perhaps you don't understand what "dead" means.
Besides, there's lotsandlotsandlotsandlotsandlots of heaping mounds of evidence of who's right about what happens to you when you die.
Mounds.

Steenhuffel;13725882']So your all-powerful god isn't?
It's not that god was weak, it's that everyone else was. Like with Judah on the plains. "With", but not really. :rolleyes:

Can I not use metaphors around you guys?
If you don't mind your "god" being treated as one, and only going that far with "his" significance, as a metaphor, there's no real problem with it, i suspect.

Steenhuffel;13725865']god does seem very worried about what satan thinks. Is there some sort of homo-erotic hero worship going on here?
Sigworthy.

Look around that's your evidence.I'm often in a brothel, and i've a mind to test your evidence. Lawdy.

God's power is something we can't even fathom.
It would do you and other similarly-inclined people a world of grace to stop blubbering on about what you can't fathom, then. You make a significant disservice in that regard.

From the guy with the octopus head?

http://blog.makezine.com/283555079_addd7111f9_b.jpg
?

*_________* doesn't count!Ach, for how many times i've heard that. .... *sobs*

Let's not forget Rael and the Raelian movement. I occasionally have dinner with Rael (actually true).Don't you mean Raoul and the Raoulian (Beltranian) movement?

http://www.cinemotions.net/data/films/0145/24/2/photo-Eating-Raoul-1982-1.jpg
Ah ... that would make you JhahannaBland.

Don't you mean Raoul and the Raoulian (Beltranian) movement?

http://www.cinemotions.net/data/films/0145/24/2/photo-Eating-Raoul-1982-1.jpg
Ah ... that would make you JhahannaBland.

Nope. --> Raelian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism)

Having the government in the pocket of strict secularism is just as bad as having it in the pocket of one religion over another. I think that was your point, but I just wanted to make sure.

Rather depends what we think 'secularism' means.

It's not that god was weak, it's that everyone else was. Like with Judah on the plains. "With", but not really. :rolleyes:

Nah, the Biblical God really is a pussy. He couldn't even win a fight against Jacob till he whacked him in the nuts.

(Genesis 32:25)

Damn it! I wanted to come to this board to argue with protestants, not atheists! Listen guys if you're an atheists that's cool. Some great people like Gandhi weren't Christian and they're probably chillin with God in heaven right now. But if you don't believe in God don't criticize people who are! It is their choice to believe what they want to believe. You may think it is retarded to believe in a loving God who created the world, but many other people in the world do. Religion, i believe, has way too much to do with the world today, and it would be easier if either everyone followed one religion or if all people were atheists. But don't criticize someone who believes that God is real! It is discussions like this which makes the world so messed up today! Let Christians talk about the Bible to each other and atheists can talk about whatever atheists talk about.

Wah, wah, wah! I don't want anybody to question my beliefs!

A majority of the non-christians here on NSG are not going to call you retarded for being a christian (there are some notable exceptions).

Yes. Eliminating religion in favor of secularism. Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of a belief. Exterminating all other beliefs leaves no beliefs at all. Thus, Stalin was spreading atheism.

He wanted to promote the belief in a twisted version of marxist/leninism...with him as the center figure and glorious leader, almost divine.

Communist, specially stalinist, are very much like a religion. They have their profet, their dogmas and their holy book.

Oo-er. Gone from a Christian discussion topic into Liger Discussion. :p

I think he meant 'lighter'...
Nah, that would have been too obvious.

If he kills the theist for being theist, then yes, absolutely.


So, Stalin doesn't qualify.

Only in the sense that, to my knowledge, corpses do not believe in any deity. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

Hey you know, the Helium 3 atom doesn't believe in any deity too. So, by spreading D-T fusion reactions (which produce Helium 3) I am spreading atheism! YAY!

Saying corpses don't believe in god is much like saying the Helium3 atoms are atheist. It's without meaning. Especially since, as far as I know, corpses DO believe in god. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? ;)

The same could be said of numerous religious leaders who used faith to provoke violence, in order to achieve secular goals (land, wealth, political influence, etc). However, this does not stop numerous people from blaming these atrocities on religion.

Because a religion is an organization, an institution, an entity of its own, almost like a state. "Atheism" is not. This is why blaming the Church of Scientology for what the Church of Scientology does actually makes sense, while blaming atheism for what Stalin does wouldn't.

I absolutely agree with you. I don't believe that Atheism should be blamed for Stalin's great purge or Mao's cultural revolution any more than I think Christians should be blamed for the Crusades or the Holocaust. It was the actions of people.

Agree.

(Though "Christians" ARE people, so blaming Christians for the Crusades would make sense, albeit in a generalized way that could indicate bigotry, depending on the source.)

Wah, wah, wah! I don't want anybody to question my beliefs!

A majority of the non-christians here on NSG are not going to call you retarded for being a christian (there are some notable exceptions).

And our interactions with said exceptions mostly constitute of making fun of them.

This forum is all about equal opportunity. The equal opportunity to be ridiculed, that is.

This forum is all about equal opportunity. The equal opportunity to be ridiculed, that is.

Yup, we make fun of everybody.

Why? It's the same as criticizing someone who believes that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Xenu, Moroni, Pink Flying Unicorns, or the Spagetthi Deity are real.

Not quite. Religion came about as a way of explaining how the world came to exist, why people are so different from animals (human intelligence/compassion is the biggest reason for my faith), and to give us a sense of place in the world.

Santa Claus (Claus, not Clause... Clause is the Tim Allen movie. Not trying to be a grammar Nazi, it's just that this is a common mistake and I get tired of seeing it) and the Easter Bunny were also invented to explain things: that is, where the fuck are all these presents and colored eggs coming from? Once we found out that it was our parents who left those things around, we no longer needed Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to explain their presence.

However, we still don't know what exactly prompted the Big Bang. We don't know how a creature that was essentially an ape gave birth to the first human (and some scientists do believe that humanity started with a single genetic mutation, just as blue eyes did). Until we find out that it was our parents who created the universe and set us apart from lesser beasts, then saying: "Some higher power did this," is just as plausible as saying "These things happened completely out of nowhere, on their own, for no good reason at all."

It's been proven to me that Santa doesn't exist. But no one has yet been able to prove that the universe was created by a god or gods, just as no one has been able to prove that it spontaneously sprang up with no plan behind it. You have to believe one way or the other. Don't say that your belief which has no proof backing it up, is better than another person's belief which has no proof backing it up.

[Kamsaki] God sounds like James Taylor
James Woods, you blasphemer! *Crusades*

NO: James Earl Jones!

So, Stalin doesn't qualify.

... yes, he does. He went after religious people for being religious.
The same goes for Mao and his cultural revolution.

Hey you know, the Helium 3 atom doesn't believe in any deity too. So, by spreading D-T fusion reactions (which produce Helium 3) I am spreading atheism! YAY!

You seem happy. Want to go drink some atheist beer in celebration?

Saying corpses don't believe in god is much like saying the Helium3 atoms are atheist. It's without meaning. Especially since, as far as I know, corpses DO believe in god. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? ;)

Well, we could always ask them.
Mostly, I made the corpse comment as a joke in response to "killing people is spreading atheism."

Because a religion is an organization, an institution, an entity of its own, almost like a state. "Atheism" is not. This is why blaming the Church of Scientology for what the Church of Scientology does actually makes sense, while blaming atheism for what Stalin does wouldn't.

And as I said, I don't blame atheism for the actions of a few atheists. And I can't decide if I'm supposed to capitalize Atheism or not. Never mind that right now...
Like I said, the belief (or lack of belief) is not "good" or "bad" in and of itself. You can't criticize for believing one way or another, but you can criticize them for what they do with that belief.

Agree.

(Though "Christians" ARE people, so blaming Christians for the Crusades would make sense, albeit in a generalized way that could indicate bigotry, depending on the source.)

Why? I'm not any more responsible for the deaths of all the Muslims in Jerusalem than modern-day Germans are responsible for the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was part of Hitler's plan to make Germany great and pure, just as the Crusades were meant to "purify" the Holy Land. However, Germans know now, just as many of them knew then, that killing millions of innocent people is not going to make their country better. Similarly, I know that it's not necessary to kill all the people who go to a mosque rather than a church to ensure Christianity is great. Other "Christians" (I put it in quotes because their actions were not in accordance with the words of Christ) made mistakes, and Christians that came later are not responsible for them. Nor do we accept the ideas that were the driving force behind the Crusades.

For example: I choose to remain an American, despite the fact that many Americans are rapists, murderers, and politicians.
I could move. I could forfeit my citizenship and live in Canada. But the fact that I choose to remain in America does not mean that I deserve to be punished just like the rapists, murderers, and politicians do. Why? Because being a murderer isn't part of being an American. The ideals on which America was founded do not condone murder, just as the ideals on which Christianity was founded do not condone religious war. People twisted faith to do something terrible with it. But those people are dead now, and you can't blame other Christians for their wrongdoings.

I'm often in a brothel, and i've a mind to test your evidence. Lawdy.

I'd have to see the brothel for myself before I could draw any conclusions. And I'd need some spending money.

... yes, he does. He went after religious people for being religious.

Their being religious was incidental to their being a potential threat to a paranoid and brutal dictator. It's not like he was particularly exclusive, either, as to who he went after...

You seem happy. Want to go drink some atheist beer in celebration?

Maybe some atheist absinthe.

Well, we could always ask them.
Mostly, I made the corpse comment as a joke in response to "killing people is spreading atheism."

Which was a silly idea to begin with.

Still, interesting to think about.

And as I said, I don't blame atheism for the actions of a few atheists. And I can't decide if I'm supposed to capitalize Atheism or not. Never mind that right now...
Like I said, the belief (or lack of belief) is not "good" or "bad" in and of itself. You can't criticize for believing one way or another, but you can criticize them for what they do with that belief.


I don't think atheism is capitalized.

Why? I'm not any more responsible for the deaths of all the Muslims in Jerusalem than modern-day Germans are responsible for the Holocaust.

No you aren't, I was merely saying that "blaming Christians" can be accurate, if you're blaming the Christians who were there. And, that this is different from what we were talking about, blaming Christianity (or atheism, or any abstract belief system).

The Holocaust was part of Hitler's plan to make Germany great and pure, just as the Crusades were meant to "purify" the Holy Land. However, Germans know now, just as many of them knew then, that killing millions of innocent people is not going to make their country better. Similarly, I know that it's not necessary to kill all the people who go to a mosque rather than a church to ensure Christianity is great. Other "Christians" (I put it in quotes because their actions were not in accordance with the words of Christ) made mistakes, and Christians that came later are not responsible for them. Nor do we accept the ideas that were the driving force behind the Crusades.

For example: I choose to remain an American, despite the fact that many Americans are rapists, murderers, and politicians.
I could move. I could forfeit my citizenship and live in Canada. But the fact that I choose to remain in America does not mean that I deserve to be punished just like the rapists, murderers, and politicians do. Why? Because being a murderer isn't part of being an American. The ideals on which America was founded do not condone murder, just as the ideals on which Christianity was founded do not condone religious war. People twisted faith to do something terrible with it. But those people are dead now, and you can't blame other Christians for their wrongdoings.

Well said.

And our interactions with said exceptions mostly constitute of making fun of them.

So anyone who doesn't make fun of him is the reason you're making fun of him? :headbang:

Not quite. Religion came about as a way of explaining how the world came to exist, why people are so different from animals (human intelligence/compassion is the biggest reason for my faith), and to give us a sense of place in the world.

Santa Claus (Claus, not Clause... Clause is the Tim Allen movie. Not trying to be a grammar Nazi, it's just that this is a common mistake and I get tired of seeing it) and the Easter Bunny were also invented to explain things: that is, where the fuck are all these presents and colored eggs coming from? Once we found out that it was our parents who left those things around, we no longer needed Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to explain their presence.

However, we still don't know what exactly prompted the Big Bang. We don't know how a creature that was essentially an ape gave birth to the first human (and some scientists do believe that humanity started with a single genetic mutation, just as blue eyes did). Until we find out that it was our parents who created the universe and set us apart from lesser beasts, then saying: "Some higher power did this," is just as plausible as saying "These things happened completely out of nowhere, on their own, for no good reason at all."

It's been proven to me that Santa doesn't exist. But no one has yet been able to prove that the universe was created by a god or gods, just as no one has been able to prove that it spontaneously sprang up with no plan behind it. You have to believe one way or the other. Don't say that your belief which has no proof backing it up, is better than another person's belief which has no proof backing it up.

You have no idea of what you write. No ape ever gave birth to a human. Even mentioning this shows that you are free of any knowledge of evolution.
And "some higher power did this" is not plausible when there is no evidence to suggest a higher power. And if you say that any reasonable physicist ever said "these things happened completely out of nowhere, on their own, for no good reason at all" then you have no knowledge of physics.
And compassion is no reason to believe in a god. There is no reasonable connection or even causation (either way) between a human thought and the existence of a deity.

And as for the Claus, with or without e : you can put him up your chimney.

Their being religious was incidental to their being a potential threat to a paranoid and brutal dictator. It's not like he was particularly exclusive, either, as to who he went after...

That's true. He was pretty thorough in eliminating all threats to power.

Maybe some atheist absinthe.

I'll buy... this time.

Which was a silly idea to begin with.

Still, interesting to think about.

It is, isn't it? Kinda funny, too.

I don't think atheism is capitalized.

I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks.

No you aren't, I was merely saying that "blaming Christians" can be accurate, if you're blaming the Christians who were there. And, that this is different from what we were talking about, blaming Christianity (or atheism, or any abstract belief system).

My mistake. I apologize. Kinda embarassed now.

Well said.

Thank you :)

You have no idea of what you write. No ape ever gave birth to a human. Even mentioning this shows that you are free of any knowledge of evolution.

I'm sorry. Poorly phrased. Best if you follow the link.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells.html

And "some higher power did this" is not plausible when there is no evidence to suggest a higher power. And if you say that any reasonable physicist ever said "these things happened completely out of nowhere, on their own, for no good reason at all" then you have no knowledge of physics.

From that one statement, I have no knowledge of physics? So if I were to hold a rock three feet off the ground and let go, I don't know if that rock will fall towards the ground or go hurtling off into space? Don't speak in absolutes, please.
And in response to the: "no good reason at all" remark, I admit once again that it could've been poorly phrased. I'm curious to know, though: what did cause the Big Bang?

And compassion is no reason to believe in a god. There is no reasonable connection or even causation (either way) between a human thought and the existence of a deity.

Compassion is something that could never have been evolved. Man makes sacrifices for his fellow man, sacrifices that no animal would make for their fellow animal. Though it sometimes seems that these people are rare, there are some humans who act very far out of our self-interest. Young firemen run into burning buildings to save old women- women who are of far less value to the species than the fireman is. What other animal would put the old and weak above species and self?

And as for the Claus, with or without e : you can put him up your chimney.

Ouch. My feelings.

Compassion is something that could never have been evolved. Man makes sacrifices for his fellow man, sacrifices that no animal would make for their fellow animal.
This is exceedingly ignorant. Species whose members take care of each other greatly out-propagate species whose members are indifferent or destructive to each other.

The Komodo dragon is the largest surviving reptile, and has a large enough brain to be quite clever, although it lacks the mammalian structures for emotions and other features which involve recognizing and modelling the behaviors of others. One result is that dragons are able to recognize the pattern of dirt-scratchings visible on the surface where dragons bury eggs, and can learn the season when the dragonets hatch and come out, so: dragons often lurk around such sites and have a tasty snack of little dragonets. This is why dragons are very nearly extinct. They are found now on only one tiny little island, and survive there for only one reason: mammalian predators didn't find it until quite recently. Now, there are dogs on Komodo, so, the dragons are doomed. Dogs are much less powerful than dragons, however, they take care of each other, and this makes all the difference in the world.

This is exceedingly ignorant. Species whose members take care of each other greatly out-propagate species whose members are indifferent or destructive to each other.

The Komodo dragon is the largest surviving reptile, and has a large enough brain to be quite clever, although it lacks the mammalian structures for emotions and other features which involve recognizing and modelling the behaviors of others. One result is that dragons are able to recognize the pattern of dirt-scratchings visible on the surface where dragons bury eggs, and can learn the season when the dragonets hatch and come out, so: dragons often lurk around such sites and have a tasty snack of little dragonets. This is why dragons are very nearly extinct. They are found now on only one tiny little island, and survive there for only one reason: mammalian predators didn't find it until quite recently. Now, there are dogs on Komodo, so, the dragons are doomed. Dogs are much less powerful than dragons, however, they take care of each other, and this makes all the difference in the world.

If you're not going to put any effort into understanding my post, then you should refrain from calling me ignorant, buddy.

You indicate that the only reason komodos survive is because they're able to peacefully coexist with dogs. This is not compassion. This is working for the survival of the species. The dragons are doing what ages of evolution tell them to do: perpetuate the line.

As for the dogs not eating the dragonets, you said yourself that the dragons are far more powerful. The dogs can act in self-interest and avoid confrontation. However, when mothers aren't around, mammalian predators do dig up eggs and eat them. Very compassionate indeed.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/lizard/komodo.html
My favorite part is the part that says: "Feral dogs and pigs sometimes dig up and eat komodo dragon eggs."

The example you give is not the same as a young, strong fireman who's at a good age to reproduce... charging into a house and saving an old, frail lady who will never be of any further benefit to the human race.

Just because two animals survive without killing each other doesn't mean they feel any love.
And besides... it turns out you were wrong and they DO kill each other, so there's no point even arguing over this example.

This is exceedingly ignorant. Species whose members take care of each other greatly out-propagate species whose members are indifferent or destructive to each other.


Yes, but what you're talking about is the survival of the species. Humans make sacrifices that go beyond that.

If you're not going to put any effort into understanding my post, then you should refrain from calling me ignorant, buddy.

You indicate that the only reason komodos survive is because they're able to peacefully coexist with dogs. This is not compassion. This is working for the survival of the species. The dragons are doing what ages of evolution tell them to do: perpetuate the line.

As for the dogs not eating the dragonets, you said yourself that the dragons are far more powerful. The dogs can act in self-interest and avoid confrontation. However, when mothers aren't around, mammalian predators do dig up eggs and eat them. Very compassionate indeed.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/lizard/komodo.html
My favorite part is the part that says: "Feral dogs and pigs sometimes dig up and eat komodo dragon eggs."

The example you give is not the same as a young, strong fireman who's at a good age to reproduce... charging into a house and saving an old, frail lady who will never be of any further benefit to the human race.

Just because two animals survive without killing each other doesn't mean they feel any love.
And besides... it turns out you were wrong and they DO kill each other, so there's no point even arguing over this example.

Wow... First, he said that the dragons are DOOMED because of the dog. They don't help each other. He meant that the dog themselves take care of each other.

Secondly, perhaps the fireman's instincts to go save the old woman are based on the time when life expectancy was at around 25 years.

Yes, but what you're talking about is the survival of the species. Humans make sacrifices that go beyond that.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not a trait that's arisen through evolution. Co-operation is a good survival mechanism, and perhaps empathic humans have survived and procreated better than selfish ones did.

Wow... First, he said that the dragons are DOOMED because of the dog. They don't help each other. He meant that the dog themselves take care of each other.

I thought the implication is that the dragons would be doomed if it weren't for the fact that the dogs and dragons were able to peacefully coexist.
As for the dogs taking care of each other... how do they do this?

Secondly, perhaps the fireman's instincts to go save the old woman are based on the time when life expectancy was at around 25 years.

At that time, people started reproducing when they hit puberty... after a few kids, most women probably didn't have much left to give. So a 25-year-old is still an old, tired person.
We've found the bones of old, old prehistoric people. People whose bones were broken and re-set so they could heal. Why did prehistoric man bother? Why not just leave an old, broken person to die? Isn't that what another kind of animal would do?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not a trait that's arisen through evolution. Co-operation is a good survival mechanism, and perhaps empathic humans have survived and procreated better than selfish ones did.

Being empathetic and making life-threatening sacrifices is a far less useful trait than looking out for your own self-interests.

I thought the implication is that the dragons would be doomed if it weren't for the fact that the dogs and dragons were able to peacefully coexist.
As for the dogs taking care of each other... how do they do this?



At that time, people started reproducing when they hit puberty... after a few kids, most women probably didn't have much left to give. So a 25-year-old is still an old, tired person.
We've found the bones of old, old prehistoric people. People whose bones were broken and re-set so they could heal. Why did prehistoric man bother? Why not just leave an old, broken person to die? Isn't that what another kind of animal would do?

I don't know, I'm not an expert on any field pertaining to the subject. But are you implying that Neanderthals had souls as well, even though they aren't our ancestors?

I don't know, I'm not an expert on any field pertaining to the subject. But are you implying that Neanderthals had souls as well, even though they aren't our ancestors?

People are people. Always were, still are, and always will be. There's no such thing as evolution.

People are people. Always were, still are, and always will be. There's no such thing as evolution.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to debate with a person who argues against reality.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to debate with a person who argues against reality.

Just go to google and type in creation vs. evolution and watch the one on the 4th page, sixth one down.

Just go to google and type in creation vs. evolution and watch the one on the 4th page, sixth one down.

I've watched enough of that jargon to know how crappy the arguments are. I'm sorry man, but the fact of evolution is real, and the theory of evolution is currently the best (and only substantiated) explanation for that phenomenon.

I've watched enough of that jargon to know how crappy the arguments are. I'm sorry man, but the fact of evolution is real, and the theory of evolution is currently the best (and only substantiated) explanation for that phenomenon.

The theory of evolution actually doesn't even qualify to be a theory. to be considered it must be observed (which has never been done). It must also be tested (which no scientists have been able to recreate life).

I thought the implication is that the dragons would be doomed if it weren't for the fact that the dogs and dragons were able to peacefully coexist.
WTF???

Let me try and spell this out slowly.

Until recently, there were no mammalian predators on Komodo.

This is the only reason the dragons still live there.

Now that there are dogs, etc. on Komodo, the dragons are doomed there, just like they died out everywhere else on the planet as mammals took over.
As for the dogs taking care of each other... how do they do this?
WTF??? Don't you know anything about dogs?
At that time, people started reproducing when they hit puberty... after a few kids, most women probably didn't have much left to give. So a 25-year-old is still an old, tired person.
Old, experienced person. Old people are extraordinarily valuable to primitive societies because of what they have to teach. (I would like to say that it is still true in modern societies, but these kids today don't want to hear that :D)

The human species is successful because of our massive co-operation. We eat food grown by others, wear clothes whose fabrics we did not gather and weave, take shelter in houses we did not personally build, all these things done by techniques which neither we, nor the people who did the actual food-growing, clothing-manufacture, house-construction, etc. had to figure out from scratch for ourselves. There is no way our species would have reached such high population without all this intricate co-operation. This is also true of other species of animals which depend on co-operation: ants, bees, and other social insects are extraordinarily successful; so are pack predators, and also herd animals among the plant-eaters, in the mammal class; so are birds which flock. In all of these, individuals sacrifice for the common good. Pursuit of individual survival only is in fact a very poor and disfavored strategy, evolutionarily speaking.

The theory of evolution actually doesn't even qualify to be a theory. to be considered it must be observed (which has never been done). It must also be tested (which no scientists have been able to recreate life).

There have been observed instances of speciation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And all the predictions made by the evolutionary theory have ended up being correct, not to mention that there's been cases of artificial speciation, which means that humans managed to cause it in a laboratory.

And what does evolution have to do with the origin of life? By definition evolution only concerns living organisms that already exist.

Anyway, seeing as this so quickly degenerated into the 'my joke of a hypothesis is better than your theory' I so loathe, I'll be gone. Bye.

There have been observed instances of speciation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And all the predictions made by the evolutionary theory have ended up being correct, not to mention that there's been cases of artificial speciation, which means that humans managed to cause it in a laboratory.

And what does evolution have to do with the origin of life? By definition evolution only concerns living organisms that already exist.

Anyway, seeing as this so quickly degenerated into the 'my joke of a hypothesis is better than your theory' I so loathe, I'll be gone. Bye.

Then how come darwin wrote evolution in his book "the origins of life"

Being empathetic and making life-threatening sacrifices is a far less useful trait than looking out for your own self-interests.
Not necessarily. The ability to empathise, and thus act as a mediator, problem solver and motivator, is immensely valuable in leadership, however much our massive governments and corporate organisations try to hide that behind rhetoric and procedure. Would you follow someone who you knew was only out for himself?

Then how come darwin wrote evolution in his book "the origins of life"

It was called "The Origin of Species." If you're not competent to even know the name of the book, you probably shouldn't be discussing it. :rolleyes:

The theory of evolution actually doesn't even qualify to be a theory. to be considered it must be observed (which has never been done). It must also be tested (which no scientists have been able to recreate life).

Then God doesn't even rate above a theory, since he's never been observed. And you are forbidden from testing him.

Then God doesn't even rate above a theory, since he's never been observed. And you are forbidden from testing him.

not to mention, hasn't evolution been observed in fruit flies, viruses, and the like?

Then God doesn't even rate above a theory, since he's never been observed. And you are forbidden from testing him.

Oh he's been observed. I observe him everyday.

The theory of evolution actually doesn't even qualify to be a theory. to be considered it must be observed (which has never been done).

Wrong
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1105/1105_feature3.html

It must also be tested (which no scientists have been able to recreate life).

And then you go on to reveal that you don't actually know what evolution is

18 posts until post 666 in this thread.

Steenhuffel;13728299']Wrong
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/1105/1105_feature3.html



And then you go on to reveal that you don't actually know what evolution is

I just speak what's true. Don't feel bad I don't have much evidence of my theory either.

Oh he's been observed. I observe him everyday.

Oh yes? So what is your test for god? I ask so that I can repeat your experiment and verify your results.

Steenhuffel;13728312']Oh yes? So what is your test for god? I ask so that I can repeat your experiment and verify your results.

I became saved and the results came naturally.

I became saved and the results came naturally.

You should try it.

Steenhuffel;13728312']Oh yes? So what is your test for god? I ask so that I can repeat your experiment and verify your results.

I am going to guess that the answer you'll get will be a long-winded no or a "look at the world" type answer...


Edit: I was apparently wrong. Short-winded no.

have you ever felt the wind. yes but you can't see it. Just because you cant see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Edit: I was apparently wrong. Short-winded no.

I was about to reply until I saw your edit

Steenhuffel;13728331']Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

What else you got?

have you ever felt the wind. yes but you can't see it. Just because you cant see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

I became saved and the results came naturally.

What a load of shit.

I think the person meant actual proof, not feelings.

have you ever felt the wind. yes but you can't see it. Just because you cant see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No one talked about "seeing," they talked about "observing," which is rather different. The wind can most certainly be observed.

Steenhuffel;13728331']Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

I could list every step in the water cycle and you wouldn't believe me just because I'm a Christian.

have you ever felt the wind. yes but you can't see it. Just because you cant see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If that's the best you can do, you might as well leave.

The wind can be measured, felt, and seen if there are objects in it.

God cannot be measured, felt, or seen.

I think the person meant actual proof, not feelings.

Indeed I did mean actual proof. Objective, verifiable proof, which TI is plainly unable to provide.

If that's the best you can do, you might as well leave.

The wind can be measured, felt, and seen if there are objects in it.

God cannot be measured, felt, or seen.

Oh god can be felt but only if you want to feel him. and if you saw him you'd die (it's in the bible).

O_o time warps are apparently back.....


Wind can be felt, measure, and even use for energy. God cannot (of course here come the claims of "god's presence"....)

Wow you're a good guesser.

O_o time warps are apparently back.....


Wind can be felt, measure, and even use for energy. God cannot (of course here come the claims of "god's presence"....)

No one talked about "seeing," they talked about "observing," which is rather different. The wind can most certainly be observed.

So can God.

Steenhuffel;13728350']You're really ducking the question here, aren't you?

what question?

I could list every step in the water cycle and you wouldn't believe me just because I'm a Christian.

You're really ducking the question here, aren't you?

Oh god can be felt but only if you want to feel him. and if you saw him you'd die (it's in the bible).

I'm pretty sure an omnipresent deity could feel me if he pleased.

Also, how did he show himself to people then in the bible?

I'm pretty sure an omnipresent deity could feel me if he pleased.

Also, how did he show himself to people then in the bible?

Moses asked to see god's face and God said "If you gaze upon my face you will most certaintly die." And then when Paul saw just a glimpse of God's face he went blind.

Oh god can be felt but only if you want to feel him. and if you saw him you'd die (it's in the bible).

Wind can make the blades of a windmill rotate. Can god?

Steenhuffel;13728360']Wind can make the blades of a windmill rotate. Can god?

He created the Earth! Yea he can make a stupid wind mill turn.

Wow you're a good guesser.

TI! Post 666! You're going to hell!

Steenhuffel;13728364']TI! Post 666! You're going to hell!

That has nothing to do with Hell. Read the bible or go to church or something.

He created the Earth! Yea he can make a stupid wind mill turn.

Any examples of where he's done it?

Steenhuffel;13728369']Any examples of where he's done it?

If I told you you wouldn't care. You're only still here for the same reason I am... to see the other side of the story and debate about them.

I don't feel that god exists. Since we're trying use feelings as evidence, what makes your feeling that god exists superior to my feeling that he doesn't?

That has nothing to do with Hell. Read the bible or go to church or something.

Post 666 is the post of the Beast.

Steenhuffel;13728374']Post 666 is the post of the Beast.

Ok I take it back. but still I won't be here to see those #s on the tops of people's forehead, unlike you.

Moses asked to see god's face and God said "If you gaze upon my face you will most certaintly die." And then when Paul saw just a glimpse of God's face he went blind.
Gen 32:30
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [a] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

He created the Earth! Yea he can make a stupid wind mill turn.

Okay, let him show us then.

Oh wait, he won't.

It's funny how you mock something studied but found to be a theory, even though gravity is a theory as well.

Just wait, in 300 years the Church will apologize for not believing evolution, like how they apologized to Galileo thirty years ago.

If you can mock a theory and say it's false, then you surely can't defend something with no proof.

Okay, let him show us then.

Oh wait, he won't.

It's funny how you mock something studied but found to be a theory, even though gravity is a theory as well.

Just wait, in 300 years the Church will apologize for not believing evolution, like how they apologized to Galileo thirty years ago.

If you can mock a theory and say it's false, then you surely can't defend something with no proof.

You'll see the proof someday. God will reveal himself.

If I told you you wouldn't care. You're only still here for the same reason I am... to see the other side of the story and debate about them.

Nice cop out, but if you provided even an iota of objective evidence, then I'd believe.

Gen 32:30
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [a] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Jacob was using a metaphor.

Nice cop out, but if you provided even an iota of objective evidence, then I'd believe.

The proof is only given to those thst are saved. I'm done arguing with lies.

You'll see the proof someday. God will reveal himself.

That's the equivalent of my Mom saying, "Just wait until Dad gets home!"

And then nothing happening.

That's the equivalent of my Mom saying, "Just wait until Dad gets home!"

And then nothing happening.

okay keep saying that.:D

Gen 32:30
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [a] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

John 1:18
18(A)No one has seen God at any time; (B)the only begotten God who is (C)in the bosom of the Father, (D)He has explained Him.



Use the bible to argue with yourself ^_^

If I told you you wouldn't care.

What a complete cop-out. If you have evidence produce it.

You're only still here for the same reason I am... to see the other side of the story and debate about them.

You have no idea why I'm here. Just as I have no idea what you think you're trying to achieve

The proof is only given to those thst are saved. I'm done arguing with lies.

If you're done arguing with lies, then you should have stopped talking a while ago.

You're arguing using lies.

The proof is only given to those thst are saved. I'm done arguing with lies.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

You'll see the proof someday. God will reveal himself.

2000 years and we're still waiting. Not the most reliable of deities is he?

The proof is only given to those thst are saved. I'm done arguing with lies.

Sounds like you have to lie to yourself to see this so-called 'proof'

If you're done arguing with lies, then you should have stopped talking a while ago.

You're arguing using lies.

Ok but rememberhttp://www.av1611.org/buttons/images/darwin_jesus.jpg

Ok but remember

Irrelevant, because your god doesn't exist.

TI, please stop making it look like Christians can't win an argument without threatening Armageddon.

Thanks :D

Ok but rememberhttp://www.av1611.org/buttons/images/darwin_jesus.jpg

Oh goody... arguing with pictures

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k49/ahole_07/ImagineNoReligion.jpg

TI, please stop making it look like Christians can't win an argument without threatening Armageddon.

Thanks :D

Are you afraid of armageddon?

Steenhuffel;13728428']Oh goody... arguing with pictures

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k49/ahole_07/ImagineNoReligion.jpg

Those were muslims, I'm a Christian. Good bye.

Moses asked to see god's face and God said "If you gaze upon my face you will most certaintly die."
So God showed him His butt instead! (We are not told whether God has a cute butt.)

Irrelevant, because your god doesn't exist.

Powned.

Ok but rememberhttp://www.av1611.org/buttons/images/darwin_jesus.jpg

Because that explains everything.

I might as well use this image then.

http://photobucket.com/image/darwin%20fish/Violette_CvA/leuke%20plaatjes/Darwin.jpg

Because that explains everything.

I might as well use this image then.

http://photobucket.com/image/darwin%20fish/Violette_CvA/leuke%20plaatjes/Darwin.jpg

Or even:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/176/eprocreateag2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Those were muslims, I'm a Christian. Good bye.

'twas a stupid picture in response to a stupid picture. Don't try and get pedantic or you'll end up looking even dafter than you already do.

Are you afraid of armageddon?


Nope, but I don't exactly expect to get Raptured away either (would God really make it that easy for us Christians? I doubt it). Should it come in our lifetime, we would have to put up with the same hardships as everyone else.


BTW, yes, evolution is real. Doesn't negate the possibility of God's existence.

Those were muslims, I'm a Christian. Good bye.

You both worship the same monotheistic deity.

In fact, Christianity and Islam have more in common than they let on.

I don't know, I'm not an expert on any field pertaining to the subject. But are you implying that Neanderthals had souls as well, even though they aren't our ancestors?

There's the theory that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred, so it's possible that Neanderthals are our ancestors.
As for the soul thing, I have no idea.

Ok but rememberhttp://www.av1611.org/buttons/images/darwin_jesus.jpg

That might be amusing, if not ironic, were it not for the fact that you likely have no idea where the Jesus Fish symbol comes from.

You both worship the same monotheistic deity.

In fact, Christianity and Islam have more in common than they let on.

Except for that fact that Islam is well organized, generally poorer, and is based out of a region of the world known for violence (which they pretty much control except for Israel and Lebanon). Unlike Christianity, which is divided, has no central dispersion area (ie. they are found throughout the world and do not have complete control of areas), and since the Renaissance has been considerably less violent.

Except for that fact that Islam is well organized, generally poorer, and is based out of a region of the world known for violence (which they pretty much control except for Israel and Lebanon). Unlike Christianity, which is divided, has no central dispersion area (ie. they are found throughout the world and do not have complete control of areas), and since the Renaissance has been considerably less violent.

Christianity not well organized? Seriously? Islam not divided? Perhaps you've heard of the Sunnis and Shias having it out over the past...

Except for that fact that Islam is well organized, generally poorer, and is based out of a region of the world known for violence (which they pretty much control except for Israel and Lebanon). Unlike Christianity, which is divided, has no central dispersion area (ie. they are found throughout the world and do not have complete control of areas), and since the Renaissance has been considerably less violent.

Islam is not inherently violent.

In fact, while the Catholics were off fighting holy wars, Muslims were making advances in science and astrology.

They both come from the same origins, have the same ideals, and worship the same thing though. In fact, most wars are caused between them because one thinks they're more right than the other.

Let me try and spell this out slowly.

Yes, please, take it one key at a time... not that there's any other way...

Until recently, there were no mammalian predators on Komodo.

This is the only reason the dragons still live there.

Now that there are dogs, etc. on Komodo, the dragons are doomed there, just like they died out everywhere else on the planet as mammals took over.

Got it. Thank you. And sorry for my earlier misinterpretation.

WTF??? Don't you know anything about dogs?

You seem to know something about dogs that I don't, considering that you're comparing them to humans. They really make significant sacrifices, sacrifices comparable to the ones we make? Has an animal ever faced death in order to defend an idea? Has a dog ever pushed another dog out of the way of a car, allowing itself to be hit by the car instead?

Old, experienced person. Old people are extraordinarily valuable to primitive societies because of what they have to teach. (I would like to say that it is still true in modern societies, but these kids today don't want to hear that :D)

Well, to be fair, if you want to survive in the modern world, it's best to ask a young person for advice.

The human species is successful because of our massive co-operation. We eat food grown by others, wear clothes whose fabrics we did not gather and weave, take shelter in houses we did not personally build, all these things done by techniques which neither we, nor the people who did the actual food-growing, clothing-manufacture, house-construction, etc. had to figure out from scratch for ourselves.

Growing crops, building houses, and wearing clothes are all specifically human traits. Every other animal in the world does fine without these abilities. Why are we the only exception? It's not something that happened naturally.
Although I should add, as a note, that some animals build crude shelters.

There is no way our species would have reached such high population without all this intricate co-operation. This is also true of other species of animals which depend on co-operation: ants, bees, and other social insects are extraordinarily successful; so are pack predators, and also herd animals among the plant-eaters, in the mammal class; so are birds which flock. In all of these, individuals sacrifice for the common good. Pursuit of individual survival only is in fact a very poor and disfavored strategy, evolutionarily speaking.

Yes, but ants, bees, and other social insects aren't learning to cooperate from the older ants, bees, and social insects. They work on instinct. Why do humans have the intellectual capacity to build such intricate structures, yet don't do it on instinct? We don't need skyscrapers. We don't need jet planes. The ability to split atoms is not essential to our survival. Yet here we are, with the intellect to do all these things, and none of it comes from instinct.

Pursuit of individual survival is not always the best way to preserve the species. But preservation of young breeders over the old and the useless is definitely useful, and is present in other species. Yet in our case, these instinctive, primal urges are overpowered by something more. Something that did not come about on its own.

So I'll address these:

New Genoa, Islam has two noticable sects. Christianity easily has hundreds perhaps even thousands of sects. Large populations of either sect live in nations ruled by religious dictators.

Uzbanistan, Islam is inherently violent - read the Quran (Muhammed and his followers kill people; I doubt you'll remember Christ doing similar things). The Muslims were fighting AGAINST the Catholics in the Crusades, but they were the aggressors when they violently took control of Israel and of Constantinople (Istanbul).

While I can not deny that Islam is of the same origins as Christianity, it has failed to advance from the (somewhat absurd) religious customs that it had 1300 years ago.

There's the theory that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred, so it's possible that Neanderthals are our ancestors.
As for the soul thing, I have no idea.

Hypothesis.
A theory is what you get when you have a small mountain of evidence for and stringent attepts to disprove it have failed.
What's irritating is how few scientists make the effort to say the extra syllable (hypothesis=4, theory=3), it can't be that difficult, surely?
It's unlikely that they interbred after a certain point (well before neanderthals became extinct).
Oh yes, and Wordly Federation. The period shortly after the Renaissance had a great deal of religous warfare (the English civil war, the thirty years war etc.) between Christians, it wasn't until Napoleon that Europeans stopped using religon as a serious excuse for war; and Islam's (and Christianity and Judaeism's) violence is dependant on what bit of the given holy book you're reading (Muhammed's early work is relatively meditative/spiritual up until you get to the bit where he starts meeting Christians and Jew's in large amounts. Plenty of Christians read mainly from the old testament, wich reads with surprising similarity to a norse saga or the illiad if you look at it objectively [violently])

What's irritating is how few scientists make the effort to say the extra syllable (hypothesis=4, theory=3), it can't be that difficult, surely?

To be fair I don't tend to find that it's the scientists at fault here, but the science journalists.

Not necessarily. The ability to empathise, and thus act as a mediator, problem solver and motivator, is immensely valuable in leadership, however much our massive governments and corporate organisations try to hide that behind rhetoric and procedure. Would you follow someone who you knew was only out for himself?

Yes, leadership is important. But look at other species in which leaders are present. In lion prides, the alpha male gets to eat first and most. The same goes for wolf packs. Alpha males are also granted the privilege of mating with the most (or best) females.

In other animals, the leader is always out for him or herself, and achieves power through physical domination. In humanity, power is sometimes achieved in that way. But it's also achieved through persuasion, through striking common ground with the people, through the promotion of ideals, and through advertising competence.

Rather than dissuade me from my original way of thinking, you've pointed out another difference between humans and animals.

Just wait, in 300 years the Church will apologize for not believing evolution, like how they apologized to Galileo thirty years ago.

Just a quick note - in context, it appears that you are referring to the Catholic Church, which is unlikely to apologize for opposing evolutionary theory, seeing as the Catholic Church doesn't oppose evolutionary theory. There are plenty of things to criticize about Catholicism, but that doesn't happen to be one of them. :)

okay keep saying that.:D

For a Christian, you seem to be deriving a disturbing amount of pleasure from the idea of other people burning in Hell. Or dying in the apocalypse.

Steenhuffel;13728404']2000 years and we're still waiting. Not the most reliable of deities is he?

Ummm hello, God has revealed himself.
I'm sitting right here. :)



Soooooo going to hell when I die...

Soooooo going to hell when I die...

Make sure you reserve a chair by the pool. It can get damn hot down there ;)

Except for that fact that Islam is well organized, generally poorer, and is based out of a region of the world known for violence (which they pretty much control except for Israel and Lebanon).

Christianity also arose in the Middle East, my friend. And armies bearing a cross returned to the Middle East to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims. Violence has been prevalent in both religions (although the Koran sanctions violence in self-defense, while Jesus preached that we should turn the other cheek and allow ourselves to be persecuted.)

Unlike Christianity, which is divided, has no central dispersion area (ie. they are found throughout the world and do not have complete control of areas), and since the Renaissance has been considerably less violent.

True, Islam does have its 57 states and there are certainly less Christian theocracies than Muslim theocracies. I view this as a good thing.

I don't think Christianity is any more divided than Islam... when we look at Islam, we see Shi'ites and Sunnis, but I'd wager that beneath those labels, there are more complex undercurrents. I don't know enough about Islam to comment further, but I think that dividing Islam into Shi'ites and Sunnis is about as simplistic as dividing Christians into Catholics and Protestants. I think there's more to it than that.

Yes, leadership is important. But look at other species in which leaders are present. In lion prides, the alpha male gets to eat first and most. The same goes for wolf packs. Alpha males are also granted the privilege of mating with the most (or best) females.

In other animals, the leader is always out for him or herself, and achieves power through physical domination. In humanity, power is sometimes achieved in that way. But it's also achieved through persuasion, through striking common ground with the people, through the promotion of ideals, and through advertising competence.
Exactly! You see that this is a radical paradigm shift, yeah? If nobody else had such a conceptualisation, then a group developed the ability to persuade, to relate, to establish common ground and whatnot, their chance of not only surviving but also prospering procreatively through ascendance to leadership would skyrocket. By the time others would learn to resist such persuasion, the empathetic group would already be well established.

Steenhuffel;13728539']Make sure you reserve a chair by the pool. It can get damn hot down there ;)

Yeah... but in hell, the pools use waaaaaaay too much chlorine, so your eyes get all red afterwards.
The most horrifying thing is, they don't supply goggles. It truly is eternal damnation.

Exactly! You see that this is a radical paradigm shift, yeah? If nobody else had such a conceptualisation, then a group developed the ability to persuade, to relate, to establish common ground and whatnot, their chance of not only surviving but also prospering procreatively through ascendance to leadership would skyrocket. By the time others would learn to resist such persuasion, the empathetic group would already be well established.

Gimme a sec to wrap my head around that one. I'm pretty confused right now, but maybe that's indicative that you just made a brilliant point :)
Haha

Gimme a sec to wrap my head around that one. I'm pretty confused right now, but maybe that's indicative that you just made a brilliant point :)
Haha

They say that there's a thin line between brilliance and insanity. Or something like that.

You seem to know something about dogs that I don't, considering that you're comparing them to humans.
I was contrasting them to Komodo dragons, actually. But the trait which they have, and the dragons don't, is precisely the trait you were claiming as unique to humans: a set of emotions based on recognizing and valuing each other.
They really make significant sacrifices, sacrifices comparable to the ones we make?
Sacrificing their own lives? Dogs are quite famous for such behavior, yes.
Has an animal ever faced death in order to defend an idea?
Dogs are not very famous for their level of abstract cognition, no.
Has a dog ever pushed another dog out of the way of a car, allowing itself to be hit by the car instead?
I have not heard of that particular story, but would think it likely to have occurred. The example you were using earlier, of rushing into a burning building to save the helpless, is rather common among dogs: there was a story about that just a couple weeks ago, and a little Googling should turn up dozens of such stories.
Growing crops, building houses, and wearing clothes are all specifically human traits. Every other animal in the world does fine without these abilities. Why are we the only exception? It's not something that happened naturally.
Although I should add, as a note, that some animals build crude shelters.
You are totally missing the point.

Your claim is that co-operative behavior "cannot" evolve (you presently repeat that it is "not something that happened naturally", without giving any reason why you don't think so), because co-operative behavior does not help a species to increase its numbers. You claim that only pure individualism does so-- which is directly opposite to the truth. As I pointed out in the case of the dragons, pure individualism is horribly counterproductive to the propagation of the species; as I point out in the case of humans and several others, co-operation increases the species' success greatly. That is why it is evolutionarily favored.
Yes, but ants, bees, and other social insects aren't learning to cooperate from the older ants, bees, and social insects.
That is why they haven't evolved any concern for preserving the old. Humans have large flexible brains, which learn. Insects have small brains, and can't do much beyond run pre-installed programs.
But preservation of young breeders over the old and the useless is definitely useful, and is present in other species.
If you kids continue to disparage the old as "useless", then compassion for the elderly will eventually be bred out of the species. However, when none of you can even add and subtract anymore, you aren't going to be able to keep building video-game consoles.

Gimme a sec to wrap my head around that one. I'm pretty confused right now, but maybe that's indicative that you just made a brilliant point :)
Haha
All I basically said was that being empathetic gives an individual a huge advantage in a world where nobody else is, because it's so totally different and exploits entirely new techniques for survival and climbing social ladders, and since the Animal kingdom generally isn't empathetic, the first emergence of empathy would result in evolutionary success.

So I'll address these:

New Genoa, Islam has two noticable sects. Christianity easily has hundreds perhaps even thousands of sects. Large populations of either sect live in nations ruled by religious dictators.

Uzbanistan, Islam is inherently violent - read the Quran (Muhammed and his followers kill people; I doubt you'll remember Christ doing similar things). The Muslims were fighting AGAINST the Catholics in the Crusades, but they were the aggressors when they violently took control of Israel and of Constantinople (Istanbul).

While I can not deny that Islam is of the same origins as Christianity, it has failed to advance from the (somewhat absurd) religious customs that it had 1300 years ago.

The Bible has violent and disturbing passages as well.

Christianity also arose in the Middle East, my friend.
Does a single country in that region of the world have a Christian majority now? In fact, the only country in the Middle East with a considerable (percentage-wise) Christian population is Lebanon. If you look throughout the world, you will see countries with large Christian populations, but they will rarely use the government to enforce their religious beliefs (possibly due to the disagreements among Christian churches or a belief in an ideal that God himself established - free will).

And armies bearing a cross returned to the Middle East to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims. Violence has been prevalent in both religions (although the Koran sanctions violence in self-defense, while Jesus preached that we should turn the other cheek and allow ourselves to be persecuted.)

That's odd given that most of the classically seen Muslim violence is aggression rather than defensive (the attacks on the Holy Land, the current terrorism being carried out against Christians and Jews - even those outside the Middle East).



True, Islam does have its 57 states and there are certainly less Christian theocracies than Muslim theocracies. I view this as a good thing.

I don't think Christianity is any more divided than Islam... when we look at Islam, we see Shi'ites and Sunnis, but I'd wager that beneath those labels, there are more complex undercurrents. I don't know enough about Islam to comment further, but I think that dividing Islam into Shi'ites and Sunnis is about as simplistic as dividing Christians into Catholics and Protestants. I think there's more to it than that.

I would not doubt that it is quite possible that there are further divisions within Shia and Sunni; however, I doubt these are as great as the divisions we see among Protestants (which range from groups very similar to Catholicism to apocalyptic sects like the Jehovah's Witness and Branch Davidians).

They say that there's a thin line between brilliance and insanity. Or something like that.
The thin line is the border between Order and Chaos. Brilliance is reaching into Chaos and dragging information back into Order. Insanity is not quite making the return trip.

The thin line is the border between Order and Chaos. Brilliance is reaching into Chaos and dragging information back into Order. Insanity is not quite making the return trip.

Shoot, I guess I shouldn't have bought a one-way ticket.

Shoot, I guess I shouldn't have bought a one-way ticket.
Don't worry. It's Chaos. Hang about long enough and you'll eventually wind up back where you started. And heck, it's a fun road trip! :D

Don't worry. It's Chaos. Hang about long enough and you'll eventually wind up back where you started. And heck, it's a fun road trip! :D

But what if I get arrested for public disorder?

Does a single country in that region of the world have a Christian majority now? In fact, the only country in the Middle East with a considerable (percentage-wise) Christian population is Lebanon. If you look throughout the world, you will see countries with large Christian populations, but they will rarely use the government to enforce their religious beliefs (possibly due to the disagreements among Christian churches or a belief in an ideal that God himself established - free will).

I should've been more complete- Christianity arose from the same violent, chaotic region. The Muslims just stayed there, while Christianity spread into the West with the help of Constantine.

That's odd given that most of the classically seen Muslim violence is aggression rather than defensive (the attacks on the Holy Land, the current terrorism being carried out against Christians and Jews - even those outside the Middle East).

True enough, there are violent extremists in Islam. But most modern-day terrorists base their beliefs on the Wahabbic (not sure if I spelled that correctly) version of the Koran, which differs from the original. I have fought and lost arguments in which I tried to show that the Koran sanctions terrorism. You have to look very carefully at the words, but there are very many violent passages that are easy to misinterpret.
I'm sure there are an abundance of webpages that cite violent passages in the Koran, but I've found that many of these passages are taken far out of context.
My attitude towards the Koran is that, having not read it very thoroughly, I shouldn't comment on it. But the few times I have commented on it have resulted in me being exposed as ignorant and too judgmental... and no one wants that :)

I would not doubt that it is quite possible that there are further divisions within Shia and Sunni; however, I doubt these are as great as the divisions we see among Protestants (which range from groups very similar to Catholicism to apocalyptic sects like the Jehovah's Witness and Branch Davidians).

Highly possible.

I was contrasting them to Komodo dragons, actually. But the trait which they have, and the dragons don't, is precisely the trait you were claiming as unique to humans: a set of emotions based on recognizing and valuing each other.

I have managed to miss your point twice, and once again owe you an apology.
Sorry.

Sacrificing their own lives? Dogs are quite famous for such behavior, yes.

To my knowledge, only trained dogs are famous for this. Untrained dogs tend to be quite feral.

Dogs are not very famous for their level of abstract cognition, no.

YES! We still have an edge... talk about relief!

I have not heard of that particular story, but would think it likely to have occurred. The example you were using earlier, of rushing into a burning building to save the helpless, is rather common among dogs: there was a story about that just a couple weeks ago, and a little Googling should turn up dozens of such stories.

As I said, trained dogs. Please Google me a few examples of feral dogs valiantly risking their lives for humans.

You are totally missing the point.

That's not hard to believe, considering my track record.

Your claim is that co-operative behavior "cannot" evolve (you presently repeat that it is "not something that happened naturally", without giving any reason why you don't think so), because co-operative behavior does not help a species to increase its numbers. You claim that only pure individualism does so-- which is directly opposite to the truth.

Now you're missing the point. I consistently said that humans often place themselves above self and species. Both the desire to perpetuate the species and the desire to secure personal gain are overridden by an inner moral compass.

As I pointed out in the case of the dragons, pure individualism is horribly counterproductive to the propagation of the species; as I point out in the case of humans and several others, co-operation increases the species' success greatly. That is why it is evolutionarily favored.

Yes, cooperation is not rare in other species. I know that. I think I've mentioned wolf packs, lion prides, and insect colonies.

That is why they haven't evolved any concern for preserving the old.

Right.

Humans have large flexible brains, which learn. Insects have small brains, and can't do much beyond run pre-installed programs.

Right again.

If you kids continue to disparage the old as "useless", then compassion for the elderly will eventually be bred out of the species. However, when none of you can even add and subtract anymore, you aren't going to be able to keep building video-game consoles.

History is made by the young, and only recorded by the old.
All my math teachers have been young. My ability to add and subtract surpasses that of a certain 80-year-old I know. Boo-yah. I rule.
Feynman was a teenager when they put him on the Manhattan Project. His ability to add and subtract is not in question. He built something more than a video game console, eh?
What the hell do I know? I'm going to go put a hat on backwards, watch MTV, and reflect on how my parents must hate me because they make me clean my room. Then I'm going to skateboard and flaunt my spirit of youthful rebellion by listening to tuneless music on my iPod while texting on my phone with numerous acronyms you can't understand. ;)

To my knowledge, only trained dogs are famous for this. Untrained dogs tend to be quite feral.
Meaning that they only have other dogs in their "pack", rather than also including humans.
As I said, trained dogs. Please Google me a few examples of feral dogs valiantly risking their lives for humans.
As soon as you show me examples of humans valiantly risking their lives for dogs, despite never having had any emotional connection to a dog. OF COURSE feral dogs only care about other dogs.
Now you're missing the point. I consistently said that humans often place themselves above self and species.
Taking care of other humans IS caring about "the species".
All my math teachers have been young.
Oh dear.
Feynman was a teenager when they put him on the Manhattan Project. His ability to add and subtract is not in question.
He did not invent addition and subtraction on his own. He was not taught it by other teenagers, either.

This sort of reminds me of those movies when the rich, naive white kid walks into a black ghetto and starts trying to act cool... It usually doesn't end well.

I made this prediction literally as the first after the OP's post.

Is this thread still going? Really?:p

As soon as you show me examples of humans valiantly risking their lives for dogs, despite never having had any emotional connection to a dog.
Hey, I'd do that. It's one thing to hate dogs in general for being overly aggressive and attention-seeking - it's another to actually let one get killed in a burning building.

No question I'd save the humans first, though.

Oh he's been observed. I observe him everyday.

dont do drugs kid...

For a Christian, you seem to be deriving a disturbing amount of pleasure from the idea of other people burning in Hell. Or dying in the apocalypse.

Christianity...and most christians are very cruel

dont do drugs kid...
I think both Spirituality and Euphoria fall under the same Chaos / Order boundary traversal problem as creative endeavour. It's possible, as a Christian, to tap into a source of genuine insight by living as close to the border of Chaos as the notion of communion with the eternal, infinite and almighty God embodies. It would be no surprise for a Christian to conflate this source of information with literally "seeing" God, as the sum totality of possibility, just as one "sees" the inspiration for a new painting or the solution to a mathematical problem.

I think both Spirituality and Euphoria fall under the same Chaos / Order boundary traversal problem as creative endeavour. It's possible, as a Christian, to tap into a source of genuine insight by living as close to the border of Chaos as the notion of communion with the eternal, infinite and almighty God embodies. It would be no surprise for a Christian to conflate this source of information with literally "seeing" God, as the sum totality of possibility, just as one "sees" the inspiration for a new painting or the solution to a mathematical problem.

ehem...dont do drugs kid

Christianity...and most christians are very cruelTo their intellect, yes.

Is this thread still going? Really?:p
Yup. It's all part of God's masterplan. Page 34.876, second paragraph.

I made this prediction literally as the first after the OP's post.

Is this thread still going? Really?:p

Ya, I told you so!

That might be amusing, if not ironic, were it not for the fact that you likely have no idea where the Jesus Fish symbol comes from.

Hey Tucker, now that you're back, care to address this post?

Edit: *chuckle* guess not.

That might be amusing, if not ironic, were it not for the fact that you likely have no idea where the Jesus Fish symbol comes from.

Oh tell me...tell me... I dont know. Where does it comes?...its going to be one of those phooney stories that I can use to mock my christian friends?

Oh tell me...tell me... I dont know. Where does it comes?...its going to be one of those phooney stories that I can use to mock my christian friends?

ya ya i want to know how it makes a mockery of the stupid pic that was posted that i dont really understand.