Rhythm method kills more embryos than condom use

[pedro san pedro]

From New Scientist, June 3 2006


"IF YOU'RE concerned about embryonic death, you've got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method," says Luc Bovens of the London School of Economics.

People who practise this form of birth control, the only form condoned by the Catholic church, try to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile period. But Bovens says it leads to more embryo deaths than other contraceptive methods.



If he's right,couples using the rhythm method for religious reasons may want to think again. "Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method," Bovens writes (Journal of Medical Ethics, vol 32, p 355).

Full Article (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19025545.600.html)



Someone tell the pope!

[fitzcarraldo]

I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

[fitzcarraldo]

I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

[fitzcarraldo]

I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

[KC]

Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life.

God doesn't deliver it. The women does. And conception is achieved by FUCKING. HARD.

[KC]

Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life.

God doesn't deliver it. The women does. And conception is achieved by FUCKING. HARD.

[KC]

Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life.

God doesn't deliver it. The women does. And conception is achieved by FUCKING. HARD.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

i am a red commie jew

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterTrotsky.jpg

Once is enough ~ NoXion

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

i am a red commie jew

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterTrotsky.jpg

Once is enough ~ NoXion

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

i am a red commie jew

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterTrotsky.jpg

Once is enough ~ NoXion

[Herman]

I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

No, it's a scientific analysis of what solution is better. Atheists don't wish to 'avoid' 'God's love'. They simply don't believe in a God. They use scientific methods to achieve scientific results which can be proven over and over again. Can you prove to me that God exists? No? I thought so.

[Herman]

I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

No, it's a scientific analysis of what solution is better. Atheists don't wish to 'avoid' 'God's love'. They simply don't believe in a God. They use scientific methods to achieve scientific results which can be proven over and over again. Can you prove to me that God exists? No? I thought so.

[Herman]

I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.

No, it's a scientific analysis of what solution is better. Atheists don't wish to 'avoid' 'God's love'. They simply don't believe in a God. They use scientific methods to achieve scientific results which can be proven over and over again. Can you prove to me that God exists? No? I thought so.

[Vladislav]

God fucked Mary to make Jesus. Too bad they didn't have condoms back then.

[Vladislav]

God fucked Mary to make Jesus. Too bad they didn't have condoms back then.

[Vladislav]

God fucked Mary to make Jesus. Too bad they didn't have condoms back then.

[fitzcarraldo]

i am a red commie jew

Its your life. That is interesting white propaganda indeed.


God doesn't deliver it. The women does. And conception is achieved by FUCKING. HARD.
It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

[fitzcarraldo]

i am a red commie jew

Its your life. That is interesting white propaganda indeed.


God doesn't deliver it. The women does. And conception is achieved by FUCKING. HARD.
It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

[fitzcarraldo]

i am a red commie jew

Its your life. That is interesting white propaganda indeed.


God doesn't deliver it. The women does. And conception is achieved by FUCKING. HARD.
It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.
Then why do we use airplanes? Cars? Buildings? Chairs? That's interrupting "God's gravity!" How do you distinguish normal technology from "interrupting God's love"?!


It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

But only if they're economically and legally tied together also... :rolleyes: And what's so "immaculate" about it? I thought lusting/extramarital sex was a "sin"! Come on fitz, I was once a Catholic, you've got to do better than that! Admit it--all of your beliefs are based on DOGMA pure and simple!

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.
Then why do we use airplanes? Cars? Buildings? Chairs? That's interrupting "God's gravity!" How do you distinguish normal technology from "interrupting God's love"?!


It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

But only if they're economically and legally tied together also... :rolleyes: And what's so "immaculate" about it? I thought lusting/extramarital sex was a "sin"! Come on fitz, I was once a Catholic, you've got to do better than that! Admit it--all of your beliefs are based on DOGMA pure and simple!

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God's love. Procreation and conception are God's way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God's love.
Then why do we use airplanes? Cars? Buildings? Chairs? That's interrupting "God's gravity!" How do you distinguish normal technology from "interrupting God's love"?!


It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

But only if they're economically and legally tied together also... :rolleyes: And what's so "immaculate" about it? I thought lusting/extramarital sex was a "sin"! Come on fitz, I was once a Catholic, you've got to do better than that! Admit it--all of your beliefs are based on DOGMA pure and simple!

[fitzcarraldo]

Then why do we use airplanes? Cars? Buildings? Chairs? That's interrupting "God's gravity!" How do you distinguish normal technology from "interrupting God's love"?!


Good point. It is true people used to say "if god intended us to fly he would have given us wings". If we look into the Bible however, we see a celebration of every human as something special, something to be cherished. Each human is an individual and unique child of the Deity, sculpted in His own image. To fly or drive a car is not to interrupt God's work, but to destroy His own creation of life clearly is.


But only if they're economically and legally tied together also... And what's so "immaculate" about it? I thought lusting/extramarital sex was a "sin"! Come on fitz, I was once a Catholic, you've got to do better than that! Admit it--all of your beliefs are based on DOGMA pure and simple!

Although the Bible does not deal with it in great length, marriage in the current sence is largely an early Christian institution. Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins. I am just as guilty as anyone else due to the existence of original sin. Fortunately, under our DOGMA, as you put it, yes it is dogma, but based upon faith, we are instantly forgiven by the Holy Spirit if we choose the path of redemption.

[fitzcarraldo]

Then why do we use airplanes? Cars? Buildings? Chairs? That's interrupting "God's gravity!" How do you distinguish normal technology from "interrupting God's love"?!


Good point. It is true people used to say "if god intended us to fly he would have given us wings". If we look into the Bible however, we see a celebration of every human as something special, something to be cherished. Each human is an individual and unique child of the Deity, sculpted in His own image. To fly or drive a car is not to interrupt God's work, but to destroy His own creation of life clearly is.


But only if they're economically and legally tied together also... And what's so "immaculate" about it? I thought lusting/extramarital sex was a "sin"! Come on fitz, I was once a Catholic, you've got to do better than that! Admit it--all of your beliefs are based on DOGMA pure and simple!

Although the Bible does not deal with it in great length, marriage in the current sence is largely an early Christian institution. Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins. I am just as guilty as anyone else due to the existence of original sin. Fortunately, under our DOGMA, as you put it, yes it is dogma, but based upon faith, we are instantly forgiven by the Holy Spirit if we choose the path of redemption.

[fitzcarraldo]

Then why do we use airplanes? Cars? Buildings? Chairs? That's interrupting "God's gravity!" How do you distinguish normal technology from "interrupting God's love"?!


Good point. It is true people used to say "if god intended us to fly he would have given us wings". If we look into the Bible however, we see a celebration of every human as something special, something to be cherished. Each human is an individual and unique child of the Deity, sculpted in His own image. To fly or drive a car is not to interrupt God's work, but to destroy His own creation of life clearly is.


But only if they're economically and legally tied together also... And what's so "immaculate" about it? I thought lusting/extramarital sex was a "sin"! Come on fitz, I was once a Catholic, you've got to do better than that! Admit it--all of your beliefs are based on DOGMA pure and simple!

Although the Bible does not deal with it in great length, marriage in the current sence is largely an early Christian institution. Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins. I am just as guilty as anyone else due to the existence of original sin. Fortunately, under our DOGMA, as you put it, yes it is dogma, but based upon faith, we are instantly forgiven by the Holy Spirit if we choose the path of redemption.

[RaiseYourVoice]

medications are too, because they interupt the natural circle, humans are not to decide when somebody dies, only god is isnt he? so health care interferes with humans even more. God decided us to die at a certain age so its right isnt it? or why should we change it?

Or is interfering by saving lifes better than interfering by stopping lifes? i guess it cant because both are life and death are decided by god and he is right in his decision.

[RaiseYourVoice]

medications are too, because they interupt the natural circle, humans are not to decide when somebody dies, only god is isnt he? so health care interferes with humans even more. God decided us to die at a certain age so its right isnt it? or why should we change it?

Or is interfering by saving lifes better than interfering by stopping lifes? i guess it cant because both are life and death are decided by god and he is right in his decision.

[RaiseYourVoice]

medications are too, because they interupt the natural circle, humans are not to decide when somebody dies, only god is isnt he? so health care interferes with humans even more. God decided us to die at a certain age so its right isnt it? or why should we change it?

Or is interfering by saving lifes better than interfering by stopping lifes? i guess it cant because both are life and death are decided by god and he is right in his decision.

[RevMARKSman]

but to destroy His own creation of life clearly is.
We're not destroying anything. We're PREVENTING things. What about seatbelts preventing "God's work" of death? Why do we have those? Like I said, how do you distinguish these two things? How do you tell technology (that wasn't in the Bible) from "preventing God's work" (condoms aren't in the Bible either)?!


Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins.

1. Tell me how you define sin.
2. Tell me how you know that these things are sins.


I am just as guilty as anyone else due to the existence of original sin.

Oh, so now we have to pay for what our ancestors did? As if we had anything to do with them? As if we could have prevented ourselves from being related to them? :wacko:


Fortunately, under our DOGMA, as you put it, yes it is dogma, but based upon faith, we are instantly forgiven by the Holy Spirit if we choose the path of redemption.

Dogma, yes, of which you have no PROOF that it is true. Prove to me that God exists, why don't you? And one more thing--were you brought up Catholic?

[RevMARKSman]

but to destroy His own creation of life clearly is.
We're not destroying anything. We're PREVENTING things. What about seatbelts preventing "God's work" of death? Why do we have those? Like I said, how do you distinguish these two things? How do you tell technology (that wasn't in the Bible) from "preventing God's work" (condoms aren't in the Bible either)?!


Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins.

1. Tell me how you define sin.
2. Tell me how you know that these things are sins.


I am just as guilty as anyone else due to the existence of original sin.

Oh, so now we have to pay for what our ancestors did? As if we had anything to do with them? As if we could have prevented ourselves from being related to them? :wacko:


Fortunately, under our DOGMA, as you put it, yes it is dogma, but based upon faith, we are instantly forgiven by the Holy Spirit if we choose the path of redemption.

Dogma, yes, of which you have no PROOF that it is true. Prove to me that God exists, why don't you? And one more thing--were you brought up Catholic?

[RevMARKSman]

but to destroy His own creation of life clearly is.
We're not destroying anything. We're PREVENTING things. What about seatbelts preventing "God's work" of death? Why do we have those? Like I said, how do you distinguish these two things? How do you tell technology (that wasn't in the Bible) from "preventing God's work" (condoms aren't in the Bible either)?!


Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins.

1. Tell me how you define sin.
2. Tell me how you know that these things are sins.


I am just as guilty as anyone else due to the existence of original sin.

Oh, so now we have to pay for what our ancestors did? As if we had anything to do with them? As if we could have prevented ourselves from being related to them? :wacko:


Fortunately, under our DOGMA, as you put it, yes it is dogma, but based upon faith, we are instantly forgiven by the Holy Spirit if we choose the path of redemption.

Dogma, yes, of which you have no PROOF that it is true. Prove to me that God exists, why don't you? And one more thing--were you brought up Catholic?

[fitzcarraldo]

RaiseYaVoice:

medications are too, because they interupt the natural circle, humans are not to decide when somebody dies, only god is isnt he? so health care interferes with humans even more. God decided us to die at a certain age so its right isnt it? or why should we change it?
That's why our last Pope refused medications. They had to literally drag him into hospital.



Or is interfering by saving lifes better than interfering by stopping lifes? i guess it cant because both are life and death are decided by god and he is right in his decision.
Is murder is worse than benevolance? The Bible says yes.

Monica:

We're not destroying anything. We're PREVENTING things. What about seatbelts preventing "God's work" of death? Why do we have those? Like I said, how do you distinguish these two things? How do you tell technology (that wasn't in the Bible) from "preventing God's work" (condoms aren't in the Bible either)?!

I'm not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.


1. Tell me how you define sin.
2. Tell me how you know that these things are sins.

Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.


Oh, so now we have to pay for what our ancestors did? As if we had anything to do with them? As if we could have prevented ourselves from being related to them?

That's just the way it is.


Dogma, yes, of which you have no PROOF that it is true. Prove to me that God exists, why don't you? And one more thing--were you brought up Catholic?
I can as much Prove God as you can disprove Him. And yes I try to be a good Catholic.

[fitzcarraldo]

RaiseYaVoice:

medications are too, because they interupt the natural circle, humans are not to decide when somebody dies, only god is isnt he? so health care interferes with humans even more. God decided us to die at a certain age so its right isnt it? or why should we change it?
That's why our last Pope refused medications. They had to literally drag him into hospital.



Or is interfering by saving lifes better than interfering by stopping lifes? i guess it cant because both are life and death are decided by god and he is right in his decision.
Is murder is worse than benevolance? The Bible says yes.

Monica:

We're not destroying anything. We're PREVENTING things. What about seatbelts preventing "God's work" of death? Why do we have those? Like I said, how do you distinguish these two things? How do you tell technology (that wasn't in the Bible) from "preventing God's work" (condoms aren't in the Bible either)?!

I'm not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.


1. Tell me how you define sin.
2. Tell me how you know that these things are sins.

Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.


Oh, so now we have to pay for what our ancestors did? As if we had anything to do with them? As if we could have prevented ourselves from being related to them?

That's just the way it is.


Dogma, yes, of which you have no PROOF that it is true. Prove to me that God exists, why don't you? And one more thing--were you brought up Catholic?
I can as much Prove God as you can disprove Him. And yes I try to be a good Catholic.

[fitzcarraldo]

RaiseYaVoice:

medications are too, because they interupt the natural circle, humans are not to decide when somebody dies, only god is isnt he? so health care interferes with humans even more. God decided us to die at a certain age so its right isnt it? or why should we change it?
That's why our last Pope refused medications. They had to literally drag him into hospital.



Or is interfering by saving lifes better than interfering by stopping lifes? i guess it cant because both are life and death are decided by god and he is right in his decision.
Is murder is worse than benevolance? The Bible says yes.

Monica:

We're not destroying anything. We're PREVENTING things. What about seatbelts preventing "God's work" of death? Why do we have those? Like I said, how do you distinguish these two things? How do you tell technology (that wasn't in the Bible) from "preventing God's work" (condoms aren't in the Bible either)?!

I'm not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.


1. Tell me how you define sin.
2. Tell me how you know that these things are sins.

Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.


Oh, so now we have to pay for what our ancestors did? As if we had anything to do with them? As if we could have prevented ourselves from being related to them?

That's just the way it is.


Dogma, yes, of which you have no PROOF that it is true. Prove to me that God exists, why don't you? And one more thing--were you brought up Catholic?
I can as much Prove God as you can disprove Him. And yes I try to be a good Catholic.

[RevMARKSman]

I can as much Prove God as you can disprove Him.

I'd like to show you how absurd you are by making this statement.

Prove that there is not an elephant in the trunk of my car.
What about now?
What about now?
He was just hiding, check again.
Did I happen to tell you that my heartfelt definition of "elephant" includes good, happiness, love, peace, mystery, order, and a spare tire?

Do you see how absurd this situation? It's up to me, making a POSITIVE assumption, to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

So in the "God" situation it's up to YOU to prove him, not up to me to disprove him.


I'm not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.


What about "thou shalt not let cells die"? That's not in the Bible, yet that's what happens with condoms. According to your logic, every time a woman has her period she is committing murder by letting it die without being fertilized. Every time a skin cell dies on my body (billions of times in my lifetime), I'm committing murder. Yet you don't condemn this.


Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.
Prove it.



That's just the way it is.

That's what the fucking Confederates said in the 19th century about slavery. Does that mean that slavery is right? Does that mean we should suck up to the slaveowners? NO! WE CHANGE THINGS! If I was given a conscience based on God's morality and character, why do I feel that when "God" does these things (paying for the thought crimes of our ancestors, killing all firstborn children of the Egyptians, massacring the Midianites, burning billions of people in hell for not being Christian, etc.)?


And yes I try to be a good Catholic.

So you admit that the main reason for your Catholicism is that you were brought up Catholic. Some children are brought up racists. Is that a valid justification for racism?

[RevMARKSman]

I can as much Prove God as you can disprove Him.

I'd like to show you how absurd you are by making this statement.

Prove that there is not an elephant in the trunk of my car.
What about now?
What about now?
He was just hiding, check again.
Did I happen to tell you that my heartfelt definition of "elephant" includes good, happiness, love, peace, mystery, order, and a spare tire?

Do you see how absurd this situation? It's up to me, making a POSITIVE assumption, to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

So in the "God" situation it's up to YOU to prove him, not up to me to disprove him.


I'm not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.


What about "thou shalt not let cells die"? That's not in the Bible, yet that's what happens with condoms. According to your logic, every time a woman has her period she is committing murder by letting it die without being fertilized. Every time a skin cell dies on my body (billions of times in my lifetime), I'm committing murder. Yet you don't condemn this.


Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.
Prove it.



That's just the way it is.

That's what the fucking Confederates said in the 19th century about slavery. Does that mean that slavery is right? Does that mean we should suck up to the slaveowners? NO! WE CHANGE THINGS! If I was given a conscience based on God's morality and character, why do I feel that when "God" does these things (paying for the thought crimes of our ancestors, killing all firstborn children of the Egyptians, massacring the Midianites, burning billions of people in hell for not being Christian, etc.)?


And yes I try to be a good Catholic.

So you admit that the main reason for your Catholicism is that you were brought up Catholic. Some children are brought up racists. Is that a valid justification for racism?

[RevMARKSman]

I can as much Prove God as you can disprove Him.

I'd like to show you how absurd you are by making this statement.

Prove that there is not an elephant in the trunk of my car.
What about now?
What about now?
He was just hiding, check again.
Did I happen to tell you that my heartfelt definition of "elephant" includes good, happiness, love, peace, mystery, order, and a spare tire?

Do you see how absurd this situation? It's up to me, making a POSITIVE assumption, to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

So in the "God" situation it's up to YOU to prove him, not up to me to disprove him.


I'm not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.


What about "thou shalt not let cells die"? That's not in the Bible, yet that's what happens with condoms. According to your logic, every time a woman has her period she is committing murder by letting it die without being fertilized. Every time a skin cell dies on my body (billions of times in my lifetime), I'm committing murder. Yet you don't condemn this.


Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.
Prove it.



That's just the way it is.

That's what the fucking Confederates said in the 19th century about slavery. Does that mean that slavery is right? Does that mean we should suck up to the slaveowners? NO! WE CHANGE THINGS! If I was given a conscience based on God's morality and character, why do I feel that when "God" does these things (paying for the thought crimes of our ancestors, killing all firstborn children of the Egyptians, massacring the Midianites, burning billions of people in hell for not being Christian, etc.)?


And yes I try to be a good Catholic.

So you admit that the main reason for your Catholicism is that you were brought up Catholic. Some children are brought up racists. Is that a valid justification for racism?

[fitzcarraldo]

I'd like to show you how absurd you are by making this statement.

Prove that there is not an elephant in the trunk of my car.
What about now?
What about now?
He was just hiding, check again.
Did I happen to tell you that my heartfelt definition of "elephant" includes good, happiness, love, peace, mystery, order, and a spare tire?

Do you see how absurd this situation? It's up to me, making a POSITIVE assumption, to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

So in the "God" situation it's up to YOU to prove him, not up to me to disprove him.

It is not encumbent upon me to prove God to you as belief in him is based upon Faith, not the scientific method. Now, you say I am making a positive assumption. Am I? For millenia people have beleive in gods as the creators of the world. Suddenly in the last two hundred years, atheism has sprouted, with its adherants making the positive assumption that God does not exist, yet failing, FAILING, to offer any proof using their own 'science' and 'enlightenment'.

Is there an elephant in your car? Well Monica, an elephant would not fit in your car. God it seems does not interfere with spacial dimensions unless a miracle happens to be taking place as directed by the Creator.


What about "thou shalt not let cells die"? That's not in the Bible, yet that's what happens with condoms. According to your logic, every time a woman has her period she is committing murder by letting it die without being fertilized. Every time a skin cell dies on my body (billions of times in my lifetime), I'm committing murder. Yet you don't condemn this.


This is Gods work, how can I condemn it? God tells us to procreate, but he does not offer a strict timetable so there is nothing to condemn.



Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.


Prove it.
Disprove it. Yours is the religion of science and 'rationale'. Why should I use science when I don't advocate it and rely solely upon faith?


QUOTE
That's just the way it is.

That's what the fucking Confederates said in the 19th century about slavery. Does that mean that slavery is right? Does that mean we should suck up to the slaveowners? NO! WE CHANGE THINGS! If I was given a conscience based on God's morality and character, why do I feel that when "God" does these things (paying for the thought crimes of our ancestors, killing all firstborn children of the Egyptians, massacring the Midianites, burning billions of people in hell for not being Christian, etc.)?


The way it is is the way of the Deity. You ask me, a humble human to change his natural order?


So you admit that the main reason for your Catholicism is that you were brought up Catholic. Some children are brought up racists. Is that a valid justification for racism?

I beleive the natural law against racism of the Bible is to "love thy neighbour as thyself", so not upbringing can be bad, unless it is good, as Catholicism clearly is.

[fitzcarraldo]

I'd like to show you how absurd you are by making this statement.

Prove that there is not an elephant in the trunk of my car.
What about now?
What about now?
He was just hiding, check again.
Did I happen to tell you that my heartfelt definition of "elephant" includes good, happiness, love, peace, mystery, order, and a spare tire?

Do you see how absurd this situation? It's up to me, making a POSITIVE assumption, to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

So in the "God" situation it's up to YOU to prove him, not up to me to disprove him.

It is not encumbent upon me to prove God to you as belief in him is based upon Faith, not the scientific method. Now, you say I am making a positive assumption. Am I? For millenia people have beleive in gods as the creators of the world. Suddenly in the last two hundred years, atheism has sprouted, with its adherants making the positive assumption that God does not exist, yet failing, FAILING, to offer any proof using their own 'science' and 'enlightenment'.

Is there an elephant in your car? Well Monica, an elephant would not fit in your car. God it seems does not interfere with spacial dimensions unless a miracle happens to be taking place as directed by the Creator.


What about "thou shalt not let cells die"? That's not in the Bible, yet that's what happens with condoms. According to your logic, every time a woman has her period she is committing murder by letting it die without being fertilized. Every time a skin cell dies on my body (billions of times in my lifetime), I'm committing murder. Yet you don't condemn this.


This is Gods work, how can I condemn it? God tells us to procreate, but he does not offer a strict timetable so there is nothing to condemn.



Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.


Prove it.
Disprove it. Yours is the religion of science and 'rationale'. Why should I use science when I don't advocate it and rely solely upon faith?


QUOTE
That's just the way it is.

That's what the fucking Confederates said in the 19th century about slavery. Does that mean that slavery is right? Does that mean we should suck up to the slaveowners? NO! WE CHANGE THINGS! If I was given a conscience based on God's morality and character, why do I feel that when "God" does these things (paying for the thought crimes of our ancestors, killing all firstborn children of the Egyptians, massacring the Midianites, burning billions of people in hell for not being Christian, etc.)?


The way it is is the way of the Deity. You ask me, a humble human to change his natural order?


So you admit that the main reason for your Catholicism is that you were brought up Catholic. Some children are brought up racists. Is that a valid justification for racism?

I beleive the natural law against racism of the Bible is to "love thy neighbour as thyself", so not upbringing can be bad, unless it is good, as Catholicism clearly is.

[fitzcarraldo]

I'd like to show you how absurd you are by making this statement.

Prove that there is not an elephant in the trunk of my car.
What about now?
What about now?
He was just hiding, check again.
Did I happen to tell you that my heartfelt definition of "elephant" includes good, happiness, love, peace, mystery, order, and a spare tire?

Do you see how absurd this situation? It's up to me, making a POSITIVE assumption, to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

So in the "God" situation it's up to YOU to prove him, not up to me to disprove him.

It is not encumbent upon me to prove God to you as belief in him is based upon Faith, not the scientific method. Now, you say I am making a positive assumption. Am I? For millenia people have beleive in gods as the creators of the world. Suddenly in the last two hundred years, atheism has sprouted, with its adherants making the positive assumption that God does not exist, yet failing, FAILING, to offer any proof using their own 'science' and 'enlightenment'.

Is there an elephant in your car? Well Monica, an elephant would not fit in your car. God it seems does not interfere with spacial dimensions unless a miracle happens to be taking place as directed by the Creator.


What about "thou shalt not let cells die"? That's not in the Bible, yet that's what happens with condoms. According to your logic, every time a woman has her period she is committing murder by letting it die without being fertilized. Every time a skin cell dies on my body (billions of times in my lifetime), I'm committing murder. Yet you don't condemn this.


This is Gods work, how can I condemn it? God tells us to procreate, but he does not offer a strict timetable so there is nothing to condemn.



Sin is a contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments and laws of Moses as delivered by God.


Prove it.
Disprove it. Yours is the religion of science and 'rationale'. Why should I use science when I don't advocate it and rely solely upon faith?


QUOTE
That's just the way it is.

That's what the fucking Confederates said in the 19th century about slavery. Does that mean that slavery is right? Does that mean we should suck up to the slaveowners? NO! WE CHANGE THINGS! If I was given a conscience based on God's morality and character, why do I feel that when "God" does these things (paying for the thought crimes of our ancestors, killing all firstborn children of the Egyptians, massacring the Midianites, burning billions of people in hell for not being Christian, etc.)?


The way it is is the way of the Deity. You ask me, a humble human to change his natural order?


So you admit that the main reason for your Catholicism is that you were brought up Catholic. Some children are brought up racists. Is that a valid justification for racism?

I beleive the natural law against racism of the Bible is to "love thy neighbour as thyself", so not upbringing can be bad, unless it is good, as Catholicism clearly is.

[RevMARKSman]

It is not encumbent upon me to prove God to you as belief in him is based upon Faith, not the scientific method. Now, you say I am making a positive assumption. Am I? For millenia people have beleive in gods as the creators of the world. Suddenly in the last two hundred years, atheism has sprouted, with its adherants making the positive assumption that God does not exist, yet failing, FAILING, to offer any proof using their own 'science' and 'enlightenment'.

Is there an elephant in your car? Well Monica, an elephant would not fit in your car. God it seems does not interfere with spacial dimensions unless a miracle happens to be taking place as directed by the Creator.

"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)


This is Gods work, how can I condemn it? God tells us to procreate, but he does not offer a strict timetable so there is nothing to condemn.

"God" never told us strictly not to use condoms. If it is "God's" work to kill innocent egg cells and skin cells, then isn't it also his work to kill the sperm cells in the people who use condoms? It's natural for egg cells to die. It's natural for sperm cells to die. These people are taking a precaution. Does your god not like precautions?


Disprove it. Yours is the religion of science and 'rationale'. Why should I use science when I don't advocate it and rely solely upon faith?
If you rely upon faith, you can prove absolutely ANYTHING. Let's all believe in leprechauns, ghosts, goblins, the tooth fairy, vampires, magic, monsters under the bed, and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South!

If you abandon logic and science, you know absolutely nothing about the universe. Everything we know about the universe has been found out through science, not through faith. You either embrace science and knowledge or totally reject it and rely on faith for everything. You can't cherrypick what you like and don't like.


I beleive the natural law against racism of the Bible is to "love thy neighbour as thyself", so not upbringing can be bad, unless it is good, as Catholicism clearly is.

Catholicism would rather have people DIE of AIDS than let them simply use condoms! Catholicism treats women as second class citizens by not letting them become priests! Catholicism teaches that some old man in a hat knows everything there is to know about "God" and if you question him you'll go to "hell"! Catholicism tells kids that they can't use their natural body functions because it's a "sin"! Catholicism KILLS! Have you ever heard of the Inquisition or have you been taught a sugarcoated history?

And you want to use the Bible as an argument? Check out these verses and tell me that your bible is good:

Psalm 137:9
Malachi 2:3
Leviticus 20:9
2 Kings 18:27
Ezekiel 23:20
Leviticus 20:16
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
1 Timothy 2:12-15
Deutoronomy 28:53

[RevMARKSman]

It is not encumbent upon me to prove God to you as belief in him is based upon Faith, not the scientific method. Now, you say I am making a positive assumption. Am I? For millenia people have beleive in gods as the creators of the world. Suddenly in the last two hundred years, atheism has sprouted, with its adherants making the positive assumption that God does not exist, yet failing, FAILING, to offer any proof using their own 'science' and 'enlightenment'.

Is there an elephant in your car? Well Monica, an elephant would not fit in your car. God it seems does not interfere with spacial dimensions unless a miracle happens to be taking place as directed by the Creator.

"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)


This is Gods work, how can I condemn it? God tells us to procreate, but he does not offer a strict timetable so there is nothing to condemn.

"God" never told us strictly not to use condoms. If it is "God's" work to kill innocent egg cells and skin cells, then isn't it also his work to kill the sperm cells in the people who use condoms? It's natural for egg cells to die. It's natural for sperm cells to die. These people are taking a precaution. Does your god not like precautions?


Disprove it. Yours is the religion of science and 'rationale'. Why should I use science when I don't advocate it and rely solely upon faith?
If you rely upon faith, you can prove absolutely ANYTHING. Let's all believe in leprechauns, ghosts, goblins, the tooth fairy, vampires, magic, monsters under the bed, and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South!

If you abandon logic and science, you know absolutely nothing about the universe. Everything we know about the universe has been found out through science, not through faith. You either embrace science and knowledge or totally reject it and rely on faith for everything. You can't cherrypick what you like and don't like.


I beleive the natural law against racism of the Bible is to "love thy neighbour as thyself", so not upbringing can be bad, unless it is good, as Catholicism clearly is.

Catholicism would rather have people DIE of AIDS than let them simply use condoms! Catholicism treats women as second class citizens by not letting them become priests! Catholicism teaches that some old man in a hat knows everything there is to know about "God" and if you question him you'll go to "hell"! Catholicism tells kids that they can't use their natural body functions because it's a "sin"! Catholicism KILLS! Have you ever heard of the Inquisition or have you been taught a sugarcoated history?

And you want to use the Bible as an argument? Check out these verses and tell me that your bible is good:

Psalm 137:9
Malachi 2:3
Leviticus 20:9
2 Kings 18:27
Ezekiel 23:20
Leviticus 20:16
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
1 Timothy 2:12-15
Deutoronomy 28:53

[RevMARKSman]

It is not encumbent upon me to prove God to you as belief in him is based upon Faith, not the scientific method. Now, you say I am making a positive assumption. Am I? For millenia people have beleive in gods as the creators of the world. Suddenly in the last two hundred years, atheism has sprouted, with its adherants making the positive assumption that God does not exist, yet failing, FAILING, to offer any proof using their own 'science' and 'enlightenment'.

Is there an elephant in your car? Well Monica, an elephant would not fit in your car. God it seems does not interfere with spacial dimensions unless a miracle happens to be taking place as directed by the Creator.

"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)


This is Gods work, how can I condemn it? God tells us to procreate, but he does not offer a strict timetable so there is nothing to condemn.

"God" never told us strictly not to use condoms. If it is "God's" work to kill innocent egg cells and skin cells, then isn't it also his work to kill the sperm cells in the people who use condoms? It's natural for egg cells to die. It's natural for sperm cells to die. These people are taking a precaution. Does your god not like precautions?


Disprove it. Yours is the religion of science and 'rationale'. Why should I use science when I don't advocate it and rely solely upon faith?
If you rely upon faith, you can prove absolutely ANYTHING. Let's all believe in leprechauns, ghosts, goblins, the tooth fairy, vampires, magic, monsters under the bed, and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South!

If you abandon logic and science, you know absolutely nothing about the universe. Everything we know about the universe has been found out through science, not through faith. You either embrace science and knowledge or totally reject it and rely on faith for everything. You can't cherrypick what you like and don't like.


I beleive the natural law against racism of the Bible is to "love thy neighbour as thyself", so not upbringing can be bad, unless it is good, as Catholicism clearly is.

Catholicism would rather have people DIE of AIDS than let them simply use condoms! Catholicism treats women as second class citizens by not letting them become priests! Catholicism teaches that some old man in a hat knows everything there is to know about "God" and if you question him you'll go to "hell"! Catholicism tells kids that they can't use their natural body functions because it's a "sin"! Catholicism KILLS! Have you ever heard of the Inquisition or have you been taught a sugarcoated history?

And you want to use the Bible as an argument? Check out these verses and tell me that your bible is good:

Psalm 137:9
Malachi 2:3
Leviticus 20:9
2 Kings 18:27
Ezekiel 23:20
Leviticus 20:16
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
1 Timothy 2:12-15
Deutoronomy 28:53

[theraven]

"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.

[theraven]

"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.

[theraven]

"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods".

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods".

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods".

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 01:38 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 01:38 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods". [/b]
fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

PS this still refutes your "the earlistpeoples were atheist" bullox

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 01:38 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 01:38 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods". [/b]
fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

PS this still refutes your "the earlistpeoples were atheist" bullox

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 01:38 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 01:38 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods". [/b]
fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

PS this still refutes your "the earlistpeoples were atheist" bullox

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 23 2006, 08:41 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 23 2006, 08:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:38 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods".
fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

PS this still refutes your "the earlistpeoples were atheist" bullox [/b]
What? The earliest people started out atheist. Of course, they died. Eventually, people came to recognize that they were going to die too. The didn't want to die, and didn't want to accept that their friends/relatives were gone forever. So they made up an afterlife, where everyone would be happy. Then, they realized that someone needed to govern this afterlife while it was empty, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So they invented a god of the afterlife. All of them wanted to please this god to get into the afterlife, so they started making sacrifices to him. They started competing with each other to see who could make the most sacrifices to please the god. The many sacrifices became standard practice, so people generally accepted that one had to make many sacrifices to please the god. That was the first "rule". And there we have a religion.


fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

No. We realize that the more we know, the less we need gods, and that the gods were only MADE UP to compensate for missing knowledge. Therefore, we can dismiss them as primitive explanations for what must be natural processes. We don't know what those natural processes are, but there's no need to make up a god to compensate.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 23 2006, 08:41 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 23 2006, 08:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:38 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods".
fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

PS this still refutes your "the earlistpeoples were atheist" bullox [/b]
What? The earliest people started out atheist. Of course, they died. Eventually, people came to recognize that they were going to die too. The didn't want to die, and didn't want to accept that their friends/relatives were gone forever. So they made up an afterlife, where everyone would be happy. Then, they realized that someone needed to govern this afterlife while it was empty, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So they invented a god of the afterlife. All of them wanted to please this god to get into the afterlife, so they started making sacrifices to him. They started competing with each other to see who could make the most sacrifices to please the god. The many sacrifices became standard practice, so people generally accepted that one had to make many sacrifices to please the god. That was the first "rule". And there we have a religion.


fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

No. We realize that the more we know, the less we need gods, and that the gods were only MADE UP to compensate for missing knowledge. Therefore, we can dismiss them as primitive explanations for what must be natural processes. We don't know what those natural processes are, but there's no need to make up a god to compensate.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 23 2006, 08:41 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 23 2006, 08:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:38 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 08:36 AM


"God does not exist" is a NEGATIVE proposition. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it is up to you to prove the positive assumption. The first humans and all animals did NOT believe in a god. All babies are born atheist. It's the parents who first introduce the concept of a god without any proof.


It's a really small elephant. (I'm making an absurd statement not unlike those who say "God cannot be proven because he is supernatural/in another dimension/based on faith alone/a mystery".)

really so where did religoin come from? early peole were very religous, they had many gods to which they attributed everything that happened. Clealry there was some reaosn for this.
Yeah...maybe because they DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING and felt a need to attribute everything they didn't understand to a "god"? We now know that there isn't a guy in a flaming chariot that goes streaming across the sky every day. We know that the sun is a ball of flaming hydrogen. The more we find out, the less we need these made-up "gods".
fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

PS this still refutes your "the earlistpeoples were atheist" bullox [/b]
What? The earliest people started out atheist. Of course, they died. Eventually, people came to recognize that they were going to die too. The didn't want to die, and didn't want to accept that their friends/relatives were gone forever. So they made up an afterlife, where everyone would be happy. Then, they realized that someone needed to govern this afterlife while it was empty, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So they invented a god of the afterlife. All of them wanted to please this god to get into the afterlife, so they started making sacrifices to him. They started competing with each other to see who could make the most sacrifices to please the god. The many sacrifices became standard practice, so people generally accepted that one had to make many sacrifices to please the god. That was the first "rule". And there we have a religion.


fine-when we compeltly understand the universe we can give up belief in god, till then we're goign to have to accept some thing son faith :-p

No. We realize that the more we know, the less we need gods, and that the gods were only MADE UP to compensate for missing knowledge. Therefore, we can dismiss them as primitive explanations for what must be natural processes. We don't know what those natural processes are, but there's no need to make up a god to compensate.

[theraven]

What? The earliest people started out atheist. Of course, they died. Eventually, people came to recognize that they were going to die too. The didn't want to die, and didn't want to accept that their friends/relatives were gone forever. So they made up an afterlife, where everyone would be happy. Then, they realized that someone needed to govern this afterlife while it was empty, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So they invented a god of the afterlife. All of them wanted to please this god to get into the afterlife, so they started making sacrifices to him. They started competing with each other to see who could make the most sacrifices to please the god. The many sacrifices became standard practice, so people generally accepted that one had to make many sacrifices to please the god. That was the first "rule". And there we have a religion.

wow monica-how do you know so much about prehisotrical religoin? were you there?

how amazing.....I don't knwo how religion was formed, nor does anyone else. there are theorys and mines as good as yours, but frankly that one ranks pretty high up on the stupid meter.



No. We realize that the more we know, the less we need gods, and that the gods were only MADE UP to compensate for missing knowledge. Therefore, we can dismiss them as primitive explanations for what must be natural processes. We don't know what those natural processes are, but there's no need to make up a god to compensate.

so science has explaiend death?

[theraven]

What? The earliest people started out atheist. Of course, they died. Eventually, people came to recognize that they were going to die too. The didn't want to die, and didn't want to accept that their friends/relatives were gone forever. So they made up an afterlife, where everyone would be happy. Then, they realized that someone needed to govern this afterlife while it was empty, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So they invented a god of the afterlife. All of them wanted to please this god to get into the afterlife, so they started making sacrifices to him. They started competing with each other to see who could make the most sacrifices to please the god. The many sacrifices became standard practice, so people generally accepted that one had to make many sacrifices to please the god. That was the first "rule". And there we have a religion.

wow monica-how do you know so much about prehisotrical religoin? were you there?

how amazing.....I don't knwo how religion was formed, nor does anyone else. there are theorys and mines as good as yours, but frankly that one ranks pretty high up on the stupid meter.



No. We realize that the more we know, the less we need gods, and that the gods were only MADE UP to compensate for missing knowledge. Therefore, we can dismiss them as primitive explanations for what must be natural processes. We don't know what those natural processes are, but there's no need to make up a god to compensate.

so science has explaiend death?

[theraven]

What? The earliest people started out atheist. Of course, they died. Eventually, people came to recognize that they were going to die too. The didn't want to die, and didn't want to accept that their friends/relatives were gone forever. So they made up an afterlife, where everyone would be happy. Then, they realized that someone needed to govern this afterlife while it was empty, otherwise it wouldn't exist. So they invented a god of the afterlife. All of them wanted to please this god to get into the afterlife, so they started making sacrifices to him. They started competing with each other to see who could make the most sacrifices to please the god. The many sacrifices became standard practice, so people generally accepted that one had to make many sacrifices to please the god. That was the first "rule". And there we have a religion.

wow monica-how do you know so much about prehisotrical religoin? were you there?

how amazing.....I don't knwo how religion was formed, nor does anyone else. there are theorys and mines as good as yours, but frankly that one ranks pretty high up on the stupid meter.



No. We realize that the more we know, the less we need gods, and that the gods were only MADE UP to compensate for missing knowledge. Therefore, we can dismiss them as primitive explanations for what must be natural processes. We don't know what those natural processes are, but there's no need to make up a god to compensate.

so science has explaiend death?

[RevMARKSman]

wow monica-how do you know so much about prehisotrical religoin? were you there?
Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

so science has explaiend death?
Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

[RevMARKSman]

wow monica-how do you know so much about prehisotrical religoin? were you there?
Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

so science has explaiend death?
Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

[RevMARKSman]

wow monica-how do you know so much about prehisotrical religoin? were you there?
Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

so science has explaiend death?
Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

[theraven]

Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after

[theraven]

Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after

[theraven]

Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING.

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 02:00 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 02:00 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING. [/b]
no you don't see a need, religoin has deovlepd into a force of social unity, as well as a comfort in a hard world, as well as a overall positive force for civlizoiant.

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 02:00 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 02:00 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING. [/b]
no you don't see a need, religoin has deovlepd into a force of social unity, as well as a comfort in a hard world, as well as a overall positive force for civlizoiant.

[theraven]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 02:00 PM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 02:00 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING. [/b]
no you don't see a need, religoin has deovlepd into a force of social unity, as well as a comfort in a hard world, as well as a overall positive force for civlizoiant.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 23 2006, 09:02 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 23 2006, 09:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:00 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don't remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don't know where you've been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don't have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you've been shut down for good.

that doesn't expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don't see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING.
no you don't see a need, religoin has deovlepd into a force of social unity, as well as a comfort in a hard world, as well as a overall positive force for civlizoiant. [/b]
Suuure...so the Inquisition, the crusades, the holy wars, the war on pleasure, the KKK, the fundamentalist movement, the anti-reproductive-rights movement, the government sponsorship of religious displays don't have anything to do with religion?

Comfort--yeah. Instead of getting people to CHANGE the hard world, just pray because this world doesn&#39;t matter. <_<

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 23 2006, 09:02 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 23 2006, 09:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:00 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don&#39;t remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don&#39;t know where you&#39;ve been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don&#39;t have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you&#39;ve been shut down for good.

that doesn&#39;t expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don&#39;t see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING.
no you don&#39;t see a need, religoin has deovlepd into a force of social unity, as well as a comfort in a hard world, as well as a overall positive force for civlizoiant. [/b]
Suuure...so the Inquisition, the crusades, the holy wars, the war on pleasure, the KKK, the fundamentalist movement, the anti-reproductive-rights movement, the government sponsorship of religious displays don&#39;t have anything to do with religion?

Comfort--yeah. Instead of getting people to CHANGE the hard world, just pray because this world doesn&#39;t matter. <_<

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 23 2006, 09:02 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 23 2006, 09:02 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:00 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 08:58 AM


Were you? If not, how do you know that the earliest people were theists? My proposition is a lot more probable than yours. Do you have memories from when you were a young child? Do you remember believing in a god before your parents told you he existed? I thought not.

no neither of us were there, thus neither of us can say for sure what happened. I don&#39;t remember much of anything of when i was really little. I have alwya sbelive din god as far as i cna remember, but thats not an indicatin of primitive peoples beliefs in god. What is more likely then your story is that early peoples became more and more aware of things (as we grew more intellegent) they wanted to know why things happened, so they named the things, those that affected thie life most they whorshipped and prayed to. religoin grew out of this.



Yeah. I don&#39;t know where you&#39;ve been the last few hundred years. The brain stops receiving enough oxygen and/or blood, and the brain cells start dying. When the brain dies, the human is pronounced clinically dead. There is no consciousness after death because you don&#39;t have a BRAIN. Your organic hard drive has been WIPED and you&#39;ve been shut down for good.

that doesn&#39;t expalin what happens after
I can accept your theory about early people. But I don&#39;t see a need to call natural processes "God" and worship them.

What happens after you die? Most of the time you are buried or cremated and your body/ash rots in the ground, is decomposed by bacteria, and fertilizes the soil.
You are aware of nothing after death because the brain (which is responsible for awareness and consciousness) is DEAD. GONE. ZIP. NOTHING.
no you don&#39;t see a need, religoin has deovlepd into a force of social unity, as well as a comfort in a hard world, as well as a overall positive force for civlizoiant. [/b]
Suuure...so the Inquisition, the crusades, the holy wars, the war on pleasure, the KKK, the fundamentalist movement, the anti-reproductive-rights movement, the government sponsorship of religious displays don&#39;t have anything to do with religion?

Comfort--yeah. Instead of getting people to CHANGE the hard world, just pray because this world doesn&#39;t matter. <_<

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
You are fucking insane.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
You are fucking insane.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
You are fucking insane.

[Pawn Power]

Dead embryos.

The irony is delicious.

[Pawn Power]

Dead embryos.

The irony is delicious.

[Pawn Power]

Dead embryos.

The irony is delicious.

[Herman]

I&#39;m not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.

This coming from someone who believes in a religion which incites people to:

Become drunk: "Then tell them, &#39;This is what the Lord Almighty, the
God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword
I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).

Lie:"...and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Ex. 3:22). "...and they shall spoil
those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 39:10).
"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take
these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you
from your enemies" (Deut. 20:14).

Kill: "ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put 10,000 to flight: and
your enemies shall fall before you by the sword" (Lev. 26:7-8). "the Lord said to Moses, Take
all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce
anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel.
Slay every one his men that were joined to Baal" (Num. 25:4-5). "Vex the Midianites and
smite them" (Num. 25:17). "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes. But thou shalt utterly
destroy them...as the Lord thy God has commanded thee" (Deut. 20:16-17). "So Joshua smote
all the country of the hills...he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
as the Lord God of Israel commanded" (Joshua 10:40). "As I listened, god said to the others,
&#39;Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men,
young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6). "And the Lord sent you on a
mission, saying &#39;Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war
on them until you have wiped them out.&#39;" (1 Sam. 15:18). "Attack the land of Merathaim and
those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them&#39; declares the Lord. Do
everything I have commanded you" (Jer. 50:21). "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally
destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3). Also note: Ex.
32:27-28, Num. 21:34-35, 31:7-8, 35:19-21, and Jer. 48:10.

A religion in which God:

Prevents people from hearing his words: "Make the heart of this people
calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their
eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isa. 6:10).
"So you see God is kind to some just because he wants to be, and he makes some refuse to
listen" (Rom. 9:18). "This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never
perceiving" (Matt. 13:13-14). See also: John 12:39-40, Mark 4:10-12, and Luke 8:9-10.

Supports human sacrifice: Ex. 22:29-30 says, "Do not hold back offerings from
your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with
your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for 7 days, but give them to me
on the 8th day." And Lev. 27:28-29 says, "Nothing that a man owns and devotes to the
Lord--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so
devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must
be put to death." He also permitted human sacrifice according to Ezek. 20:26, which says, "I
let them become defiled through their gifts--the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might
fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."

Orders cannibalism: Lev. 26:29 says, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the
flesh of your daughter shall ye eat." Jer. 19:9 says, "I will make them eat the flesh of their
sons and daughters, and they will eat one another&#39;s flesh during the stress of the siege
imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives." Ezek. 5:10 says, "In your midst fathers
will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you
and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." Isaiah 49:26 says, "I will make your
oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine...." And in
John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life...."

HE DEMANDED 16,000 VIRGINS BE GIVEN TO SOLDIERS AS WAR PLUNDER AND 32 BE SET ASIDE FOR HIMSELF: Num. 31:31-40 says, "Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord
commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was
675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept
with a man.... And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was....16,000
people, of which the tribute for the Lord was 32." Women rank right up there with
cattle, donkeys, and sheep. And they have to be virgins, at that&#33; Imagine a righteous
and perfect God wanting 32 virgins to be set aside for himself&#33;

HE ORDERS GAMBLING: Joshua 14:2 says, "Their inheritances were assigned by lot to
the nine-and-a-half tribes, as the Lord had commanded through Moses." Num. 26:52-56
says, "The Lord said to Moses, The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance
based on the number of names.... Be sure that the land is distributed by lot.... Each
inheritance is to be distributed by lot among the larger and smaller groups."

HE BREAKS UP FAMILIES: Ex. 21:2-4 says, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve
you for six years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free.... If his master gives him a wife
and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
master, and only the man shall go free."

HE ORDERS THE KILLING OF CHILDREN: Ezek. 9:6 says, "Slay utterly old and young, both
maids and little children, and women...." and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling...."

HE KILLED OVER 50,000 PEOPLE BECAUSE A FEW LOOKED INTO AN ARK: 1 Sam. 6:19 says,
"the Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the Ark of the
Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070: and the people lamented, because the Lord
had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

-From &#39;God&#39;s words and deeds&#39; by McKinsey

[Herman]

I&#39;m not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.

This coming from someone who believes in a religion which incites people to:

Become drunk: "Then tell them, &#39;This is what the Lord Almighty, the
God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword
I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).

Lie:"...and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Ex. 3:22). "...and they shall spoil
those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 39:10).
"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take
these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you
from your enemies" (Deut. 20:14).

Kill: "ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put 10,000 to flight: and
your enemies shall fall before you by the sword" (Lev. 26:7-8). "the Lord said to Moses, Take
all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce
anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel.
Slay every one his men that were joined to Baal" (Num. 25:4-5). "Vex the Midianites and
smite them" (Num. 25:17). "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes. But thou shalt utterly
destroy them...as the Lord thy God has commanded thee" (Deut. 20:16-17). "So Joshua smote
all the country of the hills...he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
as the Lord God of Israel commanded" (Joshua 10:40). "As I listened, god said to the others,
&#39;Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men,
young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6). "And the Lord sent you on a
mission, saying &#39;Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war
on them until you have wiped them out.&#39;" (1 Sam. 15:18). "Attack the land of Merathaim and
those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them&#39; declares the Lord. Do
everything I have commanded you" (Jer. 50:21). "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally
destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3). Also note: Ex.
32:27-28, Num. 21:34-35, 31:7-8, 35:19-21, and Jer. 48:10.

A religion in which God:

Prevents people from hearing his words: "Make the heart of this people
calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their
eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isa. 6:10).
"So you see God is kind to some just because he wants to be, and he makes some refuse to
listen" (Rom. 9:18). "This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never
perceiving" (Matt. 13:13-14). See also: John 12:39-40, Mark 4:10-12, and Luke 8:9-10.

Supports human sacrifice: Ex. 22:29-30 says, "Do not hold back offerings from
your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with
your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for 7 days, but give them to me
on the 8th day." And Lev. 27:28-29 says, "Nothing that a man owns and devotes to the
Lord--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so
devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must
be put to death." He also permitted human sacrifice according to Ezek. 20:26, which says, "I
let them become defiled through their gifts--the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might
fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."

Orders cannibalism: Lev. 26:29 says, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the
flesh of your daughter shall ye eat." Jer. 19:9 says, "I will make them eat the flesh of their
sons and daughters, and they will eat one another&#39;s flesh during the stress of the siege
imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives." Ezek. 5:10 says, "In your midst fathers
will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you
and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." Isaiah 49:26 says, "I will make your
oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine...." And in
John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life...."

HE DEMANDED 16,000 VIRGINS BE GIVEN TO SOLDIERS AS WAR PLUNDER AND 32 BE SET ASIDE FOR HIMSELF: Num. 31:31-40 says, "Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord
commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was
675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept
with a man.... And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was....16,000
people, of which the tribute for the Lord was 32." Women rank right up there with
cattle, donkeys, and sheep. And they have to be virgins, at that&#33; Imagine a righteous
and perfect God wanting 32 virgins to be set aside for himself&#33;

HE ORDERS GAMBLING: Joshua 14:2 says, "Their inheritances were assigned by lot to
the nine-and-a-half tribes, as the Lord had commanded through Moses." Num. 26:52-56
says, "The Lord said to Moses, The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance
based on the number of names.... Be sure that the land is distributed by lot.... Each
inheritance is to be distributed by lot among the larger and smaller groups."

HE BREAKS UP FAMILIES: Ex. 21:2-4 says, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve
you for six years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free.... If his master gives him a wife
and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
master, and only the man shall go free."

HE ORDERS THE KILLING OF CHILDREN: Ezek. 9:6 says, "Slay utterly old and young, both
maids and little children, and women...." and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling...."

HE KILLED OVER 50,000 PEOPLE BECAUSE A FEW LOOKED INTO AN ARK: 1 Sam. 6:19 says,
"the Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the Ark of the
Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070: and the people lamented, because the Lord
had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

-From &#39;God&#39;s words and deeds&#39; by McKinsey

[Herman]

I&#39;m not sure there is a passage in the Bible where God says "Do not fly into space" "Do not create technology". There is something however which says: "Thou shalt not murder". Know this. Man is created in the image of God. To use a condom destroys this creation.

This coming from someone who believes in a religion which incites people to:

Become drunk: "Then tell them, &#39;This is what the Lord Almighty, the
God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword
I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).

Lie:"...and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Ex. 3:22). "...and they shall spoil
those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 39:10).
"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take
these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you
from your enemies" (Deut. 20:14).

Kill: "ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put 10,000 to flight: and
your enemies shall fall before you by the sword" (Lev. 26:7-8). "the Lord said to Moses, Take
all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce
anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel.
Slay every one his men that were joined to Baal" (Num. 25:4-5). "Vex the Midianites and
smite them" (Num. 25:17). "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes. But thou shalt utterly
destroy them...as the Lord thy God has commanded thee" (Deut. 20:16-17). "So Joshua smote
all the country of the hills...he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
as the Lord God of Israel commanded" (Joshua 10:40). "As I listened, god said to the others,
&#39;Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men,
young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6). "And the Lord sent you on a
mission, saying &#39;Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war
on them until you have wiped them out.&#39;" (1 Sam. 15:18). "Attack the land of Merathaim and
those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them&#39; declares the Lord. Do
everything I have commanded you" (Jer. 50:21). "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally
destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3). Also note: Ex.
32:27-28, Num. 21:34-35, 31:7-8, 35:19-21, and Jer. 48:10.

A religion in which God:

Prevents people from hearing his words: "Make the heart of this people
calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their
eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isa. 6:10).
"So you see God is kind to some just because he wants to be, and he makes some refuse to
listen" (Rom. 9:18). "This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never
perceiving" (Matt. 13:13-14). See also: John 12:39-40, Mark 4:10-12, and Luke 8:9-10.

Supports human sacrifice: Ex. 22:29-30 says, "Do not hold back offerings from
your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with
your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for 7 days, but give them to me
on the 8th day." And Lev. 27:28-29 says, "Nothing that a man owns and devotes to the
Lord--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so
devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must
be put to death." He also permitted human sacrifice according to Ezek. 20:26, which says, "I
let them become defiled through their gifts--the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might
fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."

Orders cannibalism: Lev. 26:29 says, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the
flesh of your daughter shall ye eat." Jer. 19:9 says, "I will make them eat the flesh of their
sons and daughters, and they will eat one another&#39;s flesh during the stress of the siege
imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives." Ezek. 5:10 says, "In your midst fathers
will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you
and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." Isaiah 49:26 says, "I will make your
oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine...." And in
John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life...."

HE DEMANDED 16,000 VIRGINS BE GIVEN TO SOLDIERS AS WAR PLUNDER AND 32 BE SET ASIDE FOR HIMSELF: Num. 31:31-40 says, "Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord
commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was
675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept
with a man.... And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was....16,000
people, of which the tribute for the Lord was 32." Women rank right up there with
cattle, donkeys, and sheep. And they have to be virgins, at that&#33; Imagine a righteous
and perfect God wanting 32 virgins to be set aside for himself&#33;

HE ORDERS GAMBLING: Joshua 14:2 says, "Their inheritances were assigned by lot to
the nine-and-a-half tribes, as the Lord had commanded through Moses." Num. 26:52-56
says, "The Lord said to Moses, The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance
based on the number of names.... Be sure that the land is distributed by lot.... Each
inheritance is to be distributed by lot among the larger and smaller groups."

HE BREAKS UP FAMILIES: Ex. 21:2-4 says, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve
you for six years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free.... If his master gives him a wife
and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
master, and only the man shall go free."

HE ORDERS THE KILLING OF CHILDREN: Ezek. 9:6 says, "Slay utterly old and young, both
maids and little children, and women...." and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling...."

HE KILLED OVER 50,000 PEOPLE BECAUSE A FEW LOOKED INTO AN ARK: 1 Sam. 6:19 says,
"the Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the Ark of the
Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070: and the people lamented, because the Lord
had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

-From &#39;God&#39;s words and deeds&#39; by McKinsey

[fitzcarraldo]

Become drunk: "Then tell them, &#39;This is what the Lord Almighty, the
God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of the sword
I will send among you" (Jer. 25:27).

That doesn&#39;t sound like an incentive to become drunk...


Lie:"...and ye shall spoil the Egyptians" (Ex. 3:22). "...and they shall spoil
those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God" (Ezek. 39:10).
"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take
these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you
from your enemies" (Deut. 20:14).

Well the Hyksos remnant Israelites were slightly oppressed for like a few generations so a little the other way wasn&#39;t too bad now was it - as punishment?


Kill
Yahweh/Jehova was archaeologically a war-God. There are thus some old pagan parts which have found their way into the Old Testament. Christians don&#39;t use the Old Testament much though. Its message is somewhat corrupted. This is of course the reason God sent his son to reaffirm the important messages.


Prevents people from hearing his words:
Its really a matter for God. You can&#39;t say: "well i&#39;ll just pick the God I like and beleive in that" What kind of a fool idea is that?


Supports human sacrifice
God can he harsh and arbitrary. But know that all innocent souls live for eternity in paradise.


Orders cannibalism: Lev. 26:29 says, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the
flesh of your daughter shall ye eat." Jer. 19:9 says, "I will make them eat the flesh of their
sons and daughters, and they will eat one another&#39;s flesh during the stress of the siege
imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives." Ezek. 5:10 says, "In your midst fathers
will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you
and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." Isaiah 49:26 says, "I will make your
oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine...." And in
Well, it was a seige. And how do we know God really said that? Is that sort of thing in the New Testament?



John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life...."

Do you know what a metaphore is? Almost everything Jesus said was a metaphore.


HE DEMANDED 16,000 VIRGINS BE GIVEN TO SOLDIERS AS WAR PLUNDER AND 32 BE SET ASIDE FOR HIMSELF
That&#39;s Old pagan Yahweh showing his face.


HE ORDERS GAMBLING: Joshua 14:2 says, "Their inheritances were assigned by lot to
the nine-and-a-half tribes, as the Lord had commanded through Moses." Num. 26:52-56
says, "The Lord said to Moses, The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance
based on the number of names.... Be sure that the land is distributed by lot.... Each
inheritance is to be distributed by lot among the larger and smaller groups."
HAHAHHA gambling... God does not throw dice.


HE BREAKS UP FAMILIES: Ex. 21:2-4 says, "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve
you for six years. But in the 7th year, he shall go free.... If his master gives him a wife
and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her
master, and only the man shall go free."

Their families are replaced by the love of God.


HE ORDERS THE KILLING OF CHILDREN: Ezek. 9:6 says, "Slay utterly old and young, both
maids and little children, and women...." and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling...."

HE KILLED OVER 50,000 PEOPLE BECAUSE A FEW LOOKED INTO AN ARK: 1 Sam. 6:19 says,
"the Lord smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the Ark of the
Lord, even he smote of the people 50,070: and the people lamented, because the Lord
had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
They were Satanists no doubt. It is not for me or you to question the usage of the power of the Lord.

[KC]

Prove god exists.

[fitzcarraldo]

Prove god exists.

With philosophy or science? I can do both.

[KC]

With philosophy or science? I can do both.

Science.

[fitzcarraldo]

Science
You are desperate, especially considering you haven&#39;t yet used any&#33; (I wish you would).

The Mind is a rational and complex tool, not unlike a quantum computer, but better. Its subconsicous machinations form an imporant part of the survival mechanism. At the cutting edge of neuroscience is research into the out of body experience, a phenomena increasingly explained by quantum physicists as a case of quantum entanglement with the etheric &#39;fourth dimension&#39;, which encompasses all of time and space. This research explains the "enlightenment" experienced by the Bhoddavista, and other unexplained paraphsychological experiences. This of course makes the mind a more powerful analytical tool than anybody has yet phathomed.

The fact via its infinitely elaborate calculations it can manifest the possibility of a God demonstrates the actual possibility for the existence of God in reality, which is constantly analysed by the mind, on many levels of consiousness. If you disagree you are of course dening the rationality of your fellow humans and indeed your own rationality since you are of course directed by your own mind.

[TC]

Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.

Using condoms interrupts God&#39;s love? Thats what you call it??? As in "Err, hunny, i think you still have a bit of &#39;God&#39;s love&#39; on your chin"? :o

You catholics are so kinky&#33; :rolleyes:



It is an immaculate conception of male and female, overseen and aproved of by the Lord

:mellow: the only Immaculate Conception was the Blessed Virgin Mary&#39;s, thats what the term means...i think you just blasphemed&#33; :mellow:

Don&#39;t worry...i&#39;ll pray for your soul...even though i&#39;m sure you just condemned yourself to HELL.


Lusting and extramarital sex are clear sins.

There are actually no references to extramarital sex in the bible, only references to adultery and prostitution (which have sometimes been creatively translated, but not in the more serious scholarly works). You can screw whoever you want as long as you&#39;re not married and not paying for it ;)

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:01 AM

Science
You are desperate, especially considering you haven&#39;t yet used any&#33; (I wish you would).

The Mind is a rational and complex tool, not unlike a quantum computer, but better. Its subconsicous machinations form an imporant part of the survival mechanism. At the cutting edge of neuroscience is research into the out of body experience, a phenomena increasingly explained by quantum physicists as a case of quantum entanglement with the etheric &#39;fourth dimension&#39;, which encompasses all of time and space. This research explains the "enlightenment" experienced by the Bhoddavista, and other unexplained paraphsychological experiences. This of course makes the mind a more powerful analytical tool than anybody has yet phathomed.

The fact via its infinitely elaborate calculations it can manifest the possibility of a God demonstrates the actual possibility for the existence of God in reality, which is constantly analysed by the mind, on many levels of consiousness. If you disagree you are of course dening the rationality of your fellow humans and indeed your own rationality since you are of course directed by your own mind.
My mind can conceive of INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS. Does that mean that there&#39;s a possibility of them existing? No, because their attributes (invisible--reflects no visible light, and pink--reflects white and red light) CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.


THE PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT
1.) If God exists, then he is perfect..
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4.) If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6.) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). - Theodore M. Drange




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD&#39;S JUSTICE AND MERCY
1.) If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2.) If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3.) An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4.) An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5.) It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6.) Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6). - A construct of one of Dan Barker&#39;s arguments. Rewritten by Theodore M. Drange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD&#39;S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Theodore M. Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: &#39;The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...&#39; - Webster&#39;s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
Comments: You see, this is the problem, God cannot be jealous. Be he is. Yahweh cannot possibly exist if he has both the attributes of love and jealousy.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God’s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Jesus, God&#39;s Flesh, died at the cross.
2.) Flesh & Blood cannot enter into Heaven per (1 Cor. 15:50-56)
3.) Jesus was Flesh.
4.) Jesus no longer exists. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem. However, if Jesus “is” God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead. - IG
And for those that don&#39;t believe Paul was talking about Flesh & Blood literally (Fallen Man) please refer to the Greek meaning of Flesh.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVIL IS GOOD?
1.) God is good all of the time.
2.) Everything that God creates is good. Amen?
3.) God created evil according to Isaiah 45:7. (look it up)
4.) Evil is good. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
1.) If God exists, he is omnipresent (occupying all space).
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and future, there is nothing that is NOT God.
3.) God therefore, cannot have a sense of the independent self.
4.) Since God has no sense of the self or non-self, he cannot have a consciousness.
5.) In conclusion, God cannot have a mind and would resemble nothing more than the non-conscious Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: Of course P3 could be denied if one believes the human mind is somehow not part of Gods. This argument is more designed for those that believe that God is ALL things.(Which is the typical theist I encounter).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (This is explained and discussed more HERE.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON LOVE & HELL
1.) God&#39;s love is superlative.
2.) God&#39;s love of man exceeds man&#39;s love of self.
3.) Man&#39;s love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God&#39;s greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical. - Hank & Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER ATEMPORAL ARGUMENT
1.) God is an atemporal being.
2.) God is all aware.
3.) God then would be aware of the passage of time.
4.) The passage of anything is change from one instance to another.
5.) God is not an a temporal being. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ON MAN&#39;S FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past, present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future will be part of God&#39;s unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God&#39;s unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn&#39;t exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. - a syllogistic view of Dan Barker&#39;s F.A.N.G


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INFALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE / FREEWILL ARGUMENT
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PRAYER
1.) Prayer is sometimes used to ask God to change a situation in one&#39;s life or anothers.
2.) God has a divine plan that cannot be changed.
3.) Prayer cannot be used to change any situation. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MORAL-KNOWLEGDE ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM
1.) If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
2.) If God exists, it would be in God&#39;s interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3.) All human beings do not know God&#39;s ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
4.) Probably, God does not exist. - Niclas Berggren
(If one disagrees with P2, why would God NOT realize this option? "We could imagine two scenarios. First, a God which shows favoritism in the sense that he reveals his ethics only to some, or in the sense that he reveals it to a higher extent to some than to others. But this would be inconsistent with our assumption of benevolence, since such favoritism would imply that God cares more about some than about others (where knowledge of God&#39;s ethics must be considered a good, from the point of view of a benevolent God). (And in the Christian case, it is explicitly stated in Acts 10:34: "Then Peter began to speak: &#39;I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism&#39;." (NIV)) Second, we could imagine God spreading a limited knowledge of his ethics in equal proportions to all of humanity. But (i) what could possibly be the point in such a self-imposed limitation of spreading something which, from the point of view of the benevolent God, must be considered a good? and (ii) this can hardly be the case, since not all people agree normatively on any issue of ethics (and if my point (ii) is disputed, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is such agreement - and this has not been shown)." - Niclas Berggren


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL IGNORANCE
1.) If God exists, it is probably the case that all sentient beings whose behavior God considers morally significant have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
2.) If God exists, he considers humans&#39; behavior morally significant.
3.) Humans are sentient beings.
4.) If God exists, it is probably the case that humans have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
5.) Humans do not have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
6.) Probably, God does not exist.- Cole Mitchell: Adapted from Niclas Berggren&#39;s "On the Nature of Morality".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL PARITY
1.) If God exists, rational theists are probably noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
2.) Rational theists are not noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
3.) Probably, God does not exist. - Paul Draper


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR NON-BELIEF ASSUMING THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS
1.) The Christian God wants all men to know he exists so that they can be saved and go to Heaven.
2.) The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent.
3.) The Christian God knows what sufficient evidences he can provide to convince all men of his existence.
4.) Not all men are convinced of God&#39;s existence.
5.) The Christian God chooses to not provide sufficient evidence to convince all men that he exists.
6.) Therefore, The Christian God wants non-believers to exist.
NOTE: Atheists are non-Christians so this argument can be used to argue for atheism as well. [1] can be argued against on the outset, however, if one argues against this position, this would mean that God creates people just to go to hell. Doesn&#39;t sound like an all-good God to me. Most Calvinists will not have a problem with this or JW&#39;s, however, many Christians will find this disturbing. A typical rebuttle would be that God wishes for you to choose him freely. So he wants you to believe, but providing incontrovertible evidence would negate faith. Which God requires. The problem with this argument of course is that all religions have faith. So faith alone cannot lead people to the "right" God. Surely a God would know this. If so, he wants atheists to exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM ASSUMING GOD EXISTS
1.) If the Christian God exists, everything that exists is part of his perfect, divine plan.
2.) Atheists exist.
3.) So, atheists are a part of God&#39;s perfect plan.
4.) Therefore, God wants atheists to exist. - Moloth



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM JUDGEMENT
1.) If the Christian God exists, he will judge all men one day.
2.) At judgement, atheists will learn the truth, that there is a God.
3.) It follows then that God has the power to reveal himself to atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence.
4.) It follows from that, that God hasn&#39;t revealed himself to current atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence, yet.
5.) Atheism is a tenable position. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(A counter argument is to state that God requires that we have faith. One would think that surely God would be intelligent enough to know that faith would not be a viable option to the atheist or even the non-christian to believe in him (Yahweh). He would therefore have to provide evidence if he wants us to accept him as a reality. If he doesn&#39;t, then it&#39;s on God, right?)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SATAN FOOLING US - Evidence of Evolution
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing).
2.) God knew that before Creating Satan, that Satan would trick people with fossils and other evidence for evolution.
3.) God created Satan anyway.
4.) God wants, at least some, people to be tricked into believing in the evidences for evolution.
5.) It&#39;s logical to not believe in "divine creation". - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(This is a response to those that seriously believe Satan created fossils and that all of the sciences that support evolution are twisted by Satan. In regards to Divine Creation I am responding to the story of Adam and Eve.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMNISCIENCE-HUMAN EXPERIENCE INCOMPATIBILITY ARGUMENT
1.) Fear is a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger. (The American Heritage® Dictionary: 2000)
2.) If God exists, God cannot feel agitated, anxious or feel endangered.
3.) Since God cannot experience fear, he cannot know what it&#39;s like to fear, therefore not all-knowing. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Some would claim that it is against God&#39;s nature to be afraid. Exactly, then he cannot be omniscient. There are at least some things for which he is completely ignorant of. Stating that it&#39;s against his nature is a cop-out and a concession simultaneously.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr
(Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, &#39;Through faith one can know God.&#39;)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Herman]

That doesn&#39;t sound like an incentive to become drunk...

"Drink, get drunk and vomit" doesn&#39;t sound like an incentive to get drunk? Oh dear...


Well the Hyksos remnant Israelites were slightly oppressed for like a few generations so a little the other way wasn&#39;t too bad now was it - as punishment?

Oh of course. Then I guess the &#39;Love thy neighbour&#39; doesn&#39;t apply there, does it?


Its really a matter for God. You can&#39;t say: "well i&#39;ll just pick the God I like and beleive in that" What kind of a fool idea is that?

Easy. I don&#39;t believe in God. In fact, I believe religion should disappear altogether.


God can he harsh and arbitrary. But know that all innocent souls live for eternity in paradise.

Oh of course. Gee, thanks. That really comforts me.


Their families are replaced by the love of God.

Oh great&#33; Nevermind i&#39;ve spent my life with my family. It get&#39;s better with the love of god&#33;


They were Satanists no doubt. It is not for me or you to question the usage of the power of the Lord.

Well, after knowing all that God did, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised that the people were doubting that he was good after all.

[KC]

fitz, you have yet to prove that god exists. Saying "god could exist" doesn&#39;t mean that god does exist. So please, prove that it exists.

[Zero]

theraven, and fitzcarraldo.

BEFORE you start up your traditionalistic arguements about "Indigenous people had a faith in the unknown, and if people have been warshipping it for hundreds of years, then it must be true&#33;" Arguement, you must first PROVE YOUR POSITIVE&#33;

It is the only plausable way to prove to a rational mind that your god exists. You must prove that he is there. Not *hint* that he is there, not imply that he is there, not use baseless arguements that poke at a "spiritual relm". The only way for you to argue on a quasi-scientific arguement such as this one is to give rational and scientific data that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you have something to argue for.

Until you give the world scientific data proving the existance of your base arguement, you have no sway in conversations. Period.

P.S. Raven, you have spelt &#39;Religious&#39; correctly only once out of 5 posts.

EDIT:

Originally posted by "fitzcarraldo"
The fact via its infinitely elaborate calculations it can manifest the possibility of a God demonstrates the actual possibility for the existence of God in reality, which is constantly analysed by the mind, on many levels of consiousness. If you disagree you are of course dening the rationality of your fellow humans and indeed your own rationality since you are of course directed by your own mind.
Lets believe for a second that Quantum Physics is the rational explanation for everything in the universe, and that Einstein was incorrect about General Relitivity (Which is impossible considering that Quantum Physics cannot accurately calculate gravity.)

Your God that you talk about is a seperate entity. You argue that within our mind we process thought inside a 4th dimensional space in a conciousness beyond our bodies correct? Time and Space have been thought to reside in an elusive 4th dimension because we cannot rationally prove that they exist in this dimension. This is because we have nothing to measure them with, and nothing substance to test. If we have nothing physical to test on, and no underlying &#39;theory of everything&#39; outside of theoretical mathmatics we have no avenue of proof that Time and Space actually exist... but do we see the effects of them? Yes we do. We have evidence, but no plausable explanation. This is no reason to automaticly jump to a conclusion that they exist in another relm. A notion that precieves "enlightenment" as extradimensional thinking has no base in reality. For all we know "enlightenment" could be pure rational thought when you have removed cultural bias, and educational bias.

Congradulations, you have prooven nothing. Even if there is proof that we process thought in a 4th dimensional space, there is just as much evidence that God does not exist as he does.

Just for giggles, why don&#39;t you also try to prove to me that he exists on a philosophic level as well.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Jun 23 2006, 03:14 PM--> (violencia.Proletariat &#064; Jun 23 2006, 03:14 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 02:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
You are fucking insane.[/b]
Quoted for truth.

Here we have the typical religious nut who refuses to question their absurd beliefs, trying to explain the burden of proof to them is as good as explaining the string theory to a flamingo, it is unlikely to be any wiser after hours of chatting.

Fitzcarraldo, imagine I tell you that on the Moon, there is a small yellow ball, which moves around randomly, floating an inch above the surface, and can travel at 100 MPH.
Now imagine me and you travel to the moon (all part of God&#39;s wonderful plan, of course) and we stand next to our spaceship, surveying the landscape.

You could search for months, years even, and never find this ball, or any evidence for it. Yet I tell you I still believe it is there, though you have no reason to believe this is so, except for me telling you. Had I not told you it was there, the thought that this ball existed on the moon would never have crossed your mind. You keep on looking, and do not find it.
Therefore, the only possible way you can ever know that this ball exists, is if proof is provided, ie-we find it, and see it for ourselves.

Now put this into a theological scenario. You tell me that God exists. However, I have never seen him, nor have I seen or read any evidence for him. This includes the Bible, which is a compilation of stories written and edited by lots of men, thousands of years ago, and cannot be trusted. I have also read Harry Potter, but I am not convinced that Lord Voldemort wishes to destroy the world.
Therefore, the only possible way for me to believe in God is if he is proven to exist, which must be done by those who believe in him. The burden of proof is on you. Now please prove he exists.

[Goatse]

Fitz&#39;s argument so far, compiled for the benefit of those who haven&#39;t read the thread.

1) I can imagine a god.
2) If something exists in my head, then it exists.
3) God exists. ULULULULULULUAAAAAAAAAA&#33;
3b) Heil hitler.

[Zero]

Sorry Scottish, not quite. It&#39;s more like:

1) The world around us is precieved by our brain
2) Our brain processes things in another dimension, explained by theoretical mathmatics.
3) This avenue of theoretical mathmatics (which cannot be rationaly proven, or provide the existance of forces we know of) is the correct analysis for everything existing.
4) God exists in this other dimension

1 is true, 2 is theoretical, 3 is mathmaticly false, 4 is completely false, and founded on a false theoretical mathmatics.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
But then not having sex interrupts god&#39;s love too?
So why was celibacy invented again? Ah, right, to make sure priests couldn&#39;t get children who would inherit their property and so all property would return to the church.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by An archist+Jun 24 2006, 09:04 PM--> (An archist @ Jun 24 2006, 09:04 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
But then not having sex interrupts god&#39;s love too?
So why was celibacy invented again? Ah, right, to make sure priests couldn&#39;t get children who would inherit their property and so all property would return to the church. [/b]
Which is a shame, because they seem quite fond of children.

[fitzcarraldo]

Fitz&#39;s argument so far, compiled for the benefit of those who haven&#39;t read the thread.

1) I can imagine a god.
2) If something exists in my head, then it exists.
3) God exists. ULULULULULULUAAAAAAAAAA&#33;
3b) Heil hitler.

That is it, except for the last part. :D

Basically the mind only creates whatever fiction is plausible. This is why there is nothing in today&#39;s science fiction which cannot one day be invented. Since the universe is to all merits infinite there is no fiction, no imagining so implausibe as to not occur somewhere, sometime. Einstein himself said imagination was the greatest tool of discovery.

You Monica spoke of invisible pink unicorns as an paradoxical impossibility. In 1984 a &#39;unicorn&#39; was born. It was a white goat with a single large multicoloured horn coming out of its forehead. In future I am sure some greedy biotech company will no doubt genetically engineer pink horses, Palaminos perhaps, with a multicoloured horn since there are so many girls who would want one. Science, technology and capitalism will no doubt also invent a device for invisibility. It is only a matter of time.

[KC]

Yes, but we&#39;re talking about invisible pink unicorns existing now, not some genetically altered goats with invisibility packs on them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Basically the mind only creates whatever fiction is plausible.

I take it you haven&#39;t read much science fiction then. Some sci-fi universes regularly piss on fundamental laws of physics, like mine does.

Do you seriously think violating Conservation of Energy is possible?


This is why there is nothing in today&#39;s science fiction which cannot one day be invented.

Time Machine. FTL drive. Both are impossible.


Since the universe is to all merits infinite there is no fiction, no imagining so implausibe as to not occur somewhere, sometime. Einstein himself said imagination was the greatest tool of discovery.

I&#39;m sorry, but the laws of physics apply throughout spacetime, with very few (In fact, only two come to mind - the Big Bang and black holes, which are both disputed to some degree) exceptions due to extraordinary circumstances. Nice appeal to authority at the end - Einstein was turning a phrase, not literally saying that anything was possible with imagination.


You Monica spoke of invisible pink unicorns as an paradoxical impossibility. In 1984 a &#39;unicorn&#39; was born. It was a white goat with a single large multicoloured horn coming out of its forehead. In future I am sure some greedy biotech company will no doubt genetically engineer pink horses, Palaminos perhaps, with a multicoloured horn since there are so many girls who would want one. Science, technology and capitalism will no doubt also invent a device for invisibility. It is only a matter of time.

The invisible pink unicorn is a reductio ad absurdium of the god concept, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[fitzcarraldo]

Excellent&#33;


I take it you haven&#39;t read much science fiction then. Some sci-fi universes regularly piss on fundamental laws of physics, like mine does.
Give me an example to refute. I bet they don&#39;t.


Do you seriously think violating Conservation of Energy is possible?
Who says other parts of the universe follow the same laws of physics? Clearly Newtonian physics is severely limited in is applications after all.


QUOTE
This is why there is nothing in today&#39;s science fiction which cannot one day be invented.



Time Machine. FTL drive. Both are impossible.
...With current technology. Breaking the sound barrier was impossible. Moving pictures was impossible. Approaching the speed of light increases our speed through time. Breaking the speed of light sends us into the past. Assuming we can go faster than light, we will be going into the past. Are you limiting our future scientific capabilities? Who are you to say we won&#39;t invent? Are you God? I could say future communism is impossible based upon current technologies? Don&#39;t you need a high level of automation to &#39;liberate&#39; the workers? But I suppose lets stop all science and technology since time machines are clearly impossible. :rolleyes:


I&#39;m sorry, but the laws of physics apply throughout spacetime, with very few (In fact, only two come to mind - the Big Bang and black holes, which are both disputed to some degree) exceptions due to extraordinary circumstances.
That&#39;s just it. We don&#39;t really know what&#39;s going on at the bottom of a black hole. IS the universe, ONLY four dimensional? Do you know how small we are and how infinite the universe is? Have we, in the 21st century reached the limits of human knowledge? Of course, if we know everything, as you perhaps suggest, who are you to say we are not created in the image of God?


Nice appeal to authority at the end - Einstein was turning a phrase, not literally saying that anything was possible with imagination.
Well, we do create the future by implementing our ideas. Is there any other way? Why should imagination not be the most important method of analysis? Capitalists know it, communists do not. Henry Ford on being told by his engineers building a V8 block out of a single peice of steal was impossible responded: "Build it anyway". It took them several years, but they did. He imagined it, it happened.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Approaching the speed of light increases our speed through time. Breaking the speed of light sends us into the past
And theres the problem, its impossible to reach or break the speed of light.
sorry but you seem to be a friend of star trek science.



Who are you to say we won&#39;t invent?
its not his claim its a scientific claim


We don&#39;t really know what&#39;s going on at the bottom of a black hole
a black whole has a bottom?


IS the universe, ONLY four dimensional?
is the universe a cat? wow i am good at inventing new theories


Do you know how small we are and how infinite the universe is?
how infinite? either it is or its not infinite...


Of course, if we know everything, as you perhaps suggest,
no one ever said that sorry


Well, we do create the future by implementing our ideas.
we dont create the future, we only influence it. vulcanos break out, earth plates move, and all if we care or not.


Henry Ford on being told by his engineers building a V8 block out of a single peice of steal was impossible responded: "Build it anyway".

Henry Ford also said History is bunk. what a great american hero &#33;


He imagined it, it happened.
many people imagine many thing, some of those might happen. WOW NOW I KNOW THERES A GOD THANKS FOR ENLIGHTENING ME

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Give me an example to refute. I bet they don&#39;t.

Doctor Who&#39;s TARDIS. The size of a police box on the outside, much bigger on the inside. Flatly contradicts the laws of physics.


Who says other parts of the universe follow the same laws of physics?

Astronomers do. They&#39;ve observed into the deepest depths of the universe, and it all looks and behaves remarkably the same. Gravity and other physical phenomena occur in distant galaxies just as they do in our own.


Clearly Newtonian physics is severely limited in is applications after all.

Newtonian physics are accurate enough for NASA to use them despite the existance of Relativity - it&#39;s only at high fractions of lightspeed that relativistic effects have to be taken into account. Relativity is a refinement of Newtonian physics, not a replacement.

And besides, Conservation of Energy is valid whatever speed you happen to be travelling at.


...With current technology. Breaking the sound barrier was impossible.

See this NASA Page (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warpstat.html). Breaking the lightspeed barrier is nothing like breaking the so-called "Sound Barrier"


Moving pictures was impossible.

I don&#39;t recall anyone ever saying that. Besides, the basic principles behind moving pictures have been known for a long time before the advent of film and television, the existance of such toys as Zoetropes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope) and Flip Books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_book) proving this point.


Approaching the speed of light increases our speed through time.

A more accurate description would be that time dilation occurs, this has been confirmed in experiments. Huge speeds have to be attained however in order for this to become truly noticable, and as velocity increases so does mass, resulting in a vicious cycle whereby more and more fuel is need to propel a rapidly increasing mass. At lightspeed, one would need an infinite amount of fuel to propel an infinite mass, clearly an impossible task.


Breaking the speed of light sends us into the past.

Evidence for this assumption?


Assuming we can go faster than light,

We can&#39;t, because in order to do so we would need infinite amounts of energy, an impossible proposition.


Are you limiting our future scientific capabilities?

I&#39;m not, but the universe will eventually.


Who are you to say we won&#39;t invent?

Of course we will invent, but only insofar as the laws of physics allow us to. We can&#39;t do the impossible.


Are you God?

What a silly question. Of course I&#39;m not god. But the idea that we will eventually find a loophole in the laws of physics which will enable us to do all the things we see in science fiction books is simply ludicrous optimism. Remember in the 1950s when we all thought we would have people living on the Moon and Mars?


I could say future communism is impossible based upon current technologies? Don&#39;t you need a high level of automation to &#39;liberate&#39; the workers?

Higher levels of automation would of course make stateless, classless society an easier prospect, but if the Technocrats are right then the Western world is pretty much already at the required level of potential automation and superabundance.


But I suppose lets stop all science and technology since time machines are clearly impossible. :rolleyes:

What a total non-sequiter. Just because there is a limit to technology doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t try and reach that limit.


That&#39;s just it. We don&#39;t really know what&#39;s going on at the bottom of a black hole.

In order to truly know, we would need to actually go to a black hole and observe it directly. The nearest black hole is several thousand light years away, in the center of the Milky Way. This means we won&#39;t be finding out an awful lot about black holes for a long long time, especially considering the impossibility of FTL.


IS the universe, ONLY four dimensional?

Some string theorists like to think that there are more, but that&#39;s pure speculation at this point. Not that it would change the laws of physics as they currently stand.


Do you know how small we are and how infinite the universe is?

The universe is not infinite according to commonly accepted cosmological models. But we are pretty small in comparison to the rest of it. But see my point earlier about astronomers&#39; observations about how homogenous the universe is.


Have we, in the 21st century reached the limits of human knowledge?

I would venture to say that&#39;s unlikely. But even if that was so, there are many technologies we need to refine.


Of course, if we know everything, as you perhaps suggest, who are you to say we are not created in the image of God?

Because there&#39;s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we were created, and tons of evidence suggesting that we evolved into our current state?


Well, we do create the future by implementing our ideas.

But only if they are possible, and even then you need to build on past successes - technology is not simply developed in a vacuum. You don&#39;t simply wake one morning with the plans to a working fusion reactor in your head.


Is there any other way? Why should imagination not be the most important method of analysis?

Because logic and scientific investigation are much more reliable.


Capitalists know it, communists do not.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/images/smiles/wanker.gif

Please remember that next time a Vostok spacecraft delivers supplies to the ISS.


Henry Ford on being told by his engineers building a V8 block out of a single peice of steal was impossible responded: "Build it anyway". It took them several years, but they did. He imagined it, it happened.

You mean he ordered them to do it and they simply did the gruntwork. Yep, profiting off others&#39; hard work and originality sure is the capitalist way :rolleyes:

[Goatse]

Breaking the sound barrier was impossible.

No, dolt, it was always possible.

If you took a plane which goes beyond the sound barrier back in time a thousand years, it would still go beyond the speed of sound. Fucking moron.

[fitzcarraldo]

Doctor Who&#39;s TARDIS. The size of a police box on the outside, much bigger on the inside. Flatly contradicts the laws of physics.
If you beleive this you are clearly stating other dimensions do not exist outside the fourth, which is not what most physicists beleive. The writers of Dr Who clearly explain that the outside of the Tardis is not an accurate reflection of its real size as you are looking from the vantage of our spacetime dimension. When you step into the tardis you cross the threashold into another dimension, accessible to timelord technology, no doubt superior to our own.


QUOTE
Who says other parts of the universe follow the same laws of physics?



Astronomers do. They&#39;ve observed into the deepest depths of the universe, and it all looks and behaves remarkably the same. Gravity and other physical phenomena occur in distant galaxies just as they do in our own.
Good point. But who is to say they are the limits of our universe? Perhaps they are just the outside of an atom with us at the nucleus. Who are to say the laws of Newton do not change over time? Perhaps they do? The universe is not static after all. And why is quantum physics and relativity not compatible? The only way you can disprove me is if you claim to know everything, and are Godlike yourself, which clearly you do not.


Newtonian physics are accurate enough for NASA to use them despite the existance of Relativity - it&#39;s only at high fractions of lightspeed that relativistic effects have to be taken into account. Relativity is a refinement of Newtonian physics, not a replacement.

And besides, Conservation of Energy is valid whatever speed you happen to be travelling at.

How do you know? Are you God? Prove it. I want the same level of proof you expect of me. No one will ever make an invention that can break the laws of physics? Because you say so? Won&#39;t technology one day give us Godlike powers?


See this NASA Page. Breaking the lightspeed barrier is nothing like breaking the so-called "Sound Barrier"
You saying it can&#39;t be done? I know for a fact it can.


I don&#39;t recall anyone ever saying that. Besides, the basic principles behind moving pictures have been known for a long time before the advent of film and television, the existance of such toys as Zoetropes and Flip Books proving this point.


Moving pictures was impossible.



I don&#39;t recall anyone ever saying that. Besides, the basic principles behind moving pictures have been known for a long time before the advent of film and television, the existance of such toys as Zoetropes and Flip Books proving this point.

I just mean people could&#39;nt beleive their eyes, just like they won&#39;t beleive our eyes when we travel at the infinite speed of light and reach the edge of the universe in a split second.


A more accurate description would be that time dilation occurs, this has been confirmed in experiments. Huge speeds have to be attained however in order for this to become truly noticable, and as velocity increases so does mass, resulting in a vicious cycle whereby more and more fuel is need to propel a rapidly increasing mass. At lightspeed, one would need an infinite amount of fuel to propel an infinite mass, clearly an impossible task.
Who says we use fuel? A rocket is like an upside down candle. We can&#39;t go far obviously. Wouldn&#39;t a mechanism more like the creators of Doctor who envisaged be more appropriate? Besides, you&#39;re arguing according to our current limited understanding. A hundred years ago when we didn&#39;t know of nuclear reactions, physicsts calculated that the sun had to be made of coal which was continuously burning. This is only a hundred years mind you.


Breaking the speed of light sends us into the past.



Evidence for this assumption?

Its an asymptote with the speed of light and mass and energy increasing. So some physicists reason breaking the speed creates a negative asymptote, sending us faster than the speed of light and thus backward in time instead of forward.


Assuming we can go faster than light,



We can&#39;t, because in order to do so we would need infinite amounts of energy, an impossible proposition.

Lets say find a way not to use much energy?


Are you limiting our future scientific capabilities?



I&#39;m not, but the universe will eventually.

That&#39;s when we revolt and break free.


Who are you to say we won&#39;t invent?



Of course we will invent, but only insofar as the laws of physics allow us to. We can&#39;t do the impossible.

Our knowledge of physics is limited. There is always a way.

{SORRY I HAVE TO GO ILL DO MORE LATER}

[RaiseYourVoice]

The only way you can disprove me is if you claim to know everything, and are Godlike yourself, which clearly you do not.
There is no use in disproving you, you argue without any prove, indicators whatsoever. you cant find god in the sky any more? hell than hes at the end of the universe, or maybe in the quarks &#33; sorry but you church believers make up such interessting fantasies, theres no way to disprove you like you said, because you base your theories on things that right now cant be proved, once they are you find new unproved things.


That&#39;s when we revolt and break free.
Ah yes, thats the point when we break from the laws of physics and become gods ourselves&#33; or are we already if we dont even stick to the laws god made for us? oh no that would be blasphemic wouldnt it?



Lets say find a way not to use much energy?

Yes to use a little less infinite energy that makes sence.


Its an asymptote with the speed of light and mass and energy increasing. So some physicists reason breaking the speed creates a negative asymptote, sending us faster than the speed of light and thus backward in time instead of forward.
Oh what happened to you? using some scientists to prove something? sorry thats gonna backfire, since most scientist see this as a theoretical construct which will never happen because you cannot be faster than light.


I just mean people could&#39;nt beleive their eyes, just like they won&#39;t beleive our eyes when we travel at the infinite speed of light and reach the edge of the universe in a split second.
now you dont even just break lightspeed, you want to go at infinite speed? infinite speed means infinite distance at infinitly short time, hell thats a good idea so you press start and you are infinity far away, so if your destination isnt infinity this is some big bullshit. the speed of light isnt infinite at all btw. as a scientist (haha) you should know that. also if you know the term LIGHTYEARS you should know that even the next galaxy at lightspeed is pretty damn far away.
btw, split of a second is wrong, like i said its infinitly short so not measurable. again you use a different theory btw. sometimes your universe is infinite, sometimes it has an end and sometimes and edge. do you even know what you&#39;re saying?

Ah another one, if you go at infinite speed the computer controlling it must have infinite power to achieve infinite controll to avoid the infinite meteors and stars on the way that appear in infinite short time. this plus the fact that you go at infinite speed already, would make you waste 2 times the infinite of energy for one trip. :lol:

Not to mention that IF a speed faster than light makes you go back in time, you will go back in times infinite years, which means in infininte short time you go back to the beginning of time and either meet god of die in the big bang. yes that makes sence :wacko:

Also if i recall right you get infinitly heavy and short. damn thats one great theory


You saying it can&#39;t be done? I know for a fact it can.
OH MY GOD (sorry) so you came back in time to tell us that in future we have godlike powers&#33;&#33;&#33; thats soooooooo nice of you thanks for enlightening us


Our knowledge of physics is limited. There is always a way.
damn you are really a star trek scientist.


No one will ever make an invention that can break the laws of physics? Because you say so?

BECAUSE ITS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, baka


Won&#39;t technology one day give us Godlike powers?
no. also that again would be blasphemic wouldnt it?


Who are to say the laws of Newton do not change over time?
they never did.


I want the same level of proof you expect of me.
ah and when did we ask you to prove you are god? ;)

This conversation is really entertaining. I am far from being a physician, but this is just funny. maybe theres a way to arive somewhere else faster than light, but i&#39;d rather try bending the time-space than just moving fast conventional, because that clearly is bullshit.

[fitzcarraldo]

Hey is it ok with you Raiseyavoice if I give my answer right after NoXion gives his? I just want to confirm he says the same thing as you about my propositions about the speed of light.

[RevMARKSman]

I am far from being a physician

I think you mean "physicist"... :lol:

[Goatse]

The only way you can disprove me is if you claim to know everything, and are Godlike yourself, which clearly you do not.

1. I claim that towels speak English.
2. You cannot disprove me as you do not have godlike knowledge of everything.
3. Thus, towels speak English.

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
So would you say that every woman who says "no" to a guy is interrupting god&#39;s love because they could be procreating? Would that mean that you believe rape is okay, because the rapist is just "spreading god&#39;s love"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by SocialistGenius+Jul 2 2006, 05:26 AM--> (SocialistGenius @ Jul 2 2006, 05:26 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 06:54 AM
I think this is just anti-clerical propaganda from the atheists who wish to avoid God&#39;s love. Procreation and conception are God&#39;s way of delivering life. Using condoms interrupts it, thus interrupting God&#39;s love.
So would you say that every woman who says "no" to a guy is interrupting god&#39;s love because they could be procreating? Would that mean that you believe rape is okay, because the rapist is just "spreading god&#39;s love"? [/b]
He won&#39;t answer you, he&#39;s been banned :P