Comments
536,621 - 536,640 of 732,536 Comments Last updated 7 min ago

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565145
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

TJ Monk wrote:
Your thinking is to live and die. WRONG. You might as well be a radical Islamist...
You have much more in common with a Muslim than I do.

You both embrace magic, mythology, superstition, dogma, and ritual. I don't.

You both grovel before an imagined angry, capricious, petty, sadistic, murderous, judgmental, Semitic desert god complete with its pantheon of demons and angels.

You both believe in an afterlife and a reward. I don't.

You each attend Mosques or churches, and obey the imams or priests there. I don't.

You each have an ancient holy book filled with hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals upon which to base your lives. I don't.

Christians are just a camel and a prayer cloth removed from being Muslims. Secular humanists have better ideas.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565146
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Double Fine wrote:
Oh, definitely. I can't remember what we did before Google, Wikipedia and howstuffworks. Going into a library and actually searching for a passage in a book? What inhuman torture!
As for the fellowship, that is true. It is nice to have a voice. It is nice to be defined.

Before I forget, a happy Thanksgiving to you!
Thank you kindly. It was a pretty good meal. I just checked - though not a South African holiday, some celebrate Thanksgiving just the same. I hope that your day was a good one.

Yes, gratitude is a yearlong thing. You are obviously grateful for the Internet, too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565147
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Just Results wrote:
I'm thankful that they will suffer there endlessly for their heinous hatred and ruthless bitter deception.
There you go, RiversideRedneck. Isn't this what you said that you've never read before?

Bask in the love of Jesus.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565148
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who besides you? You forget that your word is no good here.
<quoted text>
"Solely based upon religion?" That's political revisionism.
That's the Treaty of Tripoli....

Should I get you a tissue?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565149
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. That's just another of your empty and unsupported claims, and a familiar ruse with church apologists, especially when referring to criticism of their bible: "You're taking it out of context." Prove it. Restore the relevant context and prove it.
If your point had any validity, you could and would have included the missing context from the treaty (it's a treaty, BTW, not an article) that elucidated how the meaning changed without its inclusion.
Example of a passage which meaning is altered by removing surrounding context, and how restoring the context proves that :
Quote mined snippet: "I don't love my wife"
Original comment restored: "I would never say that I don't love my wife"
Do that, or gracefully accept the ignominy rightly earned by making a false claim about surrounding context changing the meaning of the words.
<quoted text>
More codswallop. Plenty of honest historians and other literate people disagree with that. The relevant passage of the Treaty of Tripoli reads:
"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
What part of that do you not understand? Do you know what "not in any sense means"?
So you'll conveniently forget the fact that the treaty was debunked & rewritten less than 10 years later.

Sorry lady, it was merely a political ploy. And mornos like you bought it & still buy it.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565150
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it that you're making another unevidenced claim that you could easily have supported were your claim valid.
Let me take some of your words out of context and show you how sometimes it merely leaves out some detail, and sometimes it changes their meaning altogether.
Full statement with no context removed:
[1] "So I take it that you read my post out of context. Nice."
Context removed that does NOT substantially change the meaning:
[2] "So I take it that you read my post out of context."
[3] "you read my post out of context. Nice."
Context removed that DOES change the apparent meaning:
[4] "read my post" - now it sounds like a command.
[5] "So I take it that you read my post ... Nice." - now it sounds like a thank you.
Got it? Simply saying that "you removed context" to imply that a passage's meaning has been altered is insufficient. Every time any quotation or excerpt is reprinted, including biblical scripture, surrounding context is perforce removed. Ethical posters do that responsibly.
To claim otherwise is to accuse another of dishonest. To claim otherwise without even bothering to demonstrate in what way the words' apparent meaning were changed is either laziness on your part, or an example of your own dishonesty.
You've pissed off half of the thread with your irresponsible and dishonest posting. I'll bet that it surprises you to see how much we care about about that. It has to do with personal integrity and self-respect. They matter to me. They matter to Booots. They matter to OCB. They matter to KittenKoder. They matter to Scam Buster. But not to you:
RiversideRedneck wrote: My Topix reputation?!? OH NOOOO!!!!!!!!!
IANS: Yes, your reputation on this thread is shot. And your obvious indifference to that is no surprise.
Yes, I am indeifferent to a "reputation" on Topix.

Only self-serving, arrogant, huge ego, low self-esteem people like you would give a f_ck what a bunch of strangers think about you.

You say I piss people off? GOOD. I say the things that need to be said OR I say what's on my mind.

You disagree.

No one cares.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565151
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean that most Americans still call themselves Christian. That won't be for long.
Depends on what you consider "long". I'm sure that's a small number to you.

It's different for some men...
Don't forget the Pledge: "One nation, under Hod (sic)"
Hod appears in those places illegally. I resent the Christians turning the Pledge into a prayer, and the currency into religious tracts.
I predict that Hod will disappear from all of those places, as will the grossly unfair church tax exemptions and their free pass from the IRS to promote political candidates.


LMAO! "illegaly".... That's why God is all over our country.

More tissues?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565152
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, RiversideRedneck. Isn't this what you said that you've never read before?
Bask in the love of Jesus.
What did I say about how I feel about what is read on Topix?

Dumb ass.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565153
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

LIes Busters wrote:
You are wrong and not even close to being right. You totally flipped it,[church-state separation] was so the state could not impose their religion upon the people
What I discovered one day is that it's not the separation of church and state that I am most grateful for. It's keeping the church out of government, and 100% subordinate to the state and its laws. That's what matters. It's the separation of the church and me that I really matters most to me, and I rely on government to maintain that.

Without that, there would be nothing to stop the church from resuming its old ways. If the state were to separate itself from the affairs of the church entirely, there is no reason to believe that they would not begin torturing us again immediately. Suppose Pat Robertson wants to burn a lesbian at the stake for the being an abomination unto the Lord. Should government interfere? Of course. That's why we need the government to protect us from the church.

And to those that consider this exaggeration or overkill, let me ask you this : When in history was the church ever empowered to torture and kill, but chose not to exercise that power?

Sure, it's been centuries since anybody was burned for heresy in North America. But that's because secular government, informed by humanist values, insisted on it when it outlawed that form of religious expression.

The last time witch burning was legal on this continent, you could hear their anguished screams and if downwind, smell their charred flesh.

I have zero doubt that if the state separated itself from the church, and that power were restored to it, you'd smell 'em again the first day that it was legal, and this guy would volunteer to light the match:

Just Results wrote: "Hell was created for their god Satan and for them to suffer in, and I'm thankful that they will suffer there endlessly for their heinous hatred and ruthless bitter deception."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

Is there any reason to doubt that? Any evidence to the contrary?

I like the church being under the boot of the government and the rule of law. In fact, I depend on it. And I think that we all should be calling for even greater oversight, especially regarding tax exemptions for the church and the pedophilic priests.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565154
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

9

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it and weep, Mr. Revisionist. These are contradictions:
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO CREATION STORIES IN GENESIS
adapted from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/acco...
pffft HA HA HA!!

YA, let's believe the 'skeptic' website. Because they're genuine and have obviously studied the Bible....

Give it up, dude. You're just diggin yerself deeper.

Top of page

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence.

Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings.

Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God).

Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3.

Genesis 2 describes God's preparation of a specific location on earth (Eden) for habitation by the first human beings.

Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term "earth" when the Hebrew would better be translated "land."

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565155
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

passinby wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear, did i rain on your parade? It's a free internet baby. Last i checked anyone can comment. Your attempt at ad hominem is quaint though.
Actually you are making a claim; you are saying nothing existed and then it exploded on its own; that's how we came to be. Even your g-d particle is a physical thing. i don't have that kind of faith. i need more proof than that.
Everything is fractal; like begets like. In our reality, you can't have nothing produce something unless the so-called nothing is an intelligence and power beyond our capacity to know it except as it reveals itself to us. Anybody can know the Mighty One; it takes an open mind and humility. That's all.
I have never made those claims on this site. An atheist is a non-believer in the gods of the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and all the other thousands of present and former gods that people have worshiped. That you connect not believing in a god with some advanced scientific theory that only the most educated and elite of a certain field of science even understand is not logical.

I HAVE stated that evolution is proved because it has been and there are examples even to today of two existing groups of the same species that have developed different physical characteristics to adapt to where they are physically located, relative to food, and temperature. Both examples in these rare cases are still existing, however most evolving takes place over millions of years so finding two examples of different stages both alive at the same time, is the exception.

I accept the results of what the educated people have presented to us as being true because I do have a science degree and understand what is involved in being able to present something as a proved fact rather than someone's imagination, but I certainly have not done the leg work myself.

With natural things, that science has proved, there are clues and evidences to investigate. With god beliefs there is no evidence and so far no clues. We have only the passed on traditions and legends which are often documented in ancient texts, most of which have been proved to not be entirely factual (in most cases not factual at all).

Perhaps though, in the spirit of the purpose of a discussion topic, one might take the position of discussing each others points of views rather than just attacking someone because he/she claims to be an atheist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565156
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
The relevant passage of the Treaty of Tripoli reads: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" What part of that do you not understand? Do you know what "not in any sense" means?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
So you'll conveniently forget the fact that the treaty was debunked & rewritten less than 10 years later.
Treaties aren't debunked or rewritten. Once ratified, treaties are either honored or violated, They may be superceded, terminated, extended, and the like.

What would be your point anyway? Do you ever just come out and plainly make an affirmative statement or take a firm position? What are you claiming invalidates what, and why? I'm assuming at this juncture that the reason you chose such vague language is that you are either lying or confused.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565157
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

passinby wrote:
<quoted text>
What has one to do with the other; you are the ones with the superior belief or you wouldn't scoff at someone else's. i demand? i am one who enjoys science; real science; not that of the establishment which is a religion in its own right. And why not expect those who think so little of others (or is that backlash talking) shouldn't have superior proof?
How do you know i haven't demanded and gotten proof of the Mighty One? It is outside of your capacity to experience because you have closed your minds to the possibility of an existence beyond what you want can prove.
You guys have church on the brain. You do care what i believe; and you're simply attempting to give back what you perceive you've gotten from the church (which is actually a pagan institution). And you do believe something; everybody does; like it or not. You realize you are saying "we" because you need the numbers. You can't stand on your own.
Hedging your bets makes you an agnostic not Atheist if you think something might exist.
If you don't believe in YHUH why do you feel threatened? If it's so make believe you have nothing to worry about. But you haven't considered everything or you wouldn't feel so unsettled.
To think that i almost became an Atheist; boy am i glad i didn't follow the crowd; you don't think for yourselves; you just follow along just like the Christians. i think for myself and i'm not a Christian. i follow the faith of Abraham; i am a part of family of Yshral. i don't need religion except to be compassionate to the orphans and widows and keep myself from losing my autonomy.
I am open minded, show me the evidence and I shall "believe".

You offer no evidence, merely emotionalism, and hubris. If you are so confident in your belief you would not need paint yourself correct to this thread.

You are another example of someone who thinks so highly of himself, that you consider yourself the only person to have understood the god.

What kind of "god" produces entities with such a high failure rate?

the answer is either the god is incompetent or evil.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565158
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not Gods plan. He gave man a perfect start in EDEN....everlasting perfect life. But some things delayed this from moving forward. It's still His purpose, He doesn't change His objective like we do. He's all-Eternal. It is still His objective today and forever.
But you are jumping way ahead of yourself here, and using the logical error of 'begging the question'. Where did this "God's plan" come from in this discussion, when we have yet not found any proof of a god existing. Unless you can provide proof of this god, then "His plan" is just empty air - means nothing.

You are starting at the point where we have resolved the debate and then working backward; in debate that is not permissible, nor does it prove any point.

That particular point has been made here several thousand times in the course of over 1/2 million posts.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565159
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
thnx for sharing your MYTHology
now prove god exists
No why didn't I say that in response to his same post, rather than my long response, which I have made many times already and becoming very bored having to repeat constantly?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565160
Nov 23, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
pffft HA HA HA!!
YA, let's believe the 'skeptic' website. Because they're genuine and have obviously studied the Bible....
Give it up, dude. You're just diggin yerself deeper.
Top of page
Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence.
Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings.
Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God).
Genesis one was never intended to stand apart from Genesis 2 and 3.
Genesis 2 describes God's preparation of a specific location on earth (Eden) for habitation by the first human beings.
Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term "earth" when the Hebrew would better be translated "land."
I love how some people bend over backwards and give themselves a rim job , rather than admit the errors in the historical book of fiction.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565161
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

12

11

11

Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
there is plenty of evidence of the Big Bang, especially the cosmic background radiation
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cm...
Please list your so called miracles and evidence that they actually occurred (outside of the bible)
what prophecies????
please list all those eyewitnesses, outside the bible of course
please refer me to any historical documents written at the time of "Jesus" that document the existence of Jesus, outside the bible of course
I hope you are not trying to imply the 'big bang THEORY' is in anyway a provable FACT.
cause even scientist admit that
"Something can not come from Nothing."
an explosion in space could not create intelligent life.
IMPOSSIBLE.

as for miracles there are TONS of books out there you can research of miracles through out history.
Miracles are happening somewhere everyday.
you just don't hear about it.
Unless you put yourself out there to seek it out.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565162
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
If anything, the age of humans is increasing with knowledge of how to live longer.
I wonder why "God" hasn't given us immortality sooner?
living longer is not 'immortality'.
Adam was 930 years old when he died
(Gen 5:5)

it is appoint to ALL men to die once and then the judgment.

Your soul is immortal, your physical body which was created from the earth will go back to the earth.
but your soul will live forever.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565163
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

12

12

12

Theistslowingdownhumanity wrote:
United in faith, as your name suggests you are devoutly religious. Under your name it says 'walking into the light'... You have 918 posts in one month which is roughly 30 pper day.
Riversideredneck, the same goes for you. You have an average of about 58 posts per day.
You clearly regard yourselfs as some kind of militant religious missionaries. Please stop shoving your outdated religious views down other peoples throats.
Just because you have come to your silly conclusions about life in a religious way doesn't mean everyone else has to.
assumptions are such elusive little buggars aren't they?

what does the amt of posts have to do with the issue?

and religion has NOTHING to do with it.
God is not about 'religion'.
it is about relationship with God and truth, HIS truth.

now explain how
"DISCUSSING" ones views and ideas on here is in any way pushing it down your throat?
you don't have to read the posts.
you don't even have to be here.
you choose to.

You might not like what i have to say, or what other believers in God have to say, but we do have the right to say it regardless.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565164
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

12

12

12

Benjamin Frankly wrote:
I know this isn't proof or disproof of God and yes I am a strong atheist (I'll explain what that means later) but I want to point out something I think is important, where the burden of proof lies to show this I’ll an analogy.
Imagine a small locked box that you and three friends have found we will name them Bill, Jeb and Bob. Bill says “I know what is in the box, a T Rex!” Your reaction would clearly be surprised that he knew such a thing so you ask “how do you know?” To which he replies “I don't need to tell you how you need to disprove it” you retort “I don't need to prove anything I haven't made a claim!”“Yes you have” Bill says “because you asked how I know I can safely assume you don't believe in the T Rex so you make the statement of disbelief”. Before you can object Jeb interrupts you saying “no Bill disbelief is not a position, believing that the T Rex doesn't exist is a position and saying I cannot believe in the T Rex is not the same as believing that doesn't exist, for saying I cannot believe in the T Rex leaves open the possibility for (readers name) to say I also cannot believe that the T Rex does not exist.” Bill is a little confused after that so he said “but there's only two options exists or it doesn't”“quite right” Jeb said “but one can still not believe in the T Rex and also not believe it does not exist, for you see if both sides can’t prove their side right one has no obligation to one of the other, but despite that one must say I cannot believe in the T Rex”, Bill is now even more confused “how can both sides not be able to prove their side?”, you finally getting at what Jeb is getting to use say “because something can be unknown and perhaps also unknowable, if something is unknown then you cannot say either way if the T Rex does or does not exist as you don't have enough information if something is unknowable then you will never get enough information” unfortunately you kept talking and added “I think because the box is locked we will never know if the T Rex exists”, Jeb raised an eyebrow saying “just because something is unknown doesn't mean it’s unknowable we may find the key or be able to pick the lock or destroy the lock or…”“Measure the damn thing!” Bob shouted “a T Rex can't fit in this” and that that the debate was over.
Do you see the four different positions you and your friends took; Bill believed the T Rex existed, you disbelieve in a T Rex because you thought you would never know if it did, Jeb disbelieved because he thought the existence of the T Rex is something unknown and Bob believes that the T Rex can not exist. These four positions are universal on all philosophical questions; the believer in X’s truth/existence, the disbeliever in X’s truth/existence due to X’s truth/existence being unknowable, the disbeliever in X’s truth/existence due to X’s truth/existence being unknown and the believer in X’s falsehood/nonexistence. The second and third positions contained to different variations of agnosticism strong agnosticism which states X unknowable and weak agnosticism which states X is unknown, but both causes disbelief. So let's apply this to God and call each of the four positions accordingly; theists/deist one who believes in God's existence, the weak atheist due to strong agnosticism one who disbelieves in God's existence due to its existence being unknowable, the weak atheist due to weak agnosticism one who disbelieves in God's existence due to its existence being unknown and the strong atheist one who believes that God does not exist. Bear in mind that there is no one definition of God and which position you are in depends on how you define God.
Now can we please no longer any burden shifting thank you.
AHHHH >>>> BUT>>>> God says the burden of proof is upon each and everyone to seek God THEMSELF.
it is no one elses responsibility to 'prove' God to anyone.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min confrinting with ... 538,619
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 2 min shyam 5,290
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min ChristineM 226,167
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 22 min Clearwater 173,259
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 25 min WasteWater 257,770
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 37 min WasteWater 94,611
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 41 min WasteWater 4,312
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Epiphany2 599,750
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••