Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#614561 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
A big difference. Big bang theory pretty much states that all life is a major mistake and really shouldn't have happened because it's meaningless. So if evolution was driven by survival, then something must drive survival (like purpose) or else nothing would have ever survived because, remember, life is meaningless.(as the person who made the original statement believes it is.
people with IQ's approaching 100 can articulate thoughts.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#614562 Apr 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Tsk tsk tsk. Don't you dare question the jews right to israel, you'll be labeled an antisemite. God says it's theirs.
I have great empathy and sympathy for the Jews and how they have been treated for the past 2000 years, but I don't believe the myth of God's chosen people, but I do give them a bit of slack for finding a "safe" (questionable) place to go after the horrors they had experienced in the past 2000 years.

Some of the actions of the Israelis in my lifetime have not been the best, especially as it relates to their treatment of the other people who were living there before they took it over.

I recognize that they set up their little homeland in the midst of countries that hate them and therefore they have had to be brutal to stay alive.

One has to separate the religious false beliefs from the reality though.

I have been in a lot of trouble (potentially) over the years for fighting anti-semitism against some very rabid hate mongers.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#614563 Apr 9, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been here for years and once again, what difference does it make to you whether they believe in the god myth or not? Are you a god believer?
Do you think man was fashioned from mud and a woman from a rib?
I'll need an answer to those questions before I regard you as any different from the others.
Or you can ignore me and let me mock you with impunity. Some choose that path, for a little while.
See, it's those kind of misconceptions that people are starting to mock the true nature of who the Almighty is. U say shit like "fashioned from mud" when we know that it was a metaphor for the substances of the Earth. The same fuel that U folks have to discredit God is the same that is fueling the religious fanatics, a literal interpretation of the reading of scripture. Some things are metaphors and some are to be read as eyewitness accounts. Some are just stories that have a certain meaning in life and some contain what people of the past wanted future generations to be aware of. But when U say stuff like made from mud and mean it literally, U kind of sound just as crazy as the fundies that believe it to be literal. So don't try and use those kind of questions to distinguish who's who.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#614564 Apr 9, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, it would seem that homosexual men are the one's who are obsessed with having sex together; i merely like pointing out how disgusting it is and why it doesn't constitute 'marriage'.
as for lesbian sex; in theory i'm opposed to the idea, but as a man....well...you know;) actually...maybe you wouldn't!:(
Ah yes, that fine Christian hypocrisy at work - you're opposed to homosexuality, except when it turns you on.

LOL

Next?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#614565 Apr 9, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm not sure where you're coming from, but having sex or not and with whom is really not what being a true Christian is all about. it's simply about trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross.
i speak against homosexuality only because the demonic homosexual agenda has waged war on our society and i'm a spiritual warrior who wins every argument on the subject:-)
"demonic homosexual agenda"

Careful, grandma, you'll get the vapors...

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#614566 Apr 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>When did I say I was sure? I said that there are several theories backed by evidence. Evidence is something you don't have. You have a god of the gaps.
And "something from nothing," with regards to the big bang, is something of a misnomer. "Prior to the big bang," (in quotes because 'prior to' doesn't really make much sense before t=0), the "nothing" would have been a vacuum of negative energy. In this environment particles can pop in and out of "existence." According to quantum mechanics, there really is no such thing as empty space - and in this scenario a particle could have popped in, without violating the law of conservation because they are "lent" energy, free to create a big bang.
Now, provide evidence for a first mover. Poking holes in scientific theory doesn't count. Again, your position needs to stand on it's own.
Ok wikipedia, what do U think science is doing. Trying to poke holes in religion ain't it? How does the evidence that (whatever site it's from) U provide stand on its own?! U just found someone who stated what "could" have happen. How does that stand on its own? It doesn't. But out of everything that science find there is always some kind of reference or hint, whether literal of metaphorically, that is found in ancient scripture where the understanding was there but the vocab was different. But still, what U provide doesn't hold just because someone says it so don't be so nieve. And it isn't evidence just because it is being thought about by a few folks. And U wanna talk about what someone else feel that "could have happen". U gotta start looking at the whole picture instead of just one side. It's like using only one side of the brain. One just won't be able to interpret EVERYTHING that goes on in the environment because something will always be overlooked in the assessment.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#614567 Apr 9, 2013
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, enjoy your fantasy.
do you mean to tell me that someone with such an indecent MO as yours (feces for...) is coming to the defense of something i wrote about homosexuality? can this (always) be just a coincidence? yeah, we know what unclean spirits are up to in our society.

you gotta do what you gotta do as an unclean spirit/person and i gotta do what i gotta do to expose you as such.

now take your uncleaness and keep it the f out of our decent marriage laws!;)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#614568 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok wikipedia, what do U think science is doing. Trying to poke holes in religion ain't it? How does the evidence that (whatever site it's from) U provide stand on its own?! U just found someone who stated what "could" have happen. How does that stand on its own? It doesn't. But out of everything that science find there is always some kind of reference or hint, whether literal of metaphorically, that is found in ancient scripture where the understanding was there but the vocab was different. But still, what U provide doesn't hold just because someone says it so don't be so nieve. And it isn't evidence just because it is being thought about by a few folks. And U wanna talk about what someone else feel that "could have happen". U gotta start looking at the whole picture instead of just one side. It's like using only one side of the brain. One just won't be able to interpret EVERYTHING that goes on in the environment because something will always be overlooked in the assessment.
"I've seen Sir Huon and a troop of his people setting off from Tintagel Castle for Hy-Brasil in the teeth of a sou'-westerly gale, with the spray flying all over the Castle, and the Horses of the Hills wild with fright. Out they'd go in a lull, screaming like gulls, and back they'd be driven five good miles inland before they could come head to wind again. Butterfly-wings! It was Magic - Magic as black as Merlin could make it, and the whole sea was green fire and white foam with singing mermaids in it. And the Horses of the Hills picked their way from one wave to another by the lightning flashes! That was how it was in the old days!"

What was your point again?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#614569 Apr 9, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
"demonic homosexual agenda"
Careful, grandma, you'll get the vapors...
hey man, do what ever tickles your lil groin, BUT let's not call the BS "marriage" cuz it ain't never gonna be even if our increasingly antichrist society legally approves it.

Kevin & Jeffrey to their adopted child - "we met through a rest stop glory hole; how romantic!"

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#614570 Apr 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I hate something that I don't believe in? Funny how religious people always resort to that one. Like, "oh, they just hate the idea that there's an old bearded sky daddy up there looking out for them, making plans for them, and saving a space in heaven for them. What a terrible thought!"
That's funny.
The rest of your post is a straight up appeal to ignorance. You can't imagine how it could have happened any other way, so goddidit. That type of argument only carries weight with people who are already indoctrinated.

It's not that "goddidit", it's that God (or whatever U wanna call the supreme power) was responsible for getting the ball rolling. The skydaddy that U refer to is the one, or ones, that were witnessed by the ancients. Beings beyond their own comprehension dropped out of the sky and visited them. They called them Gods. These events were recorded so many times and the accounts are provided for us today in different scriptures from different cultures. And those people were the same as U and me if we were to see something with our own eyes and testify to it. We would know that we are not crazy and know what we had witnessed was real. Now, the evidence is there about visitation from other beings that were referred to as "Gods" but science can't admit that until everything is known about the beings. But trust that there is much evidence this. Ask the Vatican! There is always gonna be the misconception of God because too much is being suppressed. So U athiests are just having a ball because no one can prove to U the very thing that is hidden from EVERYONE'S eyes.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#614571 Apr 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You are absolutely wrong. Laughably wrong. I'm starting to suspect you're a poe.
Mutations are not "meant" to work. Evolution does not "require meaning." And evolution works through several different mechanisms, not just mutation. Mutations are random. Sometimes, a mutation will confer an advantage, in which case it might get selected for and be passed down, becoming an adaptation. If it does not confer an advantage, it will get selected out. Sometimes, adaptations that have been selected for will become a disadvantage due to a changing environment, and that too will be selected out. None of this requires any purpose beyond a need to adapt to the environment to survive and pass on genes. They are only "meant to happen" insofar as the fact that certain adaptations will confer greater survivability - but a different, but just as effective, adaptation might have worked just as well in a given situation.
How are U gonna tell me that I'm ABSOLUTELY wrong, then turn around and state EXACTLY what I just said?!? U are truly a character, maybe a sock! Mane, I can't believe U tried that shit!!! Come on, U gotta do better than that! U say that it doesn't require meaning at all, then say that it requires some but none beyond purpose. Which is it?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#614572 Apr 9, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
hey man, do what ever tickles your lil groin, BUT let's not call the BS "marriage" cuz it ain't never gonna be even if our increasingly antichrist society legally approves it.
Kevin & Jeffrey to their adopted child - "we met through a rest stop glory hole; how romantic!"
Oh no! You mean if gay marriage becomes legal it won't really be "marriage" because a bunch of Talibangicals disapprove?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

We'll try to soldier on...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#614573 Apr 9, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
hey man, do what ever tickles your lil groin, BUT let's not call the BS "marriage" cuz it ain't never gonna be even if our increasingly antichrist society legally approves it.
Kevin & Jeffrey to their adopted child - "we met through a rest stop glory hole; how romantic!"
And just out of curiosity, were you Kevin or Jeffry?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#614574 Apr 9, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
you are wrong
undereducated
ha

HA !

HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!

Um, at least I'm educated enough to know that "under educated" is two words.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#614575 Apr 9, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
creator god < 10^-7
christian god < 10^-googleplex
Is that theory it hypothesis?

Nope.

That's just your opinion.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#614576 Apr 9, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
rational skeptics evaluate
religitards believe
Care to explain how you rational skeptic, "freethinking" types evaluate God?

Ready?
Go.
Forum

Hobbs, NM

#614577 Apr 9, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Prove that your Jesus is the son of god.
Prove that your god- or any god for that matter- even exists.
Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that even a mere mortal being such as your Jesus ever even existed.
What defines greed? What is greed to one may be necessity to another.
Murder? So is it wrong if one murders someone who was trying to do them harm?
And abuse??? Wow. The word "abuse"- along with the other words you used- is in no way an absolute.
For instance, we have a poster here named Riverside Redneck who does NOT think spanking children fits the definition of the word "abuse".
There are those here who disagree with him and very much think that spanking children IS "abuse".
Why is your thought process so simple to the point that you don't comprehend just how subjective the words "greed, abuse- and even in some cases "murder" is?
Adults should be spanked. They know better.
Children know and watch. If the adults can
do it then why not.
Greed is taking advantage whenever possible to
make money. God gives us what we need.
"Thou shalt not covet" is one of his commandments.
The elderly are always abused for their money.
They will abuse anyone for a life insurance policy.
The Polish and the Germans make up words like "Autism"
to outcast children. Special education has no purpose
but to create humans that are disposable.
Money from the government? They hurt the children
so they will pretend that they are dumb.
Who taught the Koreans to make missiles?
White Sands?

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#614578 Apr 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text> "I've seen Sir Huon and a troop of his people setting off from Tintagel Castle for Hy-Brasil in the teeth of a sou'-westerly gale, with the spray flying all over the Castle, and the Horses of the Hills wild with fright. Out they'd go in a lull, screaming like gulls, and back they'd be driven five good miles inland before they could come head to wind again. Butterfly-wings! It was Magic - Magic as black as Merlin could make it, and the whole sea was green fire and white foam with singing mermaids in it. And the Horses of the Hills picked their way from one wave to another by the lightning flashes! That was how it was in the old days!"
What was your point again?
U just made it dude! Metaphors were common in the days when scriptures were interpreted. Why don't U try to translate an entire account of something from Greek to English but to make sure that the Greek translation is correct by checking it against the Hebrew scripts and then making sure those are correct by studying Aramaic. U might see how hard it may be to put everything together and present it to a mass of people knowing there was important info and artifacts that had been destroyed by centuries of bloodshed and there may be a demand for these "proofs". And also take into account the style of writing.
Eliza

Dayton, TN

#614579 Apr 9, 2013
Reading down this I noticed nobody has tried to prove it. They just get defensive and say "you prove why there isn't." Now that is not the question of topic. So, it basically seems you are worshiping an invisible "being." Another thing, there are many different kinds of religions. There are monotheistic ones, and polytheistic ones. So who is right, how many "Gods" are there, or are all the "Gods" competing to see who will get the most people to join their religion. You see everyone believes their religion is right. So who's is truly correct? While everyone is shoving each other's religions down each other's throats believing it's right, nobody is listening. They have their religion and are sticking to it, because they believe it is right. Atheists don't believe in anything. They aren't bad people, they just choose not the believe in any part of any religion. When they, lets say Christians, figure out someone is Atheist, they freak out and try to explain that they are right. The Atheist normally doesn't start to explain why they are until the Christian tries to explain why they are right. It then becomes an argument. Whether there is or is not a "God," I see no evidence of his existence. Someone from way long ago could have easily written and published it, then creating controversy and religion.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#614580 Apr 9, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
See, it's those kind of misconceptions that people are starting to mock the true nature of who the Almighty is. U say shit like "fashioned from mud" when we know that it was a metaphor for the substances of the Earth. The same fuel that U folks have to discredit God is the same that is fueling the religious fanatics, a literal interpretation of the reading of scripture. Some things are metaphors and some are to be read as eyewitness accounts. Some are just stories that have a certain meaning in life and some contain what people of the past wanted future generations to be aware of. But when U say stuff like made from mud and mean it literally, U kind of sound just as crazy as the fundies that believe it to be literal. So don't try and use those kind of questions to distinguish who's who.
Hi DeAngelo - thanks for posting.

You wrote:
"Some things are metaphors and some are to be read as eyewitness accounts."
- which are eyewitness accounts and which are not?
- What support do you have to show that this is true?
- Considering no NT books or bibles are in man's possession, that are older than the 4th C., how is that you can confirm anything that was written, confirms witnesses?

Thanks again!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min truth 589,387
REAL Contemporary Instrumental Music!! 5 min Doctor REALITY 32
Memorial Day = Spit on troops 30 min Protester 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 56 min WildWeirdWillie 176,762
skype sex id luv to try it (Aug '13) 1 hr Prince Hamid 179
Scientists Say: Time Travel Breakthrough (Feb '08) 1 hr qdata8 24
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Freebird USA 271,265
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr Vinamese 4,083
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 8 hr The swamiji 7,155
More from around the web