Prove there's a god.

Since: May 11

Ashford, UK

#642336 Jul 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're from the UK that makes you Scotch Tape from England, if you like but still a US hater and it matters not what you say.
...don't live in England

oh look you lost again, seems to be becoming a habit.

Shouldn't you be out 'standing your ground' like Micheal Dunn? Another 'gun enthusiast' with a small peenor...

"They had loud music and they would not repect mah authoritah...so I shot them...oh wait I felt threatened by those kids pinned in the car with child locks while I shot them...then I left the scene...and the county....What they were black? I never noticed officer. I was going to call, honest I was...".
Greens - tuf

Northmead, Australia

#642337 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is there something wrong with the metaphor? It means that we view the concept of god in a different way. The metaphor comes from a reference to precious minerals. Fluorescent lights would change the colour of a precious stone, and it would give say, a diamond, a blue colouration. Viewing it under a different light would mean that you view it under a light that would allow you to see th stone itself, not the effect the light has on it. That reference caught on. It is a very apt metaphor
OK, so you view the concept of "God" in a different way.
And in what way would that be.
Enlighten me please.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642338 Jul 18, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be true in the west, but in the world it's a different story. The west has lower birthrates. Atheism and agnosticism survives by converting mainly the Christians in Europe and the U.S., but in Africa and almost all other parts of the world, they have higher birthrates, raising more religious people into the world. And moreover, the third world doesn't care about the atheism and agnosticism of the first world, because atheism and agnosticism as a force, doesn't do very much for people.
If you look at Sai Baba's movement and how it was in India, building hospitals, building dams, and schools, who cares if what Sai Baba believed was wrong? Who cares about the atheists argument in the third world? He can be right or wrong, but no one cares because he doesn't do very much for people.
Secular humanism doesn't advocate tolerance. People advocate tolerance. One can very easily convince others that killing a few thousand of those red indians is in the best interest of millions of people.
Secular humanism sounds very good, but when one gets into the numbers and resources game, one realises it isn't worth very much. At times just a collection of unrealistic ideals that would work only in times of abundance.
And it's a dangerous game to play when you assert that the war stories of religion are the norm and the peace stories are just apologetics. You'll lose objectivity very quickly with that. There are Islamophobes in the world today who believe that a few thousand terrorists are the true muslims, and the rest of the 1.6 billion of us are apologists. That's statistically way off the mark.
Secularism, or specifically Secular Humanism (I should nkt really interchange the terms, but I do) does not add anything to one's life, in monetary terms. If I was Christian and de-converted, I am not going to be suddenly rich, famous or powerful. It is not going to make my little business a multinational. I am not going to suddenly start luring the most gorgeous women to my bed (actually, with Double Fine, all is possible). So yes. It does not change much in day-to-day operations .

But what it does, is it acknowledges more basic human rights than any other philosophy. If you have to guess, what percentage of Muslims do not tolerate homosexuality? And what percentage of Christians? That figure, with secular humanists, would be very close to 0%. Now, name any other minority group. Blacks, Native Americans, Hindus, etc, and how well are they tolerated by the religious people? Where with secular humanists, all of these minorities are acknkowledged and their human rights protected. How do women's rights compare in religious states to those of secularist states? You can do your own bit of research. Ask any ten atheists, on here, or random blokes, what are their views on black, women's and gay rights. See what feedback you get. I predict the tolerance of the atheist extends far further than that of the theist

Also, you made a point that secular humanism is a bunch of unattainable ideals in time abundance. The simple fact is, when the going gets tough, any system is going to fail. When I have to go hungry, I will steal to survive. When I have kids, and they go hungry, I am will steal some more. But make no mistake, suddenly converting to Islam or Christianity is not suddenly going to fill your belly and keep you warm.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642339 Jul 18, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so you view the concept of "God" in a different way.
And in what way would that be.
Enlighten me please.
As explained in the original post, as myth. Nothing more, nothing less

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#642340 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Secularism, or specifically Secular Humanism (I should nkt really interchange the terms, but I do) does not add anything to one's life, in monetary terms. If I was Christian and de-converted, I am not going to be suddenly rich, famous or powerful. It is not going to make my little business a multinational. I am not going to suddenly start luring the most gorgeous women to my bed (actually, with Double Fine, all is possible). So yes. It does not change much in day-to-day operations .
But what it does, is it acknowledges more basic human rights than any other philosophy. If you have to guess, what percentage of Muslims do not tolerate homosexuality? And what percentage of Christians? That figure, with secular humanists, would be very close to 0%. Now, name any other minority group. Blacks, Native Americans, Hindus, etc, and how well are they tolerated by the religious people? Where with secular humanists, all of these minorities are acknkowledged and their human rights protected. How do women's rights compare in religious states to those of secularist states? You can do your own bit of research. Ask any ten atheists, on here, or random blokes, what are their views on black, women's and gay rights. See what feedback you get. I predict the tolerance of the atheist extends far further than that of the theist
Also, you made a point that secular humanism is a bunch of unattainable ideals in time abundance. The simple fact is, when the going gets tough, any system is going to fail. When I have to go hungry, I will steal to survive. When I have kids, and they go hungry, I am will steal some more. But make no mistake, suddenly converting to Islam or Christianity is not suddenly going to fill your belly and keep you warm.
Humanism is not exclusive to secularism. There are many religious humanists as well, and the third world prefers religious humanists because religious humanists focus on human needs, while secular humanists focus on human rights. No one cares for rights for the homosexuals in third world countries with low food and water security.

And granted, Christian colonial Europe did a horrible job regarding slavery and intolerance. European Christians failed miserably in that regard. But as for religious people in general, their religion helped to overcome lots on intolerance, racism and tribalism.

Women rights is a cultural issue. Most countries in the world today are secular countries, yet their women don't have enough rights, and even in the free west women are still exploited. If you want to look at religious people in democratic states, they range from not allowing women to vote, right up to electing a woman president. And many don't care for certain rights that the west would care about.

I did not imply that if one converts or reverts or leaves a faith he would get richer or poorer. I'm talking about religious people as a force, as opposed to secular humanists. Secular humanists focus on rights, an invisible product, which means a lot in developed nations, but little in the third world. When there are disasters, who goes to help? When Haiti had that disaster, who was there? The Christians and the Muslims. While the secular humanists were fighting for gay rights in the U.S..

Who are these Europeans working in rural Africa helping people with farming and business? It is Christian nuns. Where are the secular humanists? Fighting for rights. Who will care if the nuns beliefs are wrong and if the secular humanists beliefs are right?

Religion for now is only out of politics, out of the court where people argue ideals and rights. If secular humanists don't put their money to their name soon, societies will collapse and rest assured out of the ashes religion will emerge.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#642341 Jul 18, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
...don't live in England
oh look you lost again, seems to be becoming a habit.
Shouldn't you be out 'standing your ground' like Micheal Dunn? Another 'gun enthusiast' with a small peenor...
"They had loud music and they would not repect mah authoritah...so I shot them...oh wait I felt threatened by those kids pinned in the car with child locks while I shot them...then I left the scene...and the county....What they were black? I never noticed officer. I was going to call, honest I was...".

I don't care what state of insanity you're from, quit fantasizing about me you perverted homo US hater.

Since: May 11

Ashford, UK

#642342 Jul 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what state of insanity you're from, quit fantasizing about me you perverted homo US hater.
listen teenypeenor only a closet homosexual throws the word homo around like it's an insult to someone secure in their sexuality. It says a lot...very freudian, rather like your 'girlfriend' who throws the word 'phag' around.

Why don't you go and get one of your smith and wesson manhood enhancers and do some more posing in front of the mirror with your lifesize chuck norris cardboard cut out...go on spoil yourself.

The US is a wonderful place but like everywhere their population of mental twats is proportional to their population size.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642343 Jul 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what state of insanity you're from, quit fantasizing about me you perverted homo US hater.
Yo Aura

Breathe deeply. Think of puppies and kittens. Have a smoke. Drink a beer.

Relax

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#642344 Jul 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what state of insanity you're from, quit fantasizing about me you perverted homo US hater.
You seem to be quite heated up about this Zimmerman case. What is your stake in this? And are you happy with the verdict?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642345 Jul 18, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Humanism is not exclusive to secularism. There are many religious humanists as well, and the third world prefers religious humanists because religious humanists focus on human needs, while secular humanists focus on human rights. No one cares for rights for the homosexuals in third world countries with low food and water security.
And granted, Christian colonial Europe did a horrible job regarding slavery and intolerance. European Christians failed miserably in that regard. But as for religious people in general, their religion helped to overcome lots on intolerance, racism and tribalism.
Women rights is a cultural issue. Most countries in the world today are secular countries, yet their women don't have enough rights, and even in the free west women are still exploited. If you want to look at religious people in democratic states, they range from not allowing women to vote, right up to electing a woman president. And many don't care for certain rights that the west would care about.
I did not imply that if one converts or reverts or leaves a faith he would get richer or poorer. I'm talking about religious people as a force, as opposed to secular humanists. Secular humanists focus on rights, an invisible product, which means a lot in developed nations, but little in the third world. When there are disasters, who goes to help? When Haiti had that disaster, who was there? The Christians and the Muslims. While the secular humanists were fighting for gay rights in the U.S..
Who are these Europeans working in rural Africa helping people with farming and business? It is Christian nuns. Where are the secular humanists? Fighting for rights. Who will care if the nuns beliefs are wrong and if the secular humanists beliefs are right?
Religion for now is only out of politics, out of the court where people argue ideals and rights. If secular humanists don't put their money to their name soon, societies will collapse and rest assured out of the ashes religion will emerge.
A pretty good point, actually.

Problem with most atheists/secularists/secular humanists, is we generally do not belong to any organisation dedicated to atheism.

You are a practising Muslim. No doubt you go to a Mosque quite frequently. No doubt you do contribute financially to some pretty well-intended humanitarian project. I know when I was still in church, we helped some Zulu churches in Faerie Glen, near your neck of the woods. I suppose your story would be similar. Once in a month, you would maybe organise an outreach and you contribute to it. And no matter whose name it is contributed in, Allah, Jesus or Odin, usually poor people get groceries, blankets and food.

However, us atheists (read:all the other names we may have), do not belong to churches. We dont meet and greet once a week on Sundays. There is no real infrastructure here. If you want to contribute, you do it as a private entity. Which I do, make no mistake. With every disaster, I give a few bucks, and I give to Great White Shark Conservation. But I dont see me and my communities' money being spent on blankets and Koo beans and handed out.

The other problem with having no church-like replacement: no tithing, means no funds to appropriate.

And nkw the biggest problem. Mlst of us are not really conformists. Even if local atheists open their own centre, I am not going to join it. Why? I am not a pack animal in these regards. I don't want atheism to be a substitute for religion; joining such an organisation would feel to much like church for me.

Anyways, I must say that I do not speak for all atheists, if there is someone here who belongs to an organisation like American Atheists, you are welcome to change my mind

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#642346 Jul 18, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Jail is not harm reduction.
Really..tell that to the children who are no loner being beaten because their abusers are now behind bars. Tell that to the kids whose parents went to jail for cooking meth in their kitchen and exposing them to fatal chemicals and putting them at risk of being blown into a thousand pieces. yeah Timn...it is.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
You had quite the hard time understanding, and you are a hypocrite.
You did leave it out, or you missed it, as it *directly* contradicted your argument. So either you were being dishonest and were hoping I wouldn't read the link, or you didn't understand how damaging that link was to your argument.
No, I posted the link...I didn't leave it out. Again...those stats refer to those that rehab actually works for...if they referred to the 50% or greater that it doesn't work for...then it couldn't possibly be cost efficient. Use your brain. Those stats didn't damage my argument at all...I agreed...sure rehab is cost efficient...WHEN IT WORKS? That article didn't include the stats that also tell us 40-60% of the users actually relapse within the first 6 months...which pretty negates the reduction in cost because when they relapse...the costs still exist. Do you disagree with that? Or are you just having a "hard time understanding" that logic?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stats show what about rehab? Do you think they pulled that figure out of their a$$? It's based on stats. Also, it's based on rehab in general, not "1 bout of rehab equals 3 dollars off." It's "rehab in general saves 3 dollars for every dollar spent on rehab."
Again, only when it works. Should we ignore that it doesn't work over half the time? Unlike you, I addressed this issue when I said, "I'm not against rehab...but we need to rethink our programs and implement something that actually works."
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're cool paying for the drug war, but not for the cheaper, more effective, more humane option. Why is that?
Did I ever say I was "cool" paying for the drug war as it is now? No..I didn't. And since when was it inhumane to place someone in jail for repeatedly breaking the law?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok.. I don't care what those wacko doctors with their fancy degrees say, cancer is not a disease.
See how dumb that sounds? Defer to the experts. If they say it's a disease, it probably is. If you really knew anything about how the brain functions, you would know that it very much is a mental illness no different from any other mental illness.
Do you think we should lock up anorexic people for not eating? After all, they "choose" not to eat, so clearly it's their decision. They cost society money too, those damned criminals.
I was addicted to cigarettes for years. It was not a disease...it was a vice, as you say. It was an addiction and a weakness on my part...Certainly, I had a chemical addiction...but in no way was it a disease...I had a choice to stop or continue...it wasn't easy...but I wasn't mentally ill. Depriving yourself of food as a means of being socially accepted or for any other reason, is significantly different than doing drugs...anorexics don't put others lives at risk...drug abusers do.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#642347 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
A pretty good point, actually.
Problem with most atheists/secularists/secular humanists, is we generally do not belong to any organisation dedicated to atheism.
You are a practising Muslim. No doubt you go to a Mosque quite frequently. No doubt you do contribute financially to some pretty well-intended humanitarian project. I know when I was still in church, we helped some Zulu churches in Faerie Glen, near your neck of the woods. I suppose your story would be similar. Once in a month, you would maybe organise an outreach and you contribute to it. And no matter whose name it is contributed in, Allah, Jesus or Odin, usually poor people get groceries, blankets and food.
However, us atheists (read:all the other names we may have), do not belong to churches. We dont meet and greet once a week on Sundays. There is no real infrastructure here. If you want to contribute, you do it as a private entity. Which I do, make no mistake. With every disaster, I give a few bucks, and I give to Great White Shark Conservation. But I dont see me and my communities' money being spent on blankets and Koo beans and handed out.
The other problem with having no church-like replacement: no tithing, means no funds to appropriate.
And nkw the biggest problem. Mlst of us are not really conformists. Even if local atheists open their own centre, I am not going to join it. Why? I am not a pack animal in these regards. I don't want atheism to be a substitute for religion; joining such an organisation would feel to much like church for me.
Anyways, I must say that I do not speak for all atheists, if there is someone here who belongs to an organisation like American Atheists, you are welcome to change my mind
I assume at some point when you were at the church, you were paying tithes. 10% of so I presume? And okay, after all your "soul searching" or whatever, you concluded Christianity is nonsense, and so you left the church.

So, what happened to those tithes? If you had decided "Christianity is nonsense, I'm not paying for this scam", why didn't you decide further "Okay, from now on, I'm not paying to the church, but I'll start my own 10% saving and make an impact my own way, since I still care deeply for humanity"?

You could've done that. But you didn't. And you are not a lawyer, and there's not much rights left to fight for in South Africa even if you were. How many rallies for rights did you attend, at least as a minion holding a placard?

And this is where your credibility goes, especially in the third world. Many people observing just look at, for example, what a prominent Christian is doing. An observer looks at perhaps the Christians frugal lifestyle (I'm talking about one of these proper Christians), or how much he forsakes to help others, the sacrifices, the basic but crucial life skills he imparts on others. Such an observer can be taken aback and think "If this is what Christianity turned that man into, I want to become a Christian". They overlook the many things that don't make sense, and focus on the effort.

You can't just be crying secular humanism. You have to get down to the basics and put your money where you claim your ideals are. That's one thing I admire about Richard Dawkins. Sure, I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he has his own foundation and he is putting his own money into the secular humanistic endeavours he claims to believe in.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642348 Jul 18, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:

That's a new approach. I've never seen a christian use the "god has limits" argument.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Neither have I.
That's because both of you are biblically ignorant.

God can't be tempted by evil.

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God;" for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone (James 1:13).

The Bible says that God cannot deny Himself.

If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

God Cannot Lie

In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began (Titus 1:2).

There are things God cannot do.

You don't understand.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642349 Jul 18, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Susan's another one that claims to be a doctor...psychologist or psychiatrist or some such BS. I take it you haven't met Dogen yet?
xD
No ma'am.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642350 Jul 18, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
100% wrong! You're a stark raving mad insane lunatic making a complete ass of yourself on an international forum. Are you trying to prove that you're just as mentally retarded as Riverside Redneck, death-denying cowardly Christian cultist Al Garcia?
Ahahahaha!!!! You had Pinhead pegged RR!!!!
Lol!

100% right!
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642351 Jul 18, 2013
timn17 wrote:
I know. Clearly the jury bought his story. I don't, and even if martin did attack first and give him those tiny scratches I don't believe zimmerman was justified in killing him.

You're right, we will never know exactly what happened, but based on the facts, to me, zimmerman did something wrong. He got off, and that's that, but it doesn't change the fact that what he did was wrong.
I don't know if Zimmerman received any Neighborhood Watch training. If he had been advised not to be armed or confront suspicious characters then he should have been convicted, but not of the charges filed against him.

This case demonstrated the need for improved Neighborhood Watch training. It also demonstrated the hypocrisy of the media in reporting a non-black on black crime as if they were trying to provoke a race war.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642352 Jul 18, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
The trial is over, move along people.
It looks like they were arguing about it all night...
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642353 Jul 18, 2013
timn17 wrote:
I guarantee you if martin was a little white kid and zimmerman was a black guy, not a single one of you would be defending zimmerman.
I disagree because both Zimmerman and Martin were out of control. Martin could have easily avoided any physical confrontation with Zimmerman. It will be interesting to learn whether Martin responded with violence because he had one of those lovely anti-whitey racist reverends.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#642354 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
Double Fine really want to thank all of those participating in the Zimmerman debate. It made for easy scrolling.
Nelson Mandela is 95 today! Happy Birthday, Tata. This will almost certainly be his last. Arguably the greatest humanist of the last century?
Anyways. Double Fine last night spoke to a lady whom opinion he covets more than anybody else's, and he discussion came to Christianity. Now, said lady was never a Christian, therefore does not feel the same oppression most of us all have felt, nor has she experienced the anger at being duped for so many years. In effect, her stance on Christianity is the soberest I have ever seen.
Her point was this. The Bible is NOT a book of fiction. The Bible is a book of myths. I did not realise there is a difference, but upon further thought, it makes very good sense.
What is the difference between a fiction and a myth? Well, it takes one writer to write a fiction. But it takes an entire civilisation to write myths. A fiction writer and his audience knows that he is writing fiction. With a myth, sometimes both the writer and the audience believes the mythical account is the most plausible explanation for the world as we see it today.
The hard fact is, Christianity is part of my roots. I was born into the system, went to Sunday school and only after much thought (and much knowledge gained), did I abolish the idea of a god-belief.
So I believe the mythical accounts and figures in the Bible can still have their place in mythological circles. I would look upon the Abrahamic deity the same way I would look upon Zeus, Odin or Ra. We should not let the mythology die.
That being said, to incorporate a work of obvious mythology and use it as religious doctrine is an idea I find ridiculous and absurd. To make war in the name of any specific deity is an idea I find perverse and evil. To try and make laws based on the will of this deity is blatantly stupid.
So Christians, we do not want to take your deity or Bible away. It is as much part of our roots as yours. We just regard your deity in a different light than you do.
Well said, my good friend.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642355 Jul 18, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No, 5' 1" and 97 lbs is skinny and frail. Compared to me Trayvon is the Hulk.
5'1"....?

97lbs...?

Dayum...

I'm like two of you.

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min swampmudd 15,287
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Just Think 683,544
Sex 1 hr Supersquirrel69 1
O.J. Simpson is about to be a free man once again. 2 hr Unanimous 7
Venting Against FAKE Americans 4 hr Mint Julep 3
JakeDover34 Add me on snap!! 6 hr Jakedover34 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 6 hr Student 46,264
More from around the web