Prove there's a god.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681847 Dec 31, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
Porter is too hateful and stupid to understand that; he's too busy shitting his pants and expressing his love for hating everyone who doesn't believe the way he does.
I agree, way too hateful and stupid.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#681848 Dec 31, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO!!
It's your "opinion" now?
Yes. Very helpful.
How the mighty have fallen!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#681850 Dec 31, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
Since RR refuses to identify one, maybe we should just chose one ourselves?
I have identified which one.

Several times.

Even just today.
Rockhound

Jackson, TN

#681851 Dec 31, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
•In 1 Thess. 4:16-17 Paul stated: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: And so shall we ever be with the Lord." Paul shared the delusion, taught by Jesus, in that he expected to be snatched up bodily into heaven with other saints then living, who would, thus, never taste death. The use of "we" clearly proves as much. It is difficult to deny that Paul was certain that the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of his contemporaries.
•First Samuel 27:1 says: "And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul:..." Whether stated in or out of his heart David erred decisively. He did not die by the hand of Saul as he predicted, but appears to have died of old age, according to 1 Kings 2:10, which says: "So David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." Having died before David, Saul couldn't have been responsible.
•Gen. 15:16 predicted that: "In the fourth generation they (Abraham's descendants) shall come hither again..." God told Abraham that his descendants would return in the fourth generation. Yet, if Abraham is excluded, it actually occurred during the sixth generation. The generations were;
(1) Abraham,
(2) Issac,
(3) Levi-Ex. 1:3,
(4) Kohath-Ex. 6:16,
(5) Amram-Ex. 6:18, and
(6) Moses-Ex. 6:20.
•Jer. 34:4-5 predicted that Zedekiah would experience a peaceful death: "Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the Lord of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword: But thou shall die in peace...." Yet Jer. 52:10-11 shows that he died in something less than a peaceful manner: "And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekaih before his eyes: he slew also the princes of Judah in Riblah. Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death."
•John 7:52 says: "They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." The inaccuracy of this prophecy lies in the fact that several of the most distinguished Jewish prophets--Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah--were from Galilee.
•Another prophecy is found in Gen. 49:13, which predicted that "Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon." Two aspects of this prophecy clearly failed. The borders of Zebulun never extended to the sea, and they never encompassed Sidon. In the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties Gleason Archer attempted on page 104 to remedy this problem:
Gen. 49:1 foretells the location of this tribe (Zebulun) near the shore, affording a convenient passage for the cargoes of ships unloading at the docks of the Mediterranean coast for transport to the Sea of Galilee and transshipment up to Damascus and beyond. While Zebulun was located on neither coast, the Valley of Jezreel afforded an excellent highway for imported goods to be conveyed to the most important inland markets. Its northern border would point in the direction of the great commercial cities of Phoenicia, of which Sidon was then the leading emporium.
In effect, Archer admits that Zebulun was on neither coast and never encompassed Sidon. The connecting link afforded by the Valley of Jezreel is irrelevant. The fact remains, Zebulun did not touch either sea. The fact that Zebulun's northern border "pointed" in the direction of Sidon is also immaterial. The prophecy clearly states Zebulun's border shall be at Sidon on the sea.
I always have to laugh when an atheist knows the bible better than his christian debater. As is usually the case.
I have yet to see a christian who understands science at all.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681852 Dec 31, 2013
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
timn17 wrote:
Really?
<quoted text>
While posting under another graybox name, Porter claimed that he was killed while rescuing tornado survivors in Alabama.
Words fail to describe that jackass.
Wow.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681853 Dec 31, 2013
irecknso wrote:
<quoted text> and you should be as well! you have gotten your freedom of speech from that as well as the slaughter of women, children, uncounted unarmed people thru out history! i don't understand why "you" people keep torturing yourselves living in this "free america" where you got the right to say what you will, yet, like the african american, you wanna complain, wah, wah, wah! if you hate it here so much, n. korea is alway's looking to recruit people like you! you all (atheist's) wanna be recognized so bad, it's kind of like watching a white boy wanna be black! for what?
Wow.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#681854 Dec 31, 2013
Rockhound wrote:
<quoted text>
I always have to laugh when an atheist knows the bible better than his christian debater. As is usually the case.
I have yet to see a christian who understands science at all.
All he did was copy/paste from

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php...

That doesn't mean he understands what he's pasting...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681855 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.....
But that gay couple has a right to discriminate the bakers based on their religion?
What's fair about that?
<quoted text>
No. It's not the cake, it's the gay marriage that goes against Christianity.
However, in a secular society, if I had owned that bakery, I would've baked the cake and made my profit.
I don't think baking a wedding cake for a gay couple supports gay marriage, neither do I think refusing to bake that cake denies gay marriage.
The baker has to right to say no, even if it seems discriminatory.
I applaud them for their courage.
<quoted text>
I agree. That's why I'm not an asshole to gay people. I'm apathetic towards them, just as I am towards football players or dudes with fast cars. I really don't care.
I treat all people with respect.
I know some people don't and done of those people are Christians.
But do not sit here and act like all atheists are peace loving people that only care about other people's well being.
<quoted text>
That is not what I said, timn.
Read it again.
You didn't say how the baker was discriminated against, you just said that he was discriminated against because of his religion. How was he?

And you ignored the rest of my post.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#681856 Dec 31, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't say how the baker was discriminated against, you just said that he was discriminated against because of his religion. How was he?
And you ignored the rest of my post.
How the hell do you consider THIS ignoring your post?!?

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.....
But that gay couple has a right to discriminate the bakers based on their religion?
What's fair about that?
<quoted text>
No. It's not the cake, it's the gay marriage that goes against Christianity.
However, in a secular society, if I had owned that bakery, I would've baked the cake and made my profit.
I don't think baking a wedding cake for a gay couple supports gay marriage, neither do I think refusing to bake that cake denies gay marriage.
The baker has to right to say no, even if it seems discriminatory.
I applaud them for their courage.
<quoted text>
I agree. That's why I'm not an asshole to gay people. I'm apathetic towards them, just as I am towards football players or dudes with fast cars. I really don't care.
I treat all people with respect.
I know some people don't and done of those people are Christians.
But do not sit here and act like all atheists are peace loving people that only care about other people's well being.
<quoted text>
That is not what I said, timn.
Read it again.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#681857 Dec 31, 2013
timn17 wrote:
You didn't say how the baker was discriminated against, you just said that he was discriminated against because of his religion. How was he?
Their religion was ignored and they were forced to make cakes for marriages they didn't condone.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#681858 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Their religion was ignored and they were forced to make cakes for marriages they didn't condone.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...
So, they were discriminated against for being nosy discriminatory bigots?

Awesome.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681859 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
There is no "may" about homosexuality going against Christianity.
<quoted text>
Ya.
Forget the rights of the baker.
It's all about the rights of the gay couple.
No one has a "right" to discriminate against others. Yes, a business owner has the right to deny service to someone, but once they come out and say that they denied service because of race, creed, or nowadays sexual orientation, they are discriminating, and that is wrong. If, a few decades ago, when it was still official mormon policy, a mormon baker denied service to a black guy because he was "cursed by god" with black skin, would you defend his "right" to discriminate?

And yes, there is a "may" about whether homosexuality goes against christianity. There are around ten verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality. All of these are found in the OT, and in some instances it is referred to as an abomination, which is the same terminology used for a woman on her period and for the crime of eating shellfish. Curiously, most christians rightly recognize most of this OT nonsense about "abominations" as the outdated dreck that it is, but they insist on upholding the few verses about gay people. Interesting. Why do you think that is?

There are many more verses that encourage people to leave judgement to god. Additionally, the NT, which most christians uphold as superseding the OT, is silent on homosexuality except for one instance where paul mentions it as unclean. If the NT "overrules" the OT - from law to grace - and most christians ignore the majority of the prohibitions and condemnations found in the OT, why is homosexuality special, and how does one determine which OT laws god *really* meant and which he doesn't mind if we ignore? The point being, of course, that while the bible may seem to be against homosexuality, the average christian ignores most of the OT anyway, and so has no right to condemn it while having no objective way to divine which laws are really important to god and which aren't. If some of the OT laws are open for interpretation and can be safely ignored, then why can't the same be said of the "laws" against homosexuality?

As a sidenote, I don't think we should be getting our morality from a book that features exercises in filth like the following passage from the story of sodom:

So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection."

Yes, lot offers his virgin daughters to be gang raped. God saves the day, only for lot to commit incest with his daughters afterwards. And you consider this book a legitimate source on morality.

Also - an opinion from a reverend.

http://mccchurch.org/download/theology/homose...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681860 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Anti-Minoritarianism.
The majority has rights, too.
<quoted text>
It is the will of the people, of the majority.
Whether it's a Christian majority or not.
Don't like it? Change the Constitution.
Actually, our government was specifically set up in such a way to *prevent* the very thing you are espousing. The problem with democracies is that they lead to the "tyranny of the majority." In a true democracy, the minority has only the rights given to them by the majority.

You seem to like the idea of the majority ruling over everyone else, probably because you are a member of the majority, but you'd likely change your tune if you weren't. Our government is a republic, meaning that each individual is a sovereign entity entitled to inalienable rights. These rights cannot be dictated by the will of the majority, they are "vested" in the individual. The constitution, in fact, delineates the rights that we, as citizens of the republic, are entitled to.

So it would be proper for me to tell you to change the constitution if you don't like the fact that our government vests rights in the individual, and would prefer that rights are vested in the will of the majority. Brush up on your US history and your knowledge of the various forms of government before you attempt any more snarky comments.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681861 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. It's a pretty free world, if you ignore the story lines.
And it's a huge "world", probably the biggest for AC.
You'll dig it. Let me know when you get it.
Nice. Will do. Will probably be getting it within the week.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681862 Dec 31, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Won't we both be rotting in hell according to the insanity of Christianity? As well as all aborted fetuses and everyone in America before Columbus, and all the mentally defective because for all of them, accepting Jesus would be impossible.
Yeah. It's almost like this god designed the universe as a giant torture chamber, given the ratio of those who are destined to heaven vs those who are destined to hell.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681863 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Many peaceful cops have been murdered by violent drug abusers.
I'm sure some have, but I'd be willing to bet two things.

1 - that it's not users killing cops, it's dealers. Violent dealers exist because of the drug war - drugs would not exist as such a lucrative, high risk, high margin commodity of the drug war didn't force the market underground and jack the prices up.

2 - I guarantee you that more peaceful drug users have been murdered by cops than the other way around.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681864 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
How the hell do you consider THIS ignoring your post?!?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.....
But that gay couple has a right to discriminate the bakers based on their religion?
What's fair about that?
<quoted text>
No. It's not the cake, it's the gay marriage that goes against Christianity.
However, in a secular society, if I had owned that bakery, I would've baked the cake and made my profit.
I don't think baking a wedding cake for a gay couple supports gay marriage, neither do I think refusing to bake that cake denies gay marriage.
The baker has to right to say no, even if it seems discriminatory.
I applaud them for their courage.
<quoted text>
I agree. That's why I'm not an asshole to gay people. I'm apathetic towards them, just as I am towards football players or dudes with fast cars. I really don't care.
I treat all people with respect.
I know some people don't and done of those people are Christians.
But do not sit here and act like all atheists are peace loving people that only care about other people's well being.
<quoted text>
That is not what I said, timn.
Read it again.
The only part that you quoted was the part about the baker being discriminated against. Everything following that was cut out. Doesn't matter anyway.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#681865 Dec 31, 2013
timn17 wrote:
No one has a "right" to discriminate against others. Yes, a business owner has the right to deny service to someone, but once they come out and say that they denied service because of race, creed, or nowadays sexual orientation, they are discriminating, and that is wrong. If, a few decades ago, when it was still official mormon policy, a mormon baker denied service to a black guy because he was "cursed by god" with black skin, would you defend his "right" to discriminate?
No. The Bible doesn't condemn black people for being black. People that use the Bible to support racism are ignorant of the Bible's true teachings.

You cannot compare sexuality to race, as race cannot be chosen while sexuality can be.
And yes, there is a "may" about whether homosexuality goes against christianity. There are around ten verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality. All of these are found in the OT, and in some instances it is referred to as an abomination, which is the same terminology used for a woman on her period and for the crime of eating shellfish. Curiously, most christians rightly recognize most of this OT nonsense about "abominations" as the outdated dreck that it is, but they insist on upholding the few verses about gay people. Interesting. Why do you think that is?
Isn't isn't the homosexuality that's a sin, it's the homosexual sex. It's as much a sin as heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

This is something I think you don't quote grasp.
There are many more verses that encourage people to leave judgement to god. Additionally, the NT, which most christians uphold as superseding the OT, is silent on homosexuality except for one instance where paul mentions it as unclean.
Wrong.

The New Testament's "sexual immorality" is relevant to all sexually immoral acts, of which homosexuality is one.

You people think the Bible focuses on homosexuals, you're totally wrong.
If the NT "overrules" the OT - from law to grace - and most christians ignore the majority of the prohibitions and condemnations found in the OT, why is homosexuality special, and how does one determine which OT laws god *really* meant and which he doesn't mind if we ignore? The point being, of course, that while the bible may seem to be against homosexuality, the average christian ignores most of the OT anyway, and so has no right to condemn it while having no objective way to divine which laws are really important to god and which aren't. If some of the OT laws are open for interpretation and can be safely ignored, then why can't the same be said of the "laws" against homosexuality?
As stated above, it's about ALL sexually immoral acts.
As a sidenote, I don't think we should be getting our morality from a book that features exercises in filth like the following passage from the story of sodom:
So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. "Please, my brothers," he begged, "don't do such a wicked thing. Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection."
Yes, lot offers his virgin daughters to be gang raped. God saves the day, only for lot to commit incest with his daughters afterwards. And you consider this book a legitimate source on morality.
Also - an opinion from a reverend.
http://mccchurch.org/download/theology/homose...
Red herring.

You don't understand that verse, either. Lot spent too much time around the creature comforts of life in Sodom, his testimony was tarnished. But he kept his faith in God and God delivered him. Twice.

Also, there was no laws about sexual relationships until Leviticus 18.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#681866 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:

Many peaceful cops have been murdered by violent drug abusers.
timn17 wrote:
I'm sure some have, but I'd be willing to bet two things.
1 - that it's not users killing cops, it's dealers. Violent dealers exist because of the drug war - drugs would not exist as such a lucrative, high risk, high margin commodity of the drug war didn't force the market underground and jack the prices up.
2 - I guarantee you that more peaceful drug users have been murdered by cops than the other way around.
1. I said drug abusers, not users. I consider dealers to be drug abusers too. The drug wars did not create violent druggies. The drugs did.

2. Dunno about that, it's possible. Cops are much better shits than drug addicts. Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow.

Happy Holiday.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#681867 Dec 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Their religion was ignored and they were forced to make cakes for marriages they didn't condone.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...
Again, their religion is not a free pass to discriminate.

Your religious beliefs do not exist in some sacred bubble - if your religion causes you to believe reprehensible things, you are a bigot; you don't get to discriminate against others to satisfy your religious sensibilities. If your religion leads you to behave immorally, it should be ignored. Again, if this baker denied service to an interracial couple because of his religious beliefs, would you be defending him? Would you defend a muslim baker if he refused to serve a christian couple?

Btw, I think you really need to reassess your definition of "discrimination." On the one hand, you don't think the gay couple was discriminated against, but on the other, you think the baker was discriminated against because he was "forced to make a cake." Really?

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) 1 min New Age Spiritual... 679,149
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min UMORONRACEUMAKEWO... 119,216
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 8 min bad bob 2,598
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr waaasssuuup 445,838
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Peter Ross 6,269
Iranian Brother & Sister wanted For FRAUD!!! 2 hr Bella Esmail Moore 1
______ *ANTICHRIST in plain view / (*News) ______ 3 hr NewsYTube 1
More from around the web