Prove there's a god.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#700406 Mar 8, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
<quoted text>
If the evidence is strong enough, yes. Here's an FYI for your consideration. The Hebrew word "Yom" can mean both a 24 hour day such as we know it, and it can also mean "very long period of time." It's found in the Hebrew language version of the book of Genesis. And lest you protest, we don't know what measurement of a day we're supposed to go by. God's or ours? Come to think of it, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is why we were created.
The physical evidence is overwhelming.

I've known about the Yom controversy for some time.

It really doesn't matter about the time controversy, just as it doesn't matter about the 'Virgin' or 'Young woman" controversy.

The Old Testament is mostly proven wrong

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#700407 Mar 8, 2014
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Susie, get yourself a case of mental floss and clean that plaque out from between your ears.
Apologize to your sister for calling her a bitch.
Grow up.
Nah, my sister can be a bitch at times; especially that time of the month when there isn't any chocolate just like almost every female; just like you. I still love her dearly and she says the same about me. She just happens to be wiccan; a true wiccan unlike you.
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#700408 Mar 8, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3aF9AJm0RFcXX
Johnny Cash
Hurt
Too depressing
Hendrix wild thang
http://youtu.be/w2mWFQDRfwQ

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#700409 Mar 8, 2014
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a long-winded way of saying you don't want to learn anything.
I'm beginning to think that you actually *believe* the bullshit you're spewing. If that's true, then I suspect you've suffered a psychotic break.
Seek therapy.
Wiccans believe in the ethical guideline called the "Threefold Law," right? This law states that whatever a person wishes upon someone else returns to them three times over. Becareful, you wished some pretty evil stuff on me :/

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#700410 Mar 8, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The physical evidence is overwhelming.
I've known about the Yom controversy for some time.
It really doesn't matter about the time controversy, just as it doesn't matter about the 'Virgin' or 'Young woman" controversy.
The Old Testament is mostly proven wrong
Not really, depends on who you ask and the Bible is not meant to be taken literally at all times.
andet1987

Chicago, IL

#700411 Mar 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not likely.
You seem surprised. Were you aware that I consider "God" a mythical character?
Please do not equate the real God with Zeus. Zeus is a real myth created by Greeks. The God that i am referring is the Creator of all. the real God is God, not created by anyone. i don't know how he existed, but nobody created him.

here is proof that God exists and can perform a Divine Providence:

God's Miracles is not just found in the Bible which happened long time ago. Miracles do happen until now, since God is existing forever.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php...
andet1987

Chicago, IL

#700412 Mar 8, 2014
God's Miracles are not just found

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700413 Mar 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
atheists have caused more bloodshed than all religious wars combined.
What does that have to do with secular humanism, the ideology we are offering as an alternative to faith based ideologies of violence and despair?

Those atheists were the gods of their own secular religions. Whether it be Stalinism, Christian theocracy, Maoism, or Muslim theocracy, authoritarian regimes requiring worship of a larger than life cult figures lead to violence, terror, despair, and death. Your crusades, inquisitions and witch burnings attest to that.

Only humanism offers an alternative. Humanism brought the world democracy and personal political freedom. There are no such ideas in your bible.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I say Christianity is better. I say that because Christianity has progressed mankind and has generated more peace than any other movement in history.
You're living a wakeful dream. All progress comes from reason, not faith.

Christianity has generated zero useful ideas, but has spread its worst ideas wherever it could - ideas like Christian homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny and its war on reproductive rights; its contempt for church-state separation; its contempt for reason and evidence, and an exaltation of faith as a virtue; its anti-intellectuali sm and antiscientism; its tribalisitic tendencies including antisemitism and islamophobia; a deep seated misanthropy that depicts man as sin-infected, failed, utterly dependent, and hopeless except through the church's exclusive dispensation of salvation; self-loathing (we are spirits trapped in vile flesh); an ethical system in which submission to the presumed will of a petty, narcissistic and sadistic deity as interpreted by church elders is the highest moral good, and in which virtues such as self-actualization are treated contemptuously using words like "rebellion, " "arrogance, " and "pride"; the doctrine of sin in which deviation from an ancient and irrational set of values is viewed as grounds for retribution by a god, and by extension, its agents on earth trying to curry favor with it; a distrust of the material world and an effort to alienate the faithful from it; contempt for the earth, which is seen as a waiting room scheduled for apocalyptic annihilation "soon"; cheap and easy self-forgiveness (when does Jesus ever not forgive whoever asks for forgiveness?); sexual constipation (guilt, shame), and anhedonia - the idea that pleasure is sin.

That's your church's intellectual legacy. How is that better than humanism? How is that better than Stalinism?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700414 Mar 8, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Christians have impaled people in the iron maiden, stretched them on the rack, mutilated their genitals and bowels with the pear, and burned them at the stake for mere beliefs.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Yes, Christians have done some horrible, unspeakable things. I cannot and will not attempt to deny that.
But you will attempt to make excuses for the church and ideology that created them as you attempt to sweep those horrors and atrocities under the carpet without examination. It's no small thing that such things could occur time and again under Christian regimes. It was humanistic innovations that put a stop to that, and it is only humanistic innovations that protect us from a return to that today. Is there
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Worse, the god you worship is said to keep souls conscious for eternity just to inflict gratuitous suffering onto them for their thoughts - the failure to believe..
< sound of crickets chirping >

Yeah, I would just blow that one off too if I were you. What possible justification could there be for that?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700415 Mar 8, 2014
"Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for." - Martin Luther, Father of Christian Protestantism
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Now see I disagree with that. They're also here to make us sammiches. And clean up afterwards.
Seriously? That's your reply to one of the most hateful ideas imaginable? What use is your religion to the world if it perpetuate such things? Misogyny was one of the very bad Christian ideas that I just cataloged, as well one of the many personal failures of yours that Catcher listed for us:

Catcher1 wrote: "what do you offer? Your racism? Misogyny? Homophobia? Sanctity of marriage while divorced? Violence toward babies? Violence toward your wife? Violence toward a motorist? Your fantasy that your god touched you on the head one day? Your flunking out of high school? Your stupid refusal to purchase health insurance? Your smoking habit? This is what I have seen you offer."

Is that a coincidence? Of course not. It's your church's legacy. Your only defense is that you come by it honestly.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700416 Mar 8, 2014
[QUOTE who="thewordofme]"Th ere are no atheist in fox holes" Not true....there are plenty of atheists in foxholes.[/QUOTE]
Susie D wrote:
I have yet to see one.
How many foxholes have you seen with people under fire in them?
Susie D wrote:
When push comes to shove, they pray like the rest of us and try to bargain with God.. Yep, "There are no atheist in fox holes".. Not my quote but it fits :)
Then you have stumbled onto the primary source of worship of the Christian god - terror. A child in a playpen hearing about hellfire is in the same predicament as a soldier ina foxhole hearing gunfire, is it not?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700417 Mar 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I can only handle so much intolerance from you before I just start scrolling.
Intolerance from me? You're kidding, right? You have been maligning me and atheism for pages now. When you do that, you invite the blunt and uncensored truth about what you and your faith are.

Apparently, my rejection your calumny and aspersions constitute intolerance to you, but not your assault on me and atheism. Are you invoking some sort of Christian privilege? Do you think that you have permission to tell such lies, but that a defense of them constitutes intolerance?

"It seems religion can dish it out okay but it can’t take it: like a street thug who calls the police when his victims fight back ... Being an atheist or secularist today is no longer a matter of opting out; but of actively fending off. So I’d say any abuse religion gets, it’s got coming ten times over." -Pat Condell
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You don't understand my values and their relationship to my upbringing. You assume, but you do not know.
The relationship is painfully obvious. We just saw your response to Luther's misogyny. We just saw you repeat one of the commonest lies of Christianity against humanism - attempting to conflate it with terrorist authoritarian regimes. You are just another vector for the church.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700418 Mar 8, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
people should research history, languages, literary styles, philosophy, and cultural analysis when reading the Bible.
I find it difficult to believe that a message from an omniscient god would need to be subject to such an analysis to be understood. And as I said earlier, if the bible wasn't written by a god, why revere it? Why base your life on something written by ancient men, especially if understanding it requires so much expertise and is so subject to error?
Ghost Writer wrote:
A writer in a patriarchal culture, writing about a homicide, wouldn't be interested in the birth order or geneology of an insignificant female. The fact that she's mentioned at all is surprising.
I'm still not clear on why you think that I or anybody else should be interested in the words of such a writer.
Ghost Writer wrote:
The example I have given demonstrates how proof-texting can usually lead the reader to an erroneous conclusion.
Perhaps, but that misses the larger issue. What is the provenance of the words called the Word of God? From whence do they arise - from a god, or from patriarchal men who don't consider women important enough to mention?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700419 Mar 8, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
Kaitlin is far from stupid. While she says things to shock people, she's no dummy. This doesn't mean I approve of everything she posts. But if you show her respect, she'll show it back. It might take a while, but in the end it's better to disagree with a person you can respect and tolerate than a person you can't. I have zero respect for Scrooge as an intellectual or civilized personality because he gives no respect outside of his own small world. The only issue I have with Kaitlin is that she insists on reading the Bible in it's most literal sense, and even then she treats me with respect when we disagree on this. Will she ever share my beliefs? I doubt it. But I respect her as a person and at least I can spar with her to sharpen my own skills. That's good enough for me.
Nice post. Thanks for being respectful yourself.

And you're right - people like Kaitlin and me will not give respect where none is shown. You can see that in the difference between the way that we address you and how we deal with people like Riverside Redneck.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#700420 Mar 8, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you work in the Neanderthals and Homo-erectus with the Biblical mythology?
The Neanderthals were the last Homo species to die out (30,000 years ago) leaving us humans as the only surviving Homo's (no puns).
It is currently thought that our common ancestor (humans and Neanderthals) was Homo-hiedelbergensis (c.300,000 to 350,000+ years ago).
How would you explain these species....we know for a fact they were real. We know that humans and Neanderthals mated and produced fertile offspring over 50,000+ years ago.
There's a really good chance that you yourself carry Neanderthal blood/genes.
The Bible is a work of fiction written by ancient peoples who had no clue what was really going on in the world. AND they had no clue that science would come along and ferret out the REAL history of humans.
Remember that the whole earth (except Antarctica) was colonized by 15,000+- years ago.
Maybe Suzi thinks god came along and turned Homo Erectus into Homo Sapiens ?
(I dunno ---Shrugs)

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#700421 Mar 8, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text> Nah, my sister can be a bitch at times; especially that time of the month when there isn't any chocolate just like almost every female; just like you. I still love her dearly and she says the same about me. She just happens to be wiccan; a true wiccan unlike you.
I may not be a genius but I'm pretty sure Kaitlin doesn't claim to be wiccan, but rather a different variety . They call themselves Strega or practice Stregheria, Not sure if that make her
Stregherian , Sounds Russian, but it's Italian I think. Sounds kinda cool though.
Kaitlin the Stregherian...lol

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700422 Mar 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Topix Atheist! cannot listen to reason.
Reason is our world. Yours is faith. If you respect reason, then abandon faith. You cannot have both. They are incompatible.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700423 Mar 8, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
. The context (or situation) would dictate the circumstances for each. It's the same principle with the Bible. However, if you tell an atheist that they get all defensive and say "Don't tell me how to read the Bible!" They don't want to hear they're incorrect. If they're correct in their own mind, they have justification to reject whatever offends them the most.
Actually, nobody has any authority to tell anybody else how to read the bible. You believe that your god left that book on earth for me to read, don't you? Why should I defer to anybody else's interpretation of it?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#700424 Mar 9, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
<quoted text>
If such a person engages in what is known as "proof-texting" then this is true. Proof-texting is using texts out of their original cultural and linguistic context in support of an argument or justification. This is why I say that people should research history, languages, literary styles, philosophy, and cultural analysis when reading the Bible. This is the mistake that skeptics here make on a regular basis. And to be fair, so do some religious folks. The recent debate about the birth order and geneology of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel is a prime example of this. The narrative in Genesis states that Eve gave birth to Cain and then Abel. It mentions nothing of any female births. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, there's no requirement or purpose that it should. What the skeptics have done is assumed that ONLY Cain and Abel were born and therefore skeptics conclude that any report of Cain having a wife is false. This is a simple misunderstanding of the writing style, and literary focus of the author at the time of the writing. A writer in a patriarchal culture, writing about a homicide, wouldn't be interested in the birth order or geneology of an insignificant female. The fact that she's mentioned at all is surprising. But that's not my point.
My point is, that the skeptics are making a mountain out of a mole hill by firmly entrenching themselves in the false idea that it should've been mentioned. They then use the narrative to try and show that only Cain and Abel were born just because they were the only ones listed.
They fail to recognize that the author didn't think it was important enough to mention. After all, the point of the story isn't about who all Adam and Eve's kids were, but about the first homicide among their descendents. The example I have given demonstrates how proof-texting can usually lead the reader to an erroneous conclusion.
Ghost Writer wrote:
<quoted text>
A writer in a patriarchal culture, writing about a homicide, wouldn't be interested in the birth order or geneology of an insignificant female.
An insignificant female?

RR is that you?

Males are only useful for two things.

Taking the garbage out and helping to make more females. If they fail to do the first thing, they'll be relegated to the stall to be milked when necessary.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#700425 Mar 9, 2014
andet1987 wrote:
Please do not equate the real God with Zeus. Zeus is a real myth created by Greeks. The God that i am referring is the Creator of all. the real God is God, not created by anyone. i don't know how he existed, but nobody created him.
I don't see any significant difference between the origins the stories of Yahweh and those of Zeus, Wodin, Allah or Quetzalcoatl. I see stories invented by ancient men to explain the mysteries of the world to them.

I also can't see any reason to reject all but one of them, and if I did, I wouldn't know howto decide which one to pick apart from popularity. If popularity is good enough, please remember that each was popular in a particular time and place at one time. Was that myth true then and there for that reason? Of course not, meaning that that is not a good enough reason.
andet1987 wrote:
here is proof that God exists and can perform a Divine Providence: God's Miracles is not just found in the Bible which happened long time ago. Miracles do happen until now, since God is existing forever.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php...
Thanks, but I saw that the first time you posted that link. Your idea of proof is very different from mine.

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 (Mar '17) 4 min USAsince1680 86,741
I'm making a dating blog. Any advice? 24 min jophet38 1
As a Kiev woman, is it ideal to date an America... 36 min sofialuv 1
We have off world aliens/Grey's that look like ... 1 hr Mr Hutch 10
Global hit for topix.com for advertising 2 hr Mr Hutch 2
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Wisdom of Ages 703,462
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr Wisdom of Ages 6,909