Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719404 Apr 22, 2014
JaclynNoel wrote:
Crying before birth is actually more common than you think, the condition is called "vagitus uterinus".
Interesting....

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719405 Apr 22, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
“...there’s an invisible teddy bear who sustains the universe, and without my Ineffable Teddy there would be no cosmos. But nobody can see that Bear, for he is the Ursine Ground of Being: ineffable and undetectable even though his Bearness permeates and supports everything. Without that Bear, the universe could not function, much less exist.”....Jerry Coyne
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116251/bes...
Golly gee, even the atheist professionals can't help but think about God all the time.

lol, dude won an award, the "Emperor Has No Clothes Award" from the FFRC.

Golly gee, the FFRC is handing out awards to atheists that mock God?

Whoodathunk?!?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#719406 Apr 22, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't answer for other people. I can tell you what I thought as an agnostic. I didn't like being judged by anyone, deity or human. Period.
I think for many people, the same is true. For others, not so much.
I don't think that religion poisons man. I take the opposite view. Man poisons religion.
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
I can tell you what I thought as an agnostic. I didn't like being judged by anyone, deity or human. Period.
You're saying that as an agnostic you didn't like being judged by a deity.

What deity was it had you determined that you couldn't have true knowledge about existing or not existing did you not like being judged by?

“Faith = Trust”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#719407 Apr 22, 2014
JaclynNoel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice, want a cookie? If you are a historian,(I'm not saying you aren't) then how could you not see how rediculous these self proclaimed transmundane stories are?
I was an agnostic when I graduated from college with a B.A. in History. It was my work experience in researching documents that showed me the historicity of the NT. I'll be glad to teach you the historical methods that are used so you can apply them and decide for yourself. They're the same regardless of which time period and culture you may be researching.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#719408 Apr 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I read Phil Robertson's book, Happy, Happy, Happy. It was an interesting tale, the first parts of the book were mostly about his early life, his upbringing, his personal trials and tribulations and his fallout with God. Later on in the book he went on to talk about sexual immorality and how many godless people see it today. He wrote something along the lines of what you're saying, that an intimate married couple will always be free from disease so long as they follow the teachings of the Bible, so long as they stay monogamous with each other.
He also wrote something interesting, that possibly all the sexually-transmitted diseases that we are seeing today are caused by God in an effort to punish the sexually immoral.
It seems out there, but it also seems plausible. It also goes back to the cleanliness and purity that the Bible teaches and the importance of not being sexually promiscuous.
You write:
"He also wrote something interesting, that possibly all the sexually-transmitted diseases that we are seeing today are caused by God in an effort to punish the sexually immoral."

Shades of Pat Robertson....

Any proof behind that?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#719409 Apr 22, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He confuses pregnancy "prevention" with pregnancy "termination".

Abortion isn't contraception.
To some it is.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#719410 Apr 22, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>Why won't you address the actual Judaic prophesies that I've posted several times now? Here is the explanation yet again:

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God.(Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world &#8213; on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.
Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.
They had to make that up after he failed the first time.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#719411 Apr 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine five got, so.....
Are you wasted?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719412 Apr 22, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:

I would agree that sexually transmitted diseases are allowed to exist. I don't believe they are caused by any deity, good or bad. They're a consequence of rejection of God. Not caused by God.

It only seems plausible to me if we consider the fall of humanity. We rejected God's rules and so He withdrew from our presence. Because He withdrew, the world began to rot. Disease crept in and here we are. We (humanity) told God to get lost and so He did. It was His presence that kept us safe.
Yes, I agree with you completely. Thank you for that, it makes total sense.

We can liken sexual activity (which was created by God as something that is supposed to be pure and clean and holy) to something like water, also created by God. In its natural state, water is pure and clean and necessary for life, but once you use the water in a way not intended, it could end the very life it helped to create. We've made machines that can make water move fast enough to cut through solid granite, which means it could definitely slice a human body in half.

Back to sex, God created sex and intended it's use for our pleasure and for us to populate this planet. Used the way He created it, no one would ever get a sexual transmitted disease. Use sex the way secular humanists advise you too, well....let's just say you better have a condom in your wallet.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#719413 Apr 22, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that sexually transmitted diseases are allowed to exist. I don't believe they are caused by any deity, good or bad. They're a consequence of rejection of God. Not caused by God.
<quoted text>
It only seems plausible to me if we consider the fall of humanity. We rejected God's rules and so He withdrew from our presence. Because He withdrew, the world began to rot. Disease crept in and here we are. We (humanity) told God to get lost and so He did. It was His presence that kept us safe.
So the god "got lost"? Took off?

You think he'll return after a while, if we're good?

If so, tell the Redneck to clean up his act, he's the biggest violator of the godly rules!

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#719414 Apr 22, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
<quoted text>
Not because the bible says it happened, but because history says it happened. I'm the historian here. You are not.:)
Argument from your own authority, when it is only recognized by yourself as being so, is a fallacy of the grandest proportions.
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#719415 Apr 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really care what you post, nor do I care what you believe.
I know for a fact that I have not posted except on my own time since I made that vow.
Yep, I knew when you posted the following you had no willingness, nor intention, of standing by it:

On April 14, 2014,
ROCCO wrote:

You're welcome.
But hopefully I can make an honest man out of you.

RiversideRedneck said <quoted text>

(Post #715625, pg. 33917, "Prove there's a god", 4-13-14)

Let me tell you something very, very hard to admit on an open forum where everybody else can read it.

You've opened my eyes to posting from work. I understand and agree that it is a form of theft. I've asked God's forgiveness for it and I have vowed to Him never to do it again.

That should make you happy, you will be seeing less and less of me.

There I am, an open wound. Everyone that hates me can go ahead and pour lemon juice and salt all over me.

**********

Here we have it, folks. right down to the "you will be seeing less and less of me", as his daily posts have risen from **80** per day (yes, 80) to a daily average of slightly over ****100****.

And despite his vow to his most sacred, his holiest and most holy of holies, he has not, and will not, keep his vow. To have admitted and agreed that "posting from work is something he understands and agrees is a form of theft", he would nonetheless still try to sell us the fallacy that - despite INCREASING his daily posts by a factor of ***25%***- he is only doing such "on his own personal time (breaks/lunch), and that despite his posts appearing with high frequency multiple times in multiple, sequential hours, his posts are "on his time".

Obviously his employer is very generous with employee breaks - something on the order of what must be 30 or more minutes per hour PLUS lunch. Or, the Redneck doesn't really buy his own story about "personal responsibility" and so forth.

Catcher was right; I gave the Redneck culprit a break, and all he has done is betray any goodwill gesture to him and the chance to earn the trust he so desperately wants someone to have in him.

And when called out on it, his loud, defiant pronouncement:
"I don't really care what you post, nor do I care what you believe."

The story of Redneck. How empty. Won't even honor his vow to his God.

Ain't nothing there worth having.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#719416 Apr 22, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree that sexually transmitted diseases are allowed to exist. I don't believe they are caused by any deity, good or bad. They're a consequence of rejection of God. Not caused by God.
<quoted text>
It only seems plausible to me if we consider the fall of humanity. We rejected God's rules and so He withdrew from our presence. Because He withdrew, the world began to rot. Disease crept in and here we are. We (humanity) told God to get lost and so He did. It was His presence that kept us safe.
So when do you think this God started throwing in diseases to our society?

Was he a presence when the Catholic Church led us into the 'Dark Ages'?

I don't think a God has ever had a presence on this earth.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719417 Apr 22, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
You write:
"He also wrote something interesting, that possibly all the sexually-transmitted diseases that we are seeing today are caused by God in an effort to punish the sexually immoral."
Shades of Pat Robertson....
Any proof behind that?
Yes.

Look at how many people that are sexually promiscuous that are infected with a sexually transmitted disease.

Then look at all the people that are sexually pure that do not have a sexually transmitted disease.

Coincidence?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719418 Apr 22, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
To some it is.
Contraception is the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy.

No matter how much you want it to, abortion does not fall under that definition.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719419 Apr 22, 2014
Anon wrote:
Are you wasted?
Did you not read the post I responded to?

No?

Well aren't you just a cute little bunny rabbit....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#719420 Apr 22, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, I knew when you posted the following you had no willingness, nor intention, of standing by it:
On April 14, 2014,
ROCCO wrote:
You're welcome.
But hopefully I can make an honest man out of you.
RiversideRedneck said <quoted text>
(Post #715625, pg. 33917, "Prove there's a god", 4-13-14)
Let me tell you something very, very hard to admit on an open forum where everybody else can read it.
You've opened my eyes to posting from work. I understand and agree that it is a form of theft. I've asked God's forgiveness for it and I have vowed to Him never to do it again.
That should make you happy, you will be seeing less and less of me.
There I am, an open wound. Everyone that hates me can go ahead and pour lemon juice and salt all over me.
**********
Here we have it, folks. right down to the "you will be seeing less and less of me", as his daily posts have risen from **80** per day (yes, 80) to a daily average of slightly over ****100****.
And despite his vow to his most sacred, his holiest and most holy of holies, he has not, and will not, keep his vow. To have admitted and agreed that "posting from work is something he understands and agrees is a form of theft", he would nonetheless still try to sell us the fallacy that - despite INCREASING his daily posts by a factor of ***25%***- he is only doing such "on his own personal time (breaks/lunch), and that despite his posts appearing with high frequency multiple times in multiple, sequential hours, his posts are "on his time".
Obviously his employer is very generous with employee breaks - something on the order of what must be 30 or more minutes per hour PLUS lunch. Or, the Redneck doesn't really buy his own story about "personal responsibility" and so forth.
Catcher was right; I gave the Redneck culprit a break, and all he has done is betray any goodwill gesture to him and the chance to earn the trust he so desperately wants someone to have in him.
And when called out on it, his loud, defiant pronouncement:
"I don't really care what you post, nor do I care what you believe."
The story of Redneck. How empty. Won't even honor his vow to his God.
Ain't nothing there worth having.
I told you that I don't care what you think, my vow was to myself and to God, not you.

You can assume anything and everything that you want, you can also brainwash yourself into thinking that it's true, but that doesn't make it true.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#719421 Apr 22, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, I knew when you posted the following you had no willingness, nor intention, of standing by it:
On April 14, 2014,
ROCCO wrote:
You're welcome.
But hopefully I can make an honest man out of you.
RiversideRedneck said <quoted text>
(Post #715625, pg. 33917, "Prove there's a god", 4-13-14)
Let me tell you something very, very hard to admit on an open forum where everybody else can read it.
You've opened my eyes to posting from work. I understand and agree that it is a form of theft. I've asked God's forgiveness for it and I have vowed to Him never to do it again.
That should make you happy, you will be seeing less and less of me.
There I am, an open wound. Everyone that hates me can go ahead and pour lemon juice and salt all over me.
**********
Here we have it, folks. right down to the "you will be seeing less and less of me", as his daily posts have risen from **80** per day (yes, 80) to a daily average of slightly over ****100****.
And despite his vow to his most sacred, his holiest and most holy of holies, he has not, and will not, keep his vow. To have admitted and agreed that "posting from work is something he understands and agrees is a form of theft", he would nonetheless still try to sell us the fallacy that - despite INCREASING his daily posts by a factor of ***25%***- he is only doing such "on his own personal time (breaks/lunch), and that despite his posts appearing with high frequency multiple times in multiple, sequential hours, his posts are "on his time".
Obviously his employer is very generous with employee breaks - something on the order of what must be 30 or more minutes per hour PLUS lunch. Or, the Redneck doesn't really buy his own story about "personal responsibility" and so forth.
Catcher was right; I gave the Redneck culprit a break, and all he has done is betray any goodwill gesture to him and the chance to earn the trust he so desperately wants someone to have in him.
And when called out on it, his loud, defiant pronouncement:
"I don't really care what you post, nor do I care what you believe."
The story of Redneck. How empty. Won't even honor his vow to his God.
Ain't nothing there worth having.
A leopard can't change his spots.

Nor can the Redneck change his dishonest character.

Lucky for him that there aren't any gods.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#719422 Apr 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree with you completely. Thank you for that, it makes total sense.
We can liken sexual activity (which was created by God as something that is supposed to be pure and clean and holy) to something like water, also created by God. In its natural state, water is pure and clean and necessary for life, but once you use the water in a way not intended, it could end the very life it helped to create. We've made machines that can make water move fast enough to cut through solid granite, which means it could definitely slice a human body in half.
Back to sex, God created sex and intended it's use for our pleasure and for us to populate this planet. Used the way He created it, no one would ever get a sexual transmitted disease. Use sex the way secular humanists advise you too, well....let's just say you better have a condom in your wallet.
"Used the way He created it, no one would ever get a sexual transmitted disease."

Hey, it had to start somewhere....do you think it came from evolution?

You're sure assuming a lot here.:-)

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#719423 Apr 22, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Mine five got, so.....
What?

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 min Peace_Warrior 619,253
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 183,696
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 19 min truth 668,058
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 51 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 92,951
MIELE BAYRAMPASA SERVISI 2I2) 2O2 62 34 ) 2O2 6... 1 hr birimariza 1
what are the physical differences between india... (Jun '09) 3 hr Das 87
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr Student 46,048
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr AussieBobby 286,113
More from around the web