Prove there's a god.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763070 Jul 28, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My problem is that, under the guise of making a statement on an unrelated subject, you inject your racism.
This is the same sort of dishonesty I keep pointing out to the Redneck.
Yeah, a racist is anyone winning an argument with a liberal. Got that, loser.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#763071 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Well my first question was whether then-living historians documented Jesus, not whether someone wrote about it after the fact.
There seems to be some academic disagreement on where Tacitus got his source - it's useless information if it came from Christian sources. The problem identified in what I read was that Tacitus incorrectly labels Pilate's position, which he wouldn't do if he was actually using Roman records.
Tacitus wrote about various mythic deities, and wrote much more about those deities than the mythic Jesus! >>>>> If that account really was about the Jesus, which is unclear because Tacitus used the term, "Chrestus", and that was tampered with. http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/Christian/Ch...

Josephus wrote about other deities more than the mythical Jesus! deity, as well. That account has been tampered with too.

At any rate, I don't think that if either Tacitus or Josephus wrote about the mythic Jesus!, neither of those accounts should be given more weight than any account they wrote about the other mythic deities of the era(S).

It's often asserted that their writings confirm the existence of the Jesus!, but they don't want extend that legitimacy to the other deities that Tacitus and Josephus put to ink.

Because, as we know, the assertion then goes something like:

"All of those other deities were fake!... But, the Jesus! was a really really real god..."

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763072 Jul 28, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Opinion.
Wow, what a powerful,rebuttal.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The existence of God is beyond opinion.
According to whom? Which god? Thor? Allah? Those adherents make the same claims you do. Why are you, absent of any evidence, more plausible?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Truth is autonomous of mere opinion.
Yeah, here's a mirror.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Mind comes first.
What does that even mean?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>That is the most reasonable explanation.
For what?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Not mind from matter or forces.
Your mind does not matter, clearly.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Rocks do not communicate to humans what they ought to do.
Wow, you were right once.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Matter or forces do not create life no matter the time or circumstance nor irrational appeals to science.
Nonsensical. Revise.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>You have a lot of unscientific claims which attempts to explains how things came to be absent God.
Huh?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>They are absurd and faith based claims which cannot be demonstrated scientifically through observation and experimentation.
You're on a roll, but in such an odd way.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Multi verse, abiogenesis, even man from ape like creatures which provides a rational for scientific racism no matter how much it is denied.
Who claims men came from apes? How can you refute something if you don't understand it?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>You need to prove how intelligence is derived from matter.
Why? Don't you need to prove how intelligence can derive from the supernatural, of which you have zero evidence, and of which any equally ludicrous claim can be made?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Like rocks.
Who is making that claim? Only you.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>How does intelligence come from rocks?
Who is making that claim? Only you. If you turn a rock over and see a salamander, do you have difficulty distinguishing between the two?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Otherwise you are in a fantasy land.
Haha. Oh, sweet irony. I wish I could learn about your background. I know no one like you in real life. You're a hoot.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#763073 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
It was "abstinence only until marriage", and it was started by Reagan. It was taught alongside safe sex teachings. What so bad about it? It's good advice, both are good advice.
I agree about the good advice.

I think the “Only” is the operative word for 'Abstinence Only.' Most times ONLY 'Abstinence Only' was taught...usually in religiously controlled states.

“Abstinence education teaches children to abstain from sex as the only certain method of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and that abstinence until marriage is a standard by which to live. In the U.S., states may apply for federal funding of abstinence-only sex education programs. To be eligible for funding programs must satisfy requirements given under the Social Security Act.”

**********

“Proponents of abstinence-only sex education argue that this approach is superior to comprehensive sex education because it emphasizes the teaching of morality that limits sex to that within the bounds of marriage, and that sex before marriage and at a young age has heavy physical and emotional costs. They suggest that comprehensive sex education encourages premarital sexual activity among teenagers, which should be discouraged in an era when HIV and other incurable sexually transmitted infections are widespread and when teen pregnancy is an ongoing concern.”

**********

Systematic reviews of research evaluating abstinence-only sex education have concluded that it is ineffective at preventing unwanted pregnancy or the spread of STIs, among other shortfalls. According to a 2009 review of randomized and semi-randomized controlled trials in “high-income” countries, as defined by the World Bank Organization, there is no evidence that abstinence-only education increases or decreases HIV risk.
**********
It has been found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV risk in the developed world. The results of the National Survey of Family Growth show that American students who receive abstinence-only sex education are at a significantly higher risk of pregnancy as compared with those who receive comprehensive sex education.
**********
“Advocates for Youth, blames the poor quality of Bush era abstinence-only programs as compared to abstinence-only programs under Clinton's administration for the difference in outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_...

There is much more on this site, and it's all backed up with many notes/references/links.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763074 Jul 28, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you know how silly RR can be sometimes. Stilgar was a character in a book. Dune, I believe. I read the book when I was about 16 and cant recall any of the characters.
Dune Alien didn't read the book. He saw the movie.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763075 Jul 28, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>It's a photo of the actor, Everett McGill, who played Stilgar in the Dune movie and "Daddy" in The People Under the Stairs".
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_Under... ;
You can see the entire movie on YouTube.
People see Craven's movie as surreal, fictional, but the real horror of it is that there are homes in America where this kind of hell actually happens.
Wait, I haven't seen the movie. Are abused people sequestered under the stairs or are there people living under the stairs randomly in American homes? Haha.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#763076 Jul 28, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> None of that proves abstinence only causes teen pregnancy. If abstinence only causes teen pregnancy then driver education causes teens to run red lights. You have not answered a thing.
That's a ridiculous analogy.

Sexual abstinence is or would be a component of sex education. Just like learning the rules of the road would be a component of driver education. But neither of those topics are the entire import of sex education or driver education, respectively.

In order for your analogy to be relevant or apply, lightbeanrider, you'd need to say that:

"If sexual abstinence only causes teen pregnancy then driving abstinence causes teens to run red lights".

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#763077 Jul 28, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Well my first question was whether then-living historians documented Jesus, not whether someone wrote about it after the fact.
It does not make much of a difference if they wrote about Jesus after the fact. They wrote about Pilate after the fact. Its all historical evidence to establish certain facts. You are a historical illiterate.
There seems to be some academic disagreement on where Tacitus got his source - it's useless information if it came from Christian sources.
Doubtful he got his info from Christian sources and even if he did Tacitus did not consider the sources useless. If Tacitus believed the sources were credible and he obviously did then why should anyone believe you over Tacitus?
The problem identified in what I read was that Tacitus incorrectly labels Pilate's position, which he wouldn't do if he was actually using Roman records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Chris...

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...

Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.[4

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#763078 Jul 28, 2014
Bigger Baby Jeebus wrote:
<quoted text>Why do adherents think that their veil is a thin disguise?
Exactly.

And when I point out his dishonesty to the Redneck, he requests an explanation, so that he can evaluate and then discuss.

Do they really think we're stupid?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763079 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
It's gotta be tough, to be sure.
I think that's what abstinence education (not law) teaches, an alternative option for whatever personal reason fits an individuals tastes.
Why shouldn't it be taught (not enforced) right alongside the other alternative, safe sex?
You're looking through Golden State glasses, mi amigo. In many states, particularly in Da Belt, there taint no alternative.

By the way, abstinence education and Purity Balls (man, I want to market a specific body lotion with that name) have created a boon in first and third input sexuality. Good news! Your wife is a virgin! Bad news! Snowflake.

"Clerks".

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763080 Jul 28, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The original Christians were Jews, before and after their being mesmerized by his words.They never stopped being Jews
You missed the point. Moving on.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#763081 Jul 28, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> None of that proves abstinence only causes teen pregnancy. If abstinence only causes teen pregnancy then driver education causes teens to run red lights. You have not answered a thing.
You're being a meathead here dude.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#763082 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hitler killed Jews, Christians, gypsies, homosexuals and blacks"
Does not mean:
"Hitler killed Jews, Christians, gypsies, homosexuals and blacks equally"
I don't understand why you read it that way.
Please.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#763083 Jul 28, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I did not know what a Dominionist was before you told me. However, I am not one. I have said and mean it when I say that everyone should have the right to believe what they wish. I think schools should allow, not mandate, religion/religious teachings. I do believe it would help the world and our schools/children. That is my opinion. I do not think it should be forced on anyone. Whether you and the others believe that I am being honest, this is the truth. I posted this because I believe it stresses the point to stand up God and his message. I like the message in this, with the meaning to me being stand up for God and his plan, not to let others push us down. I don't think non-believers should let us push them down either. I just wish that we all could find a happy middle ground. This is a public forum. I am not forcing my beliefs on any of you. I am merely sharing my beliefs and experiences in God. You all have every right to do the same with non-belief.
Hope all is well with you and yours. Best wishes.
Religion should be taught at home and in the church, not at public school. Church has many meetings during the week and on Sundays for any kind of religious teaching you think kids should know. And it all being your religion. If it were in public school, it would have to teach all the religions in America, to be fair to all. We have muslims, hindus, and a hundred more. Do you think our children need to take the time to learn their religion at school instead of devoting that time to math, science, history and English? Those last four subjects will prepare that child for a future with good pay and skills. No child can ever succeed without those basic skills. Its so bad now, I have seen during a power outage, a teen that could not make change at the grocery store checkout. Do you think that teen has much of a chance of moving up in her job?

So, unless you wish your children to be indoctrinated into another religion, let all religions be taught at home and church. Okey?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763084 Jul 28, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
May 30, 2007 |
Last month's resignation of Wade Horn, former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and point man for conservative social policy, came just as support was crumbling and mistrust mounting for a costly and, many would argue, unsuccessful initiative -- abstinence education.
"At this point we've spent more than a billion dollars on this program that was never proven in the first place," said Heather Boonstra, public policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization specializing in reproductive health issues.
Federal Evaluation Finds Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Ineffective
That is from 2007 and i don't know how you spend that amount of money on a program which encourages abstinence. Don't blame the message because the system mucks it up.
http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm...
Abstinence-only is bound to fail
This also is from 2007. The fault is not with abstinence only education and it does not have to be that expensive. If the student learns the consequences of pre maritial sex then they are responsible. Again, the fault is not with the message. Go ahead and teach your daughters since abstinence is unreasonable they should go ahead and have sex with good time Charlie.
Those are the only two options? What about our sons? Why do you give them a pass? Why is this only about women to you? Oh, right, Jezebel! Again, how old were you? There will be follow up questions.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#763085 Jul 28, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Tacitus wrote about various mythic deities, and wrote much more about those deities than the mythic Jesus! >>>>> If that account really was about the Jesus, which is unclear because Tacitus used the term, "Chrestus", and that was tampered with. http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/Christian/Ch...
Josephus wrote about other deities more than the mythical Jesus! deity, as well. That account has been tampered with too.
At any rate, I don't think that if either Tacitus or Josephus wrote about the mythic Jesus!, neither of those accounts should be given more weight than any account they wrote about the other mythic deities of the era(S).
It's often asserted that their writings confirm the existence of the Jesus!, but they don't want extend that legitimacy to the other deities that Tacitus and Josephus put to ink.
Because, as we know, the assertion then goes something like:
"All of those other deities were fake!... But, the Jesus! was a really really real god..."
It is obvious that you have no clue as to what is required for something to be classified as a myth!

You must be a member of the short yellow bus club, huh?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#763086 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh...
You want to buy a house? You're on your own.
You want to buy a car? You're on your own.
You want to take a trip to Italy? You're on your own.
You want new sprinklers in your yard? Again, on your own.
You want to take a helicopter ride? You're on your own.
You want to have a baby that you can afford? Hey no problem, everyone else will pay for it.
Do you want babies born on the street?

Did Jesus preach human kindness?

Trick question....

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#763087 Jul 28, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Darwin
Not only did you not read that in context, you don't understand what you're reading. You're embarrassing yourself.

RR/Stilgar, see? If religion requires this kind of deceit and stupidity, it's a harmful system.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763088 Jul 28, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we sure are winning in our fight for God and his plan.
That is impossible for most here, so I just have to continue spreading the love and message of our Lord and Savior..
Nope, I do not lie.
Have a lovely, blessed day.:)
What's the plan? Can I get in in triplicate on my desk by Friday?

Lightbeamrider doesn't like it when women are spreading. It makes him uncomfortable in that special place. Till we meet again, half naked and swinging from trees.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#763089 Jul 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
You responded to only the first question then went off on a rant. You ok?
Yet you don't address her cogent points about Hitler burning Darwin and murdering those who dared speak of evolution. Weird, right?

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Buck Crick 49,028
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min Rosesz 646,729
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 23 min USA-1 38,759
Just HOW angry is Satan??? 28 min Truthiness 4
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 48 min RiccardoFire 44,704
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Brian_G 445,727
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 1 hr Brian_G 21
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr Annaleigh 105,636
I want to watch my wife flirt and get picked up... (Aug '12) Jun 26 Tboyslick125 151
More from around the web