# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Penn & Teller / The Bible

## Schifference



----------


## angelatc

Really?  And on Sunday morning even?

----------


## Terry1

These two foul-mouthed Jesus haters are as common as every day fermented dung that gets scraped off the bottom of shoes.  They're down there amongst the ranks of Sarah Silverman and the other [mod deleted] orthodox [mod deleted] who's comedy routines all center around their hatred for Yeshua/Jesus.  

All I have to say about these *fake Jesus hating [mod deleted] is this*---
*
Hebrews 10:30 
For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people*


*Revelation 2:9

9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.*


*Revelation 3:9
9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.*

Let them make their money and jokes now about the Lord---they don't have much longer before they'll know and understand just how ignorant they were and are about what lies ahead of them with regard to their eternal destinies.  They will-without a doubt--regret and on bended knee confess that Jesus is Lord like all of the other Jesus haters out there.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I thought it was not very well done.  For one, the approach will spark more animosity than conversation or self study.

I do agree that people who believe in it should actually read it for themselves, and not just the parts that they like.

There are several subjects within the bible that could have been used to bring things more to light, but they didn't research it enough for themselves, so they chose what they thought would be good arguments from things they have heard, rather than read it for themselves and piece together things from various places that make you go, "Huh?"

----------


## Terry1

This is just a very small fragment revealing the ignorance and depraved state of mankind.  They've got these so-called "doctors" with their PhD's giving their so-called "expert" opinions on something their retarded minds couldn't begin to understand because they live in their own world of lies and deception.  They don't have a clue and can't even tell you what sets the precedent for their own morality, but yet can tell you that God and the Bible is a myth.  Now what kind of brain dead person can do that?

These yahoo's don't live by the evidence and proof that exists all around them that no man can explain as to the source and origin of them, nor can they even use science itself as proof that can't explain themselves as to why they can't find a beginning or end to anything that exists.  Yet they can tell you that God is a myth and the Bible is fiction---hmm---seems to me that I wouldn't trust these guys with my tax return let alone their advice on God, the Bible and Jesus.

This is what deception does to people who don't believe God--they're literally blinded to common sense facts because they don't want to believe that there is a God or Jesus who holds them accountable in this life.  They're the liberals of the Bible.  They want to be free from accountability and  personal responsibility--yet they want to believe in the good fairy of more free crap at the expense of someone else and be sycophants to their gods of government and perfectly happy to eat the cake and drink the koolaid.

So to these so called "experts" claim that believers are nothing more than insecure paranoids hearing voices in their heads who need to believe in a higher power other than themselves.  Seems to me they're in the minority in that regard concerning religion and history too--yet a couple of knuckle draggin foul-mouthed comedians will tell you that God and the Bible are a myth.  Now see---there's the real humor in Penn and Teller---their own ignorance---now that is ironically amusing.

----------


## Origanalist

Right. Because I should take spiritual advice from a couple of Las Vegas showmen.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Right. Because I should take spiritual advice from a couple of Las Vegas showmen.


Sadly, a lot of people will.

----------


## juleswin

Another thing people should be very careful of is the editing of their interviews. If you think John Stewards interview with Peter Schiff misrepresented his views, just know that he learned how to do it from Penn and Teller BS. For all we know, they maybe answering very different questions from the one you heard on final edit.

----------


## Terry1

> Right. Because I should take spiritual advice from a couple of Las Vegas showmen.


Yeah, this is where these old dried up, stupid so-called comedians shoot themselves in the foot is when they attack the very principles near and dear to the majority of the population.  I hope they've made enough money to keep themselves afloat for the rest of their pointless lives, because they're too stupid to realize that they're putting themselves out of work with this kind of crap.  Even "sin city" Las Vegas will dump them if they keep this up and then where will they go and who will they be other than another homeless out of work comedian selling off their property and assets until they're so destitute they're the poor diseased remains left begging Hollywood for scraps like so many others.

----------


## Terry1

I just saw where Penn is a libertarian---now that's even more amusing because he attacks the rights of others to observe their belief because it offends him.  He's probably a member of those brain dead FFR (freedom from religion) nut cases who are hypocrites and traitors to their own cause.  That whole segment he did on the stone with the ten commandments on it is proof enough that this guy simply has issues with God and hates Him with a passion.

----------


## eduardo89

> I just saw where Penn is a libertarian


I'd say he's a Gary Johnson libertine more than a libertarian. More interested in smoking pot and hiring hookers than about true liberty.

----------


## Schifference

What little bit I know about Penn is that he has never done drugs or alcohol. 


> I'd say he's a Gary Johnson libertine more than a libertarian. More interested in smoking pot and hiring hookers than about true liberty.

----------


## Terry1

> What little bit I know about Penn is that he has never done drugs or alcohol.



I don't know why, he could only improve from where he's at now mentally from what I observed.  He's got Daddy issues if you ask me.  Any one who goes to that length to literally foul mouth God and those who believe in Him definitely has some serious issues other than anyone's right to observe their belief or any public display of it.  I could care less if a Muslim wants to display his flag or a Hindu wants to walk around with dots on their heads either.  Doesn't bother me in the least--just leave me alone and let me worship mine the same---that's what liberty and freedom is all about.  Not attacking others and their displays what they choose to believe.  

I have Hindu friends, Buddhist friends, Muslim friends and people I know and we are all friendly and kind to one another.  The kind of rotten foul display Penn and Teller put on is nothing short of just plain old sick, mean spirited attacks on someone else's belief.

And HA!!  Now it's confirmed because I just read Penn's bio in Wikipedia-- Anyone who truly values liberty and freedom does not attack religion to this extent.  This is just plain old hatred for God---nothing new here---carry on.

----------


## Voluntarist

> I just saw where Penn is a libertarian---now that's even more amusing because he attacks the rights of others to observe their belief because it offends him.


I've never seen either of them attack anyone's right to observe their beliefs. I have seen them ridicule those beliefs, but not the right to observe them.

----------


## Schifference

Stossel with Penn Jillette

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Sheesh.  I listened to ~5 mintues, and didn't bother with the rest.  There's clearly not much thought or reasearch put into this episode.  They used to do some decent shows.  I am disappoint.

----------


## Brett85

I'm not going to bother to watch this video after I watched his other video in the other thread.  Just an extremely hateful and arrogant person.

----------


## Schifference

The only knowledge I had of Penn or Teller was gained from this site. In the past I have seen Penn video posted on RPF regarding Pro Libertarian issues that were well received. In another thread today I saw a video posted of him debunking afterlife and I posted a video of him debunking conspiracies. I know there are many 9/11 truthers out there. I don't have an opinion on any of his stances. We have members here on RPF that come close to condemnation of other peoples religious beliefs. I do not condemn others for what they believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

I'm not going to waste my time watching this whole thing, but if anyone has any questions about something they talk about,  you can ask me and I will do my best to give you an answer.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> I just saw where Penn is a libertarian---now that's even more amusing because he attacks the rights of others to observe their belief because it offends him.  He's probably a member of those brain dead FFR (freedom from religion) nut cases who are hypocrites and traitors to their own cause.  That whole segment he did on the stone with the ten commandments on it is proof enough that this guy simply has issues with God and hates Him with a passion.


You know how us RPF people feel about sheeple that think the government is there to help them?
That is how us atheist feel about people that believe in god.
We get angry that you could possibly believe what they are selling you, as it is clearly a lie...

You are all sleeping, we are trying to wake you up.
When you refuse to wake up, we get confused as to how you can't see the lies, and we get angry.

Then I remember this, take a deep breath, and walk away leaving you to your dreamworld:

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know how us RPF people feel about sheeple that think the government is there to help them?
> That is how us atheist feel about people that believe in god.
> We get angry that you could possibly believe what they are selling you, as it is clearly a lie...
> You are all sleeping, we are trying to wake you up.
> When you refuse to wake up, we get confused as to how you can't see the lies, and we get angry.
> Then I remember this, take a deep breath, and walk away leaving you to your dreamworld:


Really?  That is exactly how I feel about the atheistic/Darwinistic public education system.  Really, that is how I feel about the State today. You atheist sheep are headed for a slaughter.   Too dumb to know that your worldview cannot sustain the moral ideas of freedom.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You know how us RPF people feel about sheeple that think the government is there to help them?
> That is how us atheist feel about people that believe in god.
> We get angry that you could possibly believe what they are selling you, as it is clearly a lie...
> 
> You are all sleeping, we are trying to wake you up.
> When you refuse to wake up, we get confused as to how you can't see the lies, and we get angry.
> 
> Then I remember this, take a deep breath, and walk away leaving you to your dreamworld:


TJ had some wise words on this you would be smart to keep in mind:



> But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.



 BTW, remember that for many self-proclaimed atheists, their religion is Statism.  It's very common, really, as atheism offers no coherent and logical system of morality/ethics. (To Mr Molyneux's credit, he has offered good criticism of "Statetheists")

----------


## Brett85

> You know how us RPF people feel about sheeple that think the government is there to help them?
> That is how us atheist feel about people that believe in god.


That's interesting, because it's atheists who usually replace God with the state.  Since they don't believe in God, there's only one entity left for them to worship, the state.  Those of us who are Christians who post in this subforum worship God, not the state.

----------


## Schifference

Please provide proof that atheists worship the state. 


> That's interesting, because it's atheists who usually replace God with the state.  Since they don't believe in God, there's only one entity left for them to worship, the state.  Those of us who are Christians who post in this subforum worship God, not the state.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Please provide proof that atheists worship the state.


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

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism


The site you linked to doesn't prove that atheists worship the State.  Try again.

----------


## Schifference

WHAT IS ATHEISM?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
I am not a statist. I no nothing of the website this link came from. I am not affiliated with any non religious organization.

----------


## Voluntarist

> Since they don't believe in God, there's only one entity left for them to worship, the state.


False dilemma fallacy.
I'm sure there are other alternatives available to worship if, indeed, atheists felt compelled to worship something. But, in general, atheists are not of the mindset to worship anything. 




> Those of us who are Christians who post in this subforum worship God, not the state.


Given that roughly 80% to 85% of the people in this country are deists in one form or another, I think it's probably safe to lay the blame for  American statism at their doorstep. Luckily, in this forum, we can celebrate the few who have chosen to break that deist norm.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The site you linked to doesn't prove that atheists worship the State.  Try again.


Sonny,

When God's eternal court is denied, man's temporal court becomes primary.  Man (and by necessary consequence) _man in the collective_ becomes the calling box for values.

Atheism calls the state into being.

----------


## pcosmar

> WHAT IS ATHEISM?


It is the belief that there is no God. A belief without any proof, the same as any other* Faith*.
And they often write and speak on the subjects (apologetic),  and attempt to convert others.

It is a religion.

----------


## angelatc

> You know how us RPF people feel about sheeple that think the government is there to help them?
> That is how us atheist feel about people that believe in god.
> We get angry that you could possibly believe what they are selling you, as it is clearly a lie...
> 
> Y


Leave people the hell alone.  Their faith doesn't hurt you one single bit.

----------


## angelatc

> It is the belief that there is no God. A belief without any proof, the same as any other* Faith*.
> And they often write and speak on the subjects (apologetic),  and attempt to convert others.
> 
> It is a religion.



DH and I were discussing the Christmas in schools nonsense, and both of us agreed that the Chirstmas tree should be accompanied on request by a menora, or whatever else the lesser Gods dictate.  

The athiests could put a mirror to celebrate.

----------


## LatinsforPaul

Penn is a libertarian and an atheist. He has the right to worship no God as I have the right to worship my God, Jesus Christ.

----------


## pcosmar

> Penn is a libertarian and an atheist. He has the right to worship no God as I have the right to worship my God, Jesus Christ.


Exactly so.
And though i have enjoyed his humor and discussions, I certainly don't agree with him 100%.

And why would I want an Atheists opinion on the bible? (something he obviously does not believe and likely never read)

----------


## Terry1

> You know how us RPF people feel about sheeple that think the government is there to help them?
> That is how us atheist feel about people that believe in god.
> We get angry that you could possibly believe what they are selling you, as it is clearly a lie...
> 
> You are all sleeping, we are trying to wake you up.
> When you refuse to wake up, we get confused as to how you can't see the lies, and we get angry.
> 
> Then I remember this, take a deep breath, and walk away leaving you to your dreamworld:



I have news for you--it's not religions that are the problem in this world because most of the oppressive tyrants and dictators of this world did not subscribe to religion, like Stalin an atheist, Saddam an atheist, Hitler an atheist, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Kim Jong Il, Than Shwe, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alfred Kinsey, Jeffrey Dahmer and many-many more.

Ruthless mass murderers, genocidal maniacs, sadists, cannibals, molesters of children and perverts without a moral compass to stop them from torturing, murdering and oppressing the people they rule over.  

Yes---like John the koolaid king Lennon---imagine there's no heaven, no hell, no countries and no religions too.  This is what you'll get by what's left--


Hitler
 

Stalin


And I'm sure you can come back with many mass murdered in the name of religion too, but in the end you still have to choose which of the two are the greater evil.  Everyone has to pick a side to stand on because those in the middle get trampled under foot who stand for nothing at all.

The only true liberty and equality anyone has in this life is given by the same God who created them--there is no other liberty because mankind on their own will tear each other apart otherwise.  The godless atheists will rip the skin from the bones of their prey like ravenous animals without a conscience or moral gage to stop them and why should they when they believe there's no reason to stop what they're doing.  They will take from you whatever they wish and leave you for dead without a second thought or a moment of hesitation because they don't have the mind of God in them--they are pure undiluted evil who will take what they want for nothing more than the pure pleasure of watching them suffer.  

What keeps an atheist moral then?  What sets the precedent for their morality?  The answer is chilling to the bone and frightening with regard to the truth that the only reason an atheist hasn't torn you apart yet is because they haven't been presented with a reason to---yet.

So then I have a question for you.  When all hell breaks loose and it's every man and woman for themselves in a case of life or death--you choose what type of mentality you'd rather have keeping your back, a person of God or one of your own--an atheist?

----------


## Voluntarist

> Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."


I had never heard those before ... they're excellent metaphors.

----------


## Terry1

Atheism is the religion of the more affluent of society usually or famous people.  They have no need to cry out for help unless they become ill to the point where their money can't buy them a healing or a cure.  They've never had to truly suffer and if they did--they ended up blaming God for it and then run around with license plates and bumper stickers cursing the name of God.

Yeah, like the Bill Maher's of this world, what a good example.  It's either that or they'll subscribe themselves to some cracker-jack sci-fi fictional religion that doesn't include a god at all because that's at the height of the chic and bold social fashion statement amongst the Hollyhood elites. LOL

Everyone has their own little god that they worship and adore.  Whether it's their money, careers, family, hobbies, political beliefs or whatever---everyone has their own religion whether they want to admit it or not.  So then, why not just get honest and tell us all what matters to you most in this life and I'll tell you that is what you worship too.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> False dilemma fallacy.
> I'm sure there are other alternatives available to worship if, indeed, atheists felt compelled to worship something. But, in general, atheists are not of the mindset to worship anything.


According to anthropology (historically a field dominated by agnostic/atheistic folks), man began practicing religion during the time of **** sapien neanderthal.  Religion has been an inherent part of man's life since then.  So,  you may not believe in a particular recognized religion, you are religious.  Everything you "know" to be true rests upon certain presuppositions which you can't explain for certain.  The more you learn about epistemeology, the more you see that everyone has what could be called "religious" beliefs and presuppositions.  It's pretty interesting stuff.

----------


## Cabal

> Leave people the hell alone.  Their faith doesn't hurt you one single bit.


Are you kidding? Faith, particularly that of the organized persuasion, has been among the greatest contributing factors to all sorts of social and historical conflicts, or at the very least it has been used to galvanize and catalyze such conflicts. Why? Because faith tends to define supposed ideas of morality, and righteousness--the faithful view themselves as the good, and those who are not of their faith as evil, or bad. And the struggle, real or imagined, of good vs. evil is ever-present in the history of war, law, social norms, and so on. So this notion that faith doesn't hurt anyone is not so simple.

Now, if those of different faiths could live out there lives without trying to judge or force their faith, and that which extends from it, on others, that would be most ideal, and would make your statement very true. But quite consistently often, this is not the case.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *According to anthropology (historically a field dominated by agnostic/atheistic folks), man began practicing religion during the time of **** sapien neanderthal.  Religion has been an inherent part of man's life since then.  So,  you may not believe in a particular recognized religion, you are religious.*  Everything you "know" to be true rests upon certain presuppositions which you can't explain for certain.  The more you learn about epistemeology, the more you see that everyone has what could be called "religious" beliefs and presuppositions.  It's pretty interesting stuff.


Why do you begin with atheistic presuppositions in order to defend "theism"?

This is the exact WRONG way to defend Christianity.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Why do you begin with atheistic presuppositions in order to defend "theism"?*
> 
> This is the exact WRONG way to defend Christianity.


I wasn't.  I was trying to show him that even by his standard of "truth", he is incorrect.  Sorry I was unclear.  It is sometimes useful in debate to grant one's opponent's presuppositions and then go on to show why it is still wrong-no matter what subject is at hand.  ~hugs~

----------


## Christian Liberty

Religion has never killed anyone.  Religious people occasionally do.  But the VAST majority of human killing is done by the STATE.  Belief in STATISM leads to mass murder and death far more so than Christianity, Islam, or anything else.

----------


## Schifference

All the killing done by the United States was that in the name of Statism? 


> Religion has never killed anyone.  Religious people occasionally do.  But the VAST majority of human killing is done by the STATE.  Belief in STATISM leads to mass murder and death far more so than Christianity, Islam, or anything else.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> All the killing done by the United States was that in the name of Statism?


Ummm.... YES!

----------


## Schifference

Do most US citizens believe in God? 


> Ummm.... YES!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

FF is right on this one^^

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do most US citizens believe in God?


It doesn't matter.  The regime doesn't.  Besides, this reasoning from parts to whole you're trying to do is not at all sound logic.

----------


## Schifference

Does this statement fall within usage guidelines?? Can you prove that statement? Are you insinuating that most everyone believes in God but those that run the country do not? Can you prove this?



> It doesn't matter.  The regime doesn't.  Besides, this reasoning from parts to whole you're trying to do is not at all sound logic.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do most US citizens believe in God?


I'd say most US citizens revere Gov to a greater degree than they revere God.

Even when killing in the US is done in the name of religion ("Supporting Israel" or whatever) it ultimately comes from a belief in statism.  Few, if any, of those people would go commit murder themselves.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does this statement fall within usage guidelines?? Can you prove that statement? Are you insinuating that most everyone believes in God but those that run the country do not? Can you prove this?


If you check your rep thread, you'll see that I defended your right to call religious people ignorant or whatever.  Stop playing forum cop.  We can tell by the fruits of those that run the regime that they don't believe in God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

WRT: Atheism as a religion: atheism is a religion because it requires FAITH in order to be asserted.

2 + 2 = 4 is a  factual claim that can be proven.  "There is no God" is not.  It takes faith to believe it, it is religious.  It must be presupposed.

----------


## Schifference

I did notice your support and thank you for it! Please excuse the policing part and get to the root that we have a mostly Godly country that is Statist. 


> If you check your rep thread, you'll see that I defended your right to call religious people ignorant or whatever.  Stop playing forum cop.  We can tell by the fruits of those that run the regime that they don't believe in God.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I did notice your support and thank you for it! Please excuse the policing part and get to the root that we have a mostly Godly country that is Statist.


I'd question the assertion that America is "mostly Godly."  They might not be hardcore atheists, but do you really think their devotion to whatever God they claim to believe in outweighs their devotion to the State?

In my experience, those who actually are serious about their relationships with God are at least open to libertarian ideas.  The desire to control may exist, but I've never seen it to half the extent that I've gotten from anti-religious socialists in college.  They generally know that at least some government policies (ie. state protected abortion) are inherently wrong.  They're usually at least sympathetic to the anti-war viewpoints.  I honestly question whether the hardcore warmongering Christians have ever really been regenerated, and I do wonder if I was really regenerated before I realized that at least some of that stuff was screwed up.  But, that's neither here nor there.  

There are always varying things competing for rule over a person's life.  God and Gov cannot both be at the top.  And even if there are people who are serious about a higher power that also believe in murder, they usually believe in murder by government.  So  it still ultimately comes back to a belief in the State.  Find me a Christian anarchist (or even any other religion anarchist) who is responsible for mass murder and I may acknowledge the point.

----------


## Schifference

I appreciate your view. The reason we are discussing this is because someone stated that Atheists are Statists. Professed atheists or agnostics make up a minute portion of society. 


> I'd question the assertion that America is "mostly Godly."  They might not be hardcore atheists, but do you really think their devotion to whatever God they claim to believe in outweighs their devotion to the State?
> 
> In my experience, those who actually are serious about their relationships with God are at least open to libertarian ideas.  The desire to control may exist, but I've never seen it to half the extent that I've gotten from anti-religious socialists in college.  They generally know that at least some government policies (ie. state protected abortion) are inherently wrong.  They're usually at least sympathetic to the anti-war viewpoints.  I honestly question whether the hardcore warmongering Christians have ever really been regenerated, and I do wonder if I was really regenerated before I realized that at least some of that stuff was screwed up.  But, that's neither here nor there.  
> 
> There are always varying things competing for rule over a person's life.  God and Gov cannot both be at the top.  And even if there are people who are serious about a higher power that also believe in murder, they usually believe in murder by government.  So  it still ultimately comes back to a belief in the State.  Find me a Christian anarchist (or even any other religion anarchist) who is responsible for mass murder and I may acknowledge the point.

----------


## juleswin

> I appreciate your view. The reason we are discussing this is because someone stated that Atheists are Statists. Professed atheists or agnostics make up a minute portion of society.


On youtube, the hardcore atheists are the most statist people you'll find on youtube. It would seem like atheist have at least abandoned one belief in authority but I think they most of the time just swapped it for a bigger devotion to the state. 

Look at people like Aronra and Thunderf00t and you'll understand what I mean. For me, just as long as you keep your beliefs to yourself, you will get no complaint from me

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I appreciate your view. The reason we are discussing this is because someone stated that Atheists are Statists. Professed atheists or agnostics make up a minute portion of society.


I agree that its possible to be an atheist and not be a statist.  But I think atheism logically leads to statism.  Biblically, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and 1 Samuel 8 refute the idea of the State.  Atheism provides no good reason for the State's actions, no matter how heinous, to actually be wrong.

----------


## Terry1

> Does this statement fall within usage guidelines?? Can you prove that statement? Are you insinuating that most everyone believes in God but those that run the country do not? Can you prove this?



*Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with around 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012*

Wiki demographics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi..._United_States

----------


## Schifference

As mentioned earlier I don't know that much about Penn Jellette but from what little I know he doesn't seem to be a statist. 


> On youtube, the hardcore atheists are the most statist people you'll find on youtube. It would seem like atheist have at least abandoned one belief in authority but I think they most of the time just swapped it for a bigger devotion to the state. 
> 
> Look at people like Aronra and Thunderf00t and you'll understand what I mean. For me, just as long as you keep your beliefs to yourself, you will get no complaint from me

----------


## Sola_Fide

> All the killing done by the United States was that in the name of Statism?


Of course.  You questioned this?  Why?

----------


## Schifference

This is a good debate here do these guy's seem like statists to you? 




> I agree that its possible to be an atheist and not be a statist.  But I think atheism logically leads to statism.  Biblically, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and 1 Samuel 8 refute the idea of the State.  Atheism provides no good reason for the State's actions, no matter how heinous, to actually be wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is a good debate here do these guy's seem like statists to you?


You need to stop looking at debates between Roman Catholics and atheists.   They are both condemned unbelievers.

----------


## Schifference

I don't think anyone in this debate is Roman Catholic. Are you now on the record stating that Roman Catholics are not Christians? 


> You need to stop looking at debates between Roman Catholics and atheists.   They are both condemned unbelievers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you now on the record stating that Roman Catholics are not Christians?


Yes.

----------


## Terry1

> This is a good debate here do these guy's seem like statists to you?


You've obviously got an axe to grind with God.  Where's your opinion on Buddha, Shiva, Muhammad, Horus or Isis?  Why does the Christian God annoy you so much?  See, this is where I have real issues with those who call themselves "atheists".  How hypocritical is it to single out one god from another or are you fishing for the worst god of all gods to go after.  

Some of you claim to "hate religion" as a whole, but then most of you always focus on Christians and the Christian God.  Who am I debating here--a 16 year old?  That certainly would explain a lot.

Unless you're a demon or something who knows who the one true God is--why aren't you then attacking all gods at the same time?  Only satan and his demons hate God as much as you've displayed here.  Are you possessed?  You wouldn't know that if you were would you.

----------


## Schifference

> You've obviously got an axe to grind with God.  Where's your opinion on Buddha, Shiva, Muhammad, Horus or Isis?  Why does the Christian God annoy you so much?  See, this is where I have real issues with those who call themselves "atheists".  How hypocritical is it to single out one god from another or are you fishing for the worst god of all gods to go after.  
> 
> Some of you claim to "hate religion" as a whole, but then most of you always focus on Christians and the Christian God.  Who am I debating here--a 16 year old?  That certainly would explain a lot.


I do not believe in any god or religion. I have never classified myself as an atheist. I actually studied theology at one point in my life. I am honest and cannot pretend to believe and pray to an entity that I do not believe exists. I have no axe to grind. I view this forum often and many posts are of a religious nature. I am not religious and have as much passion regarding my non-belief as others do that believe. Please note that I started this thread and am not infusing my beliefs on other peoples religious thread.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Unless you're a demon or something who knows who the one true God is--why aren't you then attacking all gods at the same time?


  The demons in the book of James only know that God is one.  That's it.

----------


## Dr.3D

//

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The demons in the book of James only know that God is one.  That's it.


I'm pretty sure the demons are aware that the entire Bible is true, not "Just"  that God is One.  They refuse to subject themselves to the Bible, however.




> Yes.


Wow, that was an easy one.  I know a LOT of Christians who would agree with that one.  Heck, my parents would have held to that one when they were still Arminians.  That's seriously a common evangelical belief.  Stop acting so surprised, people.

----------


## Terry1

> Since the OP declares his beliefs to be non religious, maybe this thread should be moved out of the Religion Forum.


Good idea.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Good idea.


I dunno... where else is a person who wants to argue against the existence something he doesn't believe exists, go, except to where he can be sure somebody is sure to argue for the existence of that one something he doesn't believe exists? 

Maybe this thread is correctly located after all.

Is this thread about creating an argument or is it just supposed to be informative?

----------


## Terry1

> I dunno... where else is a person who wants to argue against the existence something he doesn't believe exists, go, except to where he can be sure somebody is sure to argue for the existence of that one something he doesn't believe exists? 
> 
> Maybe this thread is correctly located after all.
> 
> Is this thread about creating an argument or is it just supposed to be informative?


Maybe he wants someone to prove he's wrong.  I have no idea, but anyone who claims to hate religion to this extent but only attacks the Christian God and no others sends up red flags in my mind as to what he's actually hoping to accomplish with threads like these.  Did you see Penn and Teller attacking the god of Shiva or Buddah in that video?  Nope--only the Christian God.

----------


## Schifference

This thread is an information thread. If there is no God or gods or if you are in the wrong denomination is a believer any better off than a non-believer? 


> I dunno... where else is a person who wants to argue against the existence something he doesn't believe exists, go, except to where he can be sure somebody is sure to argue for the existence of that one something he doesn't believe exists? 
> 
> Maybe this thread is correctly located after all.
> 
> Is this thread about creating an argument or is it just supposed to be informative?

----------


## Dr.3D

> This thread is an information thread. If there is no God or gods or if you are in the wrong denomination is a believer any better off than a non-believer?


I can't answer that one for you, because the answer would be determined by the judgement of a being you don't believe in.  Myself I suspect god is no respecter of denomination and it wouldn't matter.

----------


## Schifference

I don't know the process to view another members started threads or posts but I am confident if you did you would see that I am not a believer in any God or gods. I disagree with all religions.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Their-Religion

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ty-Without-God

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...sands-of-years

----------


## Terry1

> I do not believe in any god or religion. I have never classified myself as an atheist. I actually studied theology at one point in my life. I am honest and cannot pretend to believe and pray to an entity that I do not believe exists. I have no axe to grind. I view this forum often and many posts are of a religious nature. I am not religious and have as much passion regarding my non-belief as others do that believe. Please note that I started this thread and am not infusing my beliefs on other peoples religious thread.


So what's up with posting that filthy foul video in this forum then cursing the Christian God?   Is it because most of us here are Christians or just because you've got a special axe to grind with this one particular God you don't like?   Did something bad happen in your life you've blamed God for because that's usually the case.  

And please don't tell me religion has been root of evil in this world, it's the atheists who have committed most of the genocide and mass murders in this worlds history---not religion.  Don't watch Bill Maher because he's the devil's idiot ho.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I don't know the process to view another members started threads or posts but I am confident if you did you would see that I am not a believer in any God or gods. I disagree with all religions.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Their-Religion
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ty-Without-God
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...sands-of-years


I'm pretty sure most here would agree that you have made it abundantly clear that you don't believe in God.

----------


## Terry1

> I can't answer that one for you, because the answer would be determined by the judgement of a being you don't believe in.  Myself I suspect god is no respecter of denomination and it wouldn't matter.


You'd be right too.  He's the God of the people and those who walk in His ways no matter where they are or what church they attend.  His people are everywhere scattered from one end of the earth to the other.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I'm pretty sure the demons are aware that the entire Bible is true, not "Just"  that God is One.  They refuse to subject themselves to the Bible, however.


Exactly.  And Satanists believe in the God of the Bible but refuse to subject themselves to the God they know is there.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't know the process to view another members started threads or posts but I am confident if you did you would see that I am not a believer in any God or gods. I disagree with all religions.
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Their-Religion
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ty-Without-God
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...sands-of-years


Here I found something interesting that you wrote in one of those threads:




> Quote Originally Posted by Schifference  
> 
> From past personal experience whenever someone opens a New Thread in regards to a non belief in religion it gets loaded with posts from Christians. In the past I have been told that I cannot know good or right from wrong if I do not know god. I find those comments offensive. I have posted threads regarding not believing in god under philosophy or whatever the category and they were moved to religion. Currently there is a thread regarding an atheist church. What is wrong with that concept? People get together to share values and receive the same tax exempt status as other organized religions. If that thread was started with the intent to ridicule the non believer then I would have to question the motive. Why do christians feel the need to take over every thread that is not christian? There are many religious organizations and many beliefs. It is impossible that they are all correct. Somebody is wrong. If Jehovah Witness's are wrong or Seventh Day Adventists or Jews or Muslims are wrong and you respect them, why is it so hard to accept & respect those that do not believe in any of those beliefs? To state that a non believer cannot be a good person is totally absurd. To smear a non christian thread with christianity seems like a derailment of the thread. 
>  Peace


For one thing "atheist-church" is an oxymoron.  It's the devil's mockery of God in reverse morality.  The word "church origin is:
Church=Origin

Old English cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon (dōma ) Lord's (house), from kurios master or lord.  

Secondly, "Christians" don't "take over" threads.  They have as much right to post their opinion with regard to the OP as they wish or should be allowed anyway.

Thirdly, It's not that atheist can't be good people when they want to be, there's just no morality there that sets a precedent or reason for them to remain that way should they become vindictive or want to take revenge on someone---there's nothing there to restrain them from as in a conscience that tells them why that would be a bad thing to do.  Atheists don't have this because "morality" is relative to them and not a set rule of precedent.

----------


## Schifference

Prove that Atheists have no morality. 



> Thirdly, It's not that atheist can't be good people when they want to be, there's just no morality there that sets a precedent or reason for them to remain that way should they become vindictive or want to take revenge on someone---there's nothing there to restrain them from as in a conscience that tells them why that would be a bad thing to do.  Atheists don't have this because "morality" is relative to them and not a set rule of precedent.

----------


## Terry1

> Prove that Atheists have no morality.


Why would an atheist want to do good when they know by doing evil they'll go much further and faster with regard to gaining power and success?

----------


## Schifference

I have no desire for power or success. 


> Why would an atheist want to good when they know by doing evil they'll go much further and faster with regard to gaining power and success?

----------


## Terry1

> I have no desire for power or success.


That doesn't answer the question.

----------


## Schifference

Prove an atheist has no morality. Other day was snowing bad roads were bad big mess. Truck on busy 5 or 6 lane road 2-3 each direction with their hood up. I stop and help them. Do I have to be Godly to do help someone? 


> That doesn't answer the question.

----------


## fisharmor

Preface:  I think Bull$#@!! is an otherwise brilliant show.  That said....

I was going to offer you a +rep for getting annihilated, but Paul Meier is not the go-to guy for anyone who is serious about apologetics.  I personally witnessed him tell a room full of people that there's no serious doubt that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.  If Penn and Teller were seriously exploring the topic, they might have asked a man of the cloth or two, not an ancient historian whose body of work consists mostly of novels, for crying out loud.

Their other shows are pretty good for a laugh, but even a cursory examination of this one points to not even seriously executed chicanery on Penn & Teller's part.  This one in particular drives the point home that they are foremost entertainers.  In this episode, it's really quite easy to see which cup the ball is under.

----------


## Terry1

> Prove an atheist has no morality. Other day was snowing bad roads were bad big mess. Truck on busy 5 or 6 lane road 2-3 each direction with their hood up. I stop and help them. Do I have to be Godly to do help someone?


This still doesn't answer the question.

----------


## Schifference

You never answered my question. 


> This still doesn't answer the question.

----------


## eduardo89

> Do I have to be Godly to do help someone?


No, but without an objective morality you can never understand *why* what you did was good.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> WRT: Atheism as a religion: atheism is a religion because it requires FAITH in order to be asserted.
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 is a  factual claim that can be proven.  "There is no God" is not.  It takes faith to believe it, it is religious.  It must be presupposed.


I think the term Non-Theist is more apt.  I think many people under the Atheist banner are essentially Non-Theist or Not Followers of God(s).  The idea of a God is just not important to them.  

Atheism is mostly used because it's more widely used in public discussion.  It's really almost a semantics thing.

----------


## Miss Annie

....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think the term Non-Theist is more apt.  I think many people under the Atheist banner are essentially Non-Theist or Not Followers of God(s).  The idea of a God is just not important to them.  
> 
> Atheism is mostly used because it's more widely used in public discussion.  It's really almost a semantics thing.


An irrelevant distinction.  You live your life based on the presupposition that God is not real, and I live  my life based on the presupposition that he is real.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> WRT: Atheism as a religion: atheism is a religion because it requires FAITH in order to be asserted.
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 is a  factual claim that can be proven.  "There is no God" is not.  It takes faith to believe it, it is religious.  It must be presupposed.


If you want to claim there is a god, then the burden of proof is on you. 
I don't need proof to claim god doesn't exist, nothing exists until is proven to, welcome to science, prove it or its fairy-tale.

I don't have "faith" that their is no god...
I am saying I will not believe a god exists until there is concrete proof, which would require a in god in person to study.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you want to claim there is a god, then the burden of proof is on you. 
> I don't need proof to claim god doesn't exist, nothing exists until is proven to, welcome to science, prove it or its fairy-tale.
> 
> I don't have "faith" that their is no god...
> I am saying I will not believe a god exists until there is concrete proof, *which would require a in god in person to study.*


Read the gospels.  Two of them (Matthew + John) were written by people who actually met God in the flesh.  The other two were written by people who met those who had seen God in the flesh.  

At any rate, "science" is more often than not a fairy tale anyway.  Its presuppositions can't actually be proved.  I don't need to prove God because Romans 1 says you already know he exists.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Sheesh.  I listened to ~5 mintues, and didn't bother with the rest.  There's clearly not much thought or research put into this episode.  They used to do some decent shows.  I am disappoint.


This episode was from season 2.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> An irrelevant distinction.  You live your life based on the presupposition that God is not real, and I live  my life based on the presupposition that he is real.


I think fervent Atheists are really involved in the idea of God by arguing and challenging it.

I think Non-Theists  essentially have Religious Apathy.  IMO they find the concept basically uninteresting compared to their Immediate Material World Experience.  Mention God to them, they might ask for a description.  God seems to be typically describing as trancendent or beyond space and time.  Something so far out of human experience as to be virtually non-existent to them.  

Can't measure this God. Can't weigh this God.  Can't see this God.  Can't touch this God.  We live in a material reality dealing material things.  Non-Theists lack much interest in the idea of immaterial things or beings.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> Read the gospels.  Two of them (Matthew + John) were written by people who actually met God in the flesh.  The other two were written by people who met those who had seen God in the flesh.  
> 
> At any rate, "science" is more often than not a fairy tale anyway.  Its presuppositions can't actually be proved.  I don't need to prove God because Romans 1 says you already know he exists.


Sorry, 2000 year old "eye witness" testimony is not proof.
To me the bible is a collection of fictional stories. 

Science is often wrong.
The difference between science and religion is that when science is proven wrong, it admits its and moves forward.
Religion denies it, even when it is clearly wrong to a majority, and then burns you at the stake for it as a hieratic.

----------


## Czolgosz

A book.  Written by Man.  Yikes.

----------


## Terry1

> Preface:  I think Bull$#@!! is an otherwise brilliant show.  That said....
> 
> I was going to offer you a +rep for getting annihilated, but Paul Meier is not the go-to guy for anyone who is serious about apologetics.  I personally witnessed him tell a room full of people that there's no serious doubt that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.  If Penn and Teller were seriously exploring the topic, they might have asked a man of the cloth or two, not an ancient historian whose body of work consists mostly of novels, for crying out loud.
> 
> Their other shows are pretty good for a laugh, but even a cursory examination of this one points to not even seriously executed chicanery on Penn & Teller's part.  This one in particular drives the point home that they are foremost entertainers.  In this episode, it's really quite easy to see which cup the ball is under.


Read Penn's wiki bio here, it's actually very sad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

Jillette is an atheist, libertarian (he has stated that he may consider himself to be an anarcho-capitalist),[24] and skeptic, as well as an adherent to Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, as stated on his Penn Says podcast. Jillette is a Fellow at the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, and has stated that he "always" votes Libertarian.[25] In January 2007, Jillette took the "Blasphemy Challenge" offered by the Rational Response Squad and publicly denied the existence of a holy spirit.[26] His cars' license plates read "atheist", "nogod", and "godless".[27] "Strangely enough, they wouldn't give me 'Infidel,'" he says.[27]

In 2005 he wrote and read an essay for National Public Radio claiming that he was "beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God  ... I believe there is no God."[28] His atheism, he has explained, has informed every aspect of his life and thoughts, and as such is as crucial to him as theistic beliefs are to the devout. Jillette welcomes and even encourages open discussion, debate, and proselytizing on the issue of God's existence, believing that the issue is too important for opinions about it to remain private. Jillette does not, however, dismiss all who do believe in God: A 2008 edition of his Penn Says podcast expresses his appreciation for a fan who brought him the gift of a pocket Gideon Bible after a performance because he realized that this individual sincerely cared enough about him to try to help him.[29]

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Sorry, 2000 year old "eye witness" testimony is not proof.
> To me the bible is a collection of fictional stories. 
> 
> Science is often wrong.
> The difference between science and religion is that when science is proven wrong, it admits its and moves forward.
> Religion denies it, even when it is clearly wrong to a majority, and then burns you at the stake for it as a hieratic.


I agree completely but may have explained it a little more thoroughly. Here...this may save me some typing.

It's brilliant. And spot on. As well, it's a position that I hold and the single reason that I kind of take issue with the specificity of Bryan's rule about "respecting" people's religion because it gets to the point that the terms of controversy are pre-defined and we are forced to accept the premise of man's infantile need for centrality that is exaggrated into context by religion. Not that I want to disrespect them because I don't want to do that but just the methodology used in saying that I have to "respect" it because it justifies accepting and defaulting to so much that is wrong _with_ it. I'll be giving a lecture in a week or so and really want to spend some time with the phenomenon. Well...not a lecture, per se. I suppose you could say that I'll be a speaker or a contributor. Maybe that's a better word. Your post just reminded me of it.

Annie Druyan answers a person of faith on the unknown...

Skip to 3:50




And, of course, I'm reminded of Arizona's recent vote where State senators voted to let businesses refuse to serve people based on owners' "sincerely held" religious beliefs. While this solicits a case for discrimination against society as a whole and their freedom to participate in the market by the hand of people who do so premised upon their own personal faith, it is being sold as preventing discrimination against those very people who claim to be doing so in a manner that aligns with living out their faith. And so in that regard, I really do agree with Annie (in the video) when she mentions humility in context /comparison with science and religion as well as the destructive nature of it to society when it is given the podium and the undeserved right to definine and dictate the terms of controversy.

----------


## brandon

> Then I remember this, take a deep breath, and walk away leaving you to your dreamworld:


Ironic misunderstanding of what average means(this is unintentional I swear)

----------


## fisharmor

> Jillette welcomes and even encourages open discussion, debate, and proselytizing on the issue of God's existence, believing that the issue is too important for opinions about it to remain private.


I'm aware of Jillette's hostility - indeed there's no other way to describe it.  He absolutely does *NOT* encourage open discussion and debate, and this show is proof.  In the matter of Biblical truth, Meier amounts to a ringer for Jillette.

Jillette assures his audience that they disclosed who they are and what they're doing prior to interviewing everyone featured on Bull$#@!!.  Dr. Meier personally assured me at the conference I mentioned above that he had no idea who they were nor what they were up to.  If they do disclose their nature and intent to interviewees, it is buried in fine print.

_And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light,lest his works should be exposed.But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”_

----------


## fisharmor

> 


And her point was already preemptively countered back in post 35.
Without man's centrality in the universe, each man loses his inherent value.
If there is one thing that the last 100 years has made blatantly obvious, it is that once that threshold is crossed, once you stop believing in the inherent value of human beings, the mass graves open up.

I realize that religion has some enormities under its collective belt.
I also realize that the numbers are simply not on this woman's side.  Whichever of religions' crimes she can point to, it still pales in comparison to even the comparatively minor crimes of the atheist state in the 20th century.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't need proof to claim god doesn't exist, nothing exists until is proven to, welcome to science, prove it or its fairy-tale.


Sure you do. If you make the claim, and you don't have any reason for believing it, then you're the one believing a fairy tale. There's nothing scientific about doing that.

----------


## erowe1

> Sorry, 2000 year old "eye witness" testimony is not proof.
> To me the bible is a collection of fictional stories.


You just threw out all of history.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> And her point was already preemptively countered back in post 35.


No, it wasn't. Simply because that was _not_ her point in this discussion that I shared. If anything it was an aside kind of thing that Annie brought up. This is one of the biggest problems that I have with religion. It seeks to define "the point" waaaay too much. And it does so by way of relegating scope to it's own limitations. As was said, it assumes that it already has all of the answers and so no more questions are required or welcomed and what is accepted is what defines debate.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Morality exists among atheists for the same reason that it exists among any social animal.  To thrive, we must function as a part of a social group.  Violating the rights of others in your social group risks at best retaliation, and at worst excommunication.  No social animal, whether man, wolf, crow, starling, dolphin, orca, seal, etc wants to be banished from the social group.  Thus, they avoid violence against members of their social group.  Of course, most of the violence of the world has been from one social group fighting another social group.  A Christian not recognizing a Muslim as part of his social group, and vice versa is a lack of morality towards the species as a whole.  One nation not recognizing another nation as part of their social group.  As an Atheist, I recognize the entire species, _**** Sapiens_, as part of my social group, and thus I should not violate any member of that social group.  That is the source of non-theistic morality.

The Judeo/Christian perception of God allows that only members of God's chosen church are members of the social group.  That is why it's okay to genocide Canaans, or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists.  I find that kind of morality to be despicable.  Believers in a god that actively participates in violating the rights of others lack morality.

----------


## erowe1

> Morality exists among atheists for the same reason that it exists among any social animal.  To thrive, we must function as a part of a social group.  Violating the rights of others in your social group risks at best retaliation, and at worst excommunication.  No social animal, whether man, wolf, crow, starling, dolphin, orca, seal, etc wants to be banished from the social group.  Thus, they avoid violence against members of their social group.  Of course, most of the violence of the world has been from one social group fighting another social group.  A Christian not recognizing a Muslim as part of his social group, and vice versa is a lack of morality towards the species as a whole.  One nation not recognizing another nation as part of their social group.  As an Atheist, I recognize the entire species, _**** Sapiens_, as part of my social group, and thus I should not violate any member of that social group.  That is the source of non-theistic morality.


None of that means that morality, as in a transcendent moral law, exists.

I agree that morality does exist, and that it exists for atheists as much as anyone else. But it wouldn't if there were no God.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> None of that means that morality, as in a transcendent moral law, exists.
> 
> I agree that morality does exist, and that it exists for atheists as much as anyone else. But it wouldn't if there were no God.


Evolution of social species is what creates morality, not god.  Non-social animals have no morality.  I present the raccoon as a perfect example.  Here we go with the Evolution vs Creation debate.

----------


## pcosmar

> Non-social animals have no morality.  I present the raccoon as* a perfect example*.


Of what?

I sometimes think that animals may be closer to God than us. They live life by the rules that God gave them,, and accept both good and bad with a grace that I wish I could match.

----------


## erowe1

> Evolution of social species is what creates morality, not god.  Non-social animals have no morality.  I present the raccoon as a perfect example.  Here we go with the Evolution vs Creation debate.


Morality, if it really exists, consists of transcendent moral laws that do not depend on being believed or followed by anyone human or animal for them to be true. These transcendent moral laws can't be the result of evolution. Even if the behavior that you wish to call "moral" came about by evolution, the laws that determine that it's moral can't.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I don't really see anything special about 'Transcendent' morality.  I'm interested in results I can see here on Earth.  People organizing systems of Laws or Ethics that lead to a better society.  

It doesn't seem like a supposedly 'Transcendent' morality is anymore effective at this, unless you take some small comfort that God will punish them when they die. I'd rather we not wait for God to do something.  We're here and we should deal with our problems ourselves.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't really see anything special about 'Transcendent' morality.  I'm interested in results I can see here on Earth.  People organizing systems of Laws or Ethics that lead to a *better* society.  
> 
> It doesn't seem like a supposedly 'Transcendent' morality is anymore effective at this, unless you take some small comfort that God will punish them when they die. I'd rather we not wait for God to do something.  We're here and we should deal with our problems ourselves.


"Better" according to what standard?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Morality exists among atheists for the same reason that it exists among any social animal.  To thrive, we must function as a part of a social group.  Violating the rights of others in your social group risks at best retaliation, and at worst excommunication.  No social animal, whether man, wolf, crow, starling, dolphin, orca, seal, etc wants to be banished from the social group.  Thus, they avoid violence against members of their social group.  Of course, most of the violence of the world has been from one social group fighting another social group.  A Christian not recognizing a Muslim as part of his social group, and vice versa is a lack of morality towards the species as a whole.  One nation not recognizing another nation as part of their social group.  As an Atheist, I recognize the entire species, _**** Sapiens_, as part of my social group, and thus I should not violate any member of that social group.  That is the source of non-theistic morality.


The State claims to be our protector and that it has the right  to control us for "the common good".  They  are powerful enough to avoid any serious risk of retaliation for doing so.  Why are they wrong?




> The Judeo/Christian perception of God allows that only members of God's chosen church are members of the social group.  *That is why it's okay to genocide Canaans, or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists.*  I find that kind of morality to be despicable.  Believers in a god that actively participates in violating the rights of others lack morality.


I agree that the morality that you describe is despicable.  But that's not what Christians believe.  Murder is wrong, period.

----------


## Cabal

> An irrelevant distinction.  You live your life based on the presupposition that God is not real, and I live  my life based on the presupposition that he is real.


I prefer to avoid presupposition wherever possible, personally.

----------


## erowe1

> I prefer to avoid presupposition wherever possible, personally.


That's logically impossible. You can't avoid your presuppositions. You might ignore them. But ignoring them would make you less, not more, likely to have true beliefs.

----------


## erowe1

> An irrelevant distinction.  You live your life based on the presupposition that God is not real, and I live  my life based on the presupposition that he is real.


I doubt that anybody's life is based on the presupposition that God is not real. What atheists do is base their lives on the presupposition that God is real, and then when they have the epistemological tools they need to function just deny that God is underneath those.

----------


## Cabal

> That's logically impossible. You can't avoid your presuppositions. You might ignore them. But ignoring them would make you less, not more, likely to ave true beliefs.


Sure you can. It's easy. Don't presume to know that there is or is not a god. See? Simple.

----------


## erowe1

> Sure you can. It's easy. Don't presume to know that there is or is not a god. See? Simple.


So you just meant that you prefer to avoid that particular presupposition? And not presuppositions in general?

----------


## Cabal

> So you just meant that you prefer to avoid that particular presupposition? And not presuppositions in general?


I meant exactly what I typed--wherever possible. That was merely a relevant and applicable example. Whether or not there is a god, or something that might qualify as a some form of a god, I cannot know and do not proclaim to know, not for myself, and certainly not for anyone else--too much hubris for my tastes. Moreover, it is rather irrelevant. If a god does not exist, then nothing about my life is affected. If a god does exist, it is clearly no more concerned with me than I with it, and thus nothing about my life is affected until such a time as it is affected, when and if that time ever comes to pass. Similarly, I don't presume to know whether or not aliens exist. There's no evidence or proof to inform me one way or the other, even if there may be a good argument to be made for their existence or non-existence, it would be entirely arrogant and presumptuous for me to have faith in their existence, or non-existence, based on nothing more than what I might consider a good argument. Further still it would be exponentially more arrogant and presumptuous for me to then go on to continue ascribing meaning, and purpose, and interpretation to these aliens that I only assume to exist, and then argue and contend that my presumptions on these supposed aliens are the sole and only possible truth for which there is no denial or alternative. Like I said, not a big fan of hubris.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I meant exactly what I typed--wherever possible. That was merely a relevant and applicable example. Whether or not there is a god, or something that might qualify as a some form of a god, I cannot know and do not proclaim to know, not for myself, and certainly not for anyone else--too much hubris for my tastes. Moreover, it is rather irrelevant.


Perfect.

----------


## erowe1

> I meant exactly what I typed--wherever possible. That was merely a relevant and applicable example. Whether or not there is a god, or something that might qualify as a some form of a god, I cannot know and do not proclaim to know, not for myself, and certainly not for anyone else--too much hubris for my tastes. Moreover, it is rather irrelevant. If a god does not exist, then nothing about my life is affected. If a god does exist, it is clearly no more concerned with me than I with it, and thus nothing about my life is affected until such a time as it is affected, when and if that time ever comes to pass. Similarly, I don't presume to know whether or not aliens exist. There's no evidence or proof to inform me one way or the other, even if there may be a good argument to be made for their existence or non-existence, it would be entirely arrogant and presumptuous for me to have faith in their existence, or non-existence, based on nothing more than what I might consider a good argument. Further still it would be exponentially more arrogant and presumptuous for me to then go on to continue ascribing meaning, and purpose, and interpretation to these aliens that I only assume to exist, and then argue and contend that my presumptions on these supposed aliens are the sole and only possible truth for which there is no denial or alternative. Like I said, not a big fan of hubris.


I notice a lot of presupposing, most of which is about God, in what you just said. The following are some of your presuppositions:
1) You cannot know whether or not there is a God.
2) It is irrelevant whether or not there is a God.
3) If God did not exist it would not affect you.
4) If God did exist it would not affect you.
5) God, if he exists, would not be concerned with you.
6) If you did believe that aliens existed, then it would be arrogant to believe that that belief were actually true, such that denials of it would then be false.

----------


## Cabal

> 1) You cannot know whether or not there is a God.
> 2) It is irrelevant whether or not there is a God.
> 3) If God did not exist it would not affect you.
> 4) If God did exist it would not affect you. 
> 5) God, if he exists, would not be concerned with you.
> 6) If you did believe that aliens existed, then it would be arrogant to believe to suppose that that belief were actually true, such that denials of it would then be false.


Well, your first problem here is that you're picking parts of a whole to take issue with independently when that wasn't at all the manner in which they were delivered or used. 

These are all merely statements of fact as they relate to me. If a god is proven to exist, nothing about my life is necessarily subject to change as a result of that knowledge because nothing about my life is based on the presupposition of a god, or lack there of. If I acquire knowledge that there is no god, nothing about my life is changed. If I acquire knowledge that there is a god, nothing about my life necessarily changes beyond the affect that god may have in my life. But given that my indifference about a god up until this point hasn't had any measurable affect on my life, it stands to reason that knowledge of a god probably wouldn't mean all that much for me in any practical way. Now, you can call this a presupposition if you really want to--if it makes you feel better about your own presuppositions--but I don't see it that way. I see it as reasonable conclusion.

If a god does exist, what affect has it had on my life? None as far as I can tell. And as far as I can tell is the only thing that matters when it comes to my own life. In fact, that god's affect on my life has been so exceedingly insignificant that I am completely fine with, and ultimately unaffected by being and remaining indifferent to that god's existence. So, if that's not irrelevance, I'm not sure what is. And obviously, if a god does not exist, then once again, nothing about me or my life is changed. 

If a supposed god can't be bothered, willing, or able to convince me of its existence, or have any notable affect of any kind on my life as to discourage me from my indifference, why do you presume that you can succeed where it has failed? More hubris, perhaps?

----------


## fisharmor

> No, it wasn't. Simply because that was _not_ her point in this discussion that I shared. If anything it was an aside kind of thing that Annie brought up. This is one of the biggest problems that I have with religion. It seeks to define "the point" waaaay too much. And it does so by way of relegating scope to it's own limitations. As was said, it assumes that it already has all of the answers and so no more questions are required or welcomed and what is accepted is what defines debate.


It wasn't an aside: it was a supporting argument for her thesis, which was as follows: science, unlike religion, is capable of self-correction.
And this thesis was destroyed in post 35.

Without an appeal to truth, one cannot make statements about what is right and what is wrong.
She is making a statement that it is right to self-correct, and wrong to refuse to self-correct.
She cannot logically make these statements without including the words "right" and "wrong".  They are integral to her thesis.
So hopefully you can see that everyone who has harped on the question of how atheists can claim to have morality have, in fact, cut straight to the quick.
We are not interested in your nebulous notions of how grand it has been for science to show us up-close photos of worthless rocks a billion miles from here.
We are, as you said, interested in "the point".


And all this without even destroying her on facts: religion is, outside of special cases, very much a tool of self-correction.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the topic would understand that most religions involve defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.
This is how we are able to look at the photos on post 35 and state unequivocally "this is wrong".
How is the atheist able to do that?

----------


## erowe1

> Well, your first problem here is that you're picking parts of a whole to take issue with independently when that wasn't at all the manner in which they were delivered or used. 
> 
> These are all merely statements of fact as they relate to me. If a god is proven to exist, nothing about my life is necessarily subject to change as a result of that knowledge because nothing about my life is based on the presupposition of a god, or lack there of. If I acquire knowledge that there is no god, nothing about my life is changed. If I acquire knowledge that there is a god, nothing about my life necessarily changes beyond the affect that god may have in my life. But given that my indifference about a god up until this point hasn't had any measurable affect on my life, it stands to reason that knowledge of a god probably wouldn't mean all that much for me in any practical way. Now, you can call this a presupposition if you really want to--if it makes you feel better about your own presuppositions--but I don't see it that way. I see it as reasonable conclusion.
> 
> If a god does exist, what affect has it had on my life? None as far as I can tell. And as far as I can tell is the only thing that matters when it comes to my own life. In fact, that god's affect on my life has been so exceedingly insignificant that I am completely fine with, and ultimately unaffected by being and remaining indifferent to that god's existence. So, if that's not irrelevance, I'm not sure what is. And obviously, if a god does not exist, then once again, nothing about me or my life is changed. 
> 
> If a supposed god can't be bothered, willing, or able to convince me of its existence, or have any notable affect of any kind on my life as to discourage me from my indifference, why do you presume that you can succeed where it has failed? More hubris, perhaps?


Here are some more of your presuppositions:
1) That the previous presuppositions of yours that I listed are statements of fact.
2) That the fact that your perceive no affect on your life from having indifference about God supports the conclusion that God's existence itself does not affect your life.
3) That calling a presupposition a reasonable conclusion makes it so.
4) That your being fine with your own indifference about God entails God's existence being irrelevant.
5) That your indifference about God is the result of a failure on God's part.

Your stated aversion to presuming things is not apparent in your own words. It looks just like what I suggested before. It's not that you really avoid presuppositions whenever possible. You just ignore the fact that you have them. The path toward truth isn't through avoiding presuppositions, but through acknowledging them.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> She is making a statement that it is right to self-correct, and wrong to refuse to self-correct.


No she's not. You're doing it again. The very same thing I just got done saying that you people do. You can't just cherry pick things that remotely relate to your little atheist against the christian moral battle and run with it.

There are _no_ sacred truths in science. That's what she's saying. And she's not sharing a thesis. Gosh.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I agree completely but may have explained it a little more thoroughly. Here...this may save me some typing.
> 
> It's brilliant. And spot on. As well, it's a position that I hold and the single reason that I kind of take issue with the specificity of Bryan's rule about "respecting" people's religion because it gets to the point that the terms of controversy are pre-defined and we are forced to accept the premise of man's infantile need for centrality that is exaggrated into context by religion. Not that I want to disrespect them because I don't want to do that but just the methodology used in saying that I have to "respect" it because it justifies accepting and defaulting to so much that is wrong _with_ it. I'll be giving a lecture in a week or so and really want to spend some time with the phenomenon. Well...not a lecture, per se. I suppose you could say that I'll be a speaker or a contributor. Maybe that's a better word. Your post just reminded me of it.
> 
> Annie Druyan answers a person of faith on the unknown...
> 
> Skip to 3:50
> 
> 
> ...


//

I hate when people derail and misrepresent my postings.

----------


## fisharmor

> No she's not. You're doing it again. The very same thing I just got done saying that you people do. You can't just cherry pick things that remotely relate to your little atheist against the christian moral battle and run with it.
> 
> There are _no_ sacred truths in science. That's what she's saying. And she's not sharing a thesis. Gosh.


And you are the one who injected the word _sacred_ into the discussion.
I'm talking about truth.

Is she saying that something is more right than something else in that video?  Perhaps my cherry-picking mind just can't comprehend how it's possible to make statements without also making claims about their truth or falsehood.  I admit that it's just possible that I can't comprehend the purpose of sharing an opinion with people in that sort of venue unless it is to convince others to accept a position.  Is she claiming that there is not necessarily truth to her position, but that we should follow it anyway?

I really want you to understand how little snark I have going here.  I really do want to know what point there is in her even speaking up if she doesn't believe that truth can exist.

----------


## Terry1

> If you want to claim there is a god, then the burden of proof is on you. 
> I don't need proof to claim god doesn't exist, nothing exists until is proven to, welcome to science, prove it or its fairy-tale.
> 
> I don't have "faith" that their is no god...
> I am saying I will not believe a god exists until there is concrete proof, which would require a in god in person to study.


Proof






Proof




What would it take for you to believe?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Without an appeal to truth, one cannot make statements about what is right and what is wrong.
> She is making a statement that it is right to self-correct, and wrong to refuse to self-correct.
> She cannot logically make these statements without including the words "right" and "wrong".  They are integral to her thesis.
> So hopefully you can see that everyone who has harped on the question of how atheists can claim to have morality have, in fact, cut straight to the quick.


The statement that it is "right" to self-correct isn't a moral statment.  It is simply saying that when the facts contradict your premises, you should reexamine your premises because you've got a violation of the Law of Contradiction on your hands.

----------


## angelatc

> Are you kidding? Faith, particularly that of the organized persuasion, .


I am not denying that there are religious wars, but that's not what he was prattling on about.  His hand-wringing was simply because they believe in a God, and he doesn't get that.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> "Better" according to what standard?


The current standard or old standards which we want to improve upon I suppose.

----------


## angelatc

> No, but without an objective morality you can never understand *why* what you did was good.


Or even why he was compelled to stop and help.

----------


## Schifference

Maybe it was just obvious that the person could use some help. 


> Or even why he was compelled to stop and help.

----------


## Terry1

What's the point of atheism anyway?  Why so bent of disproving God than simply ignoring the entire concept?  Could it be that old nagging thought and doubt "what if I'm wrong?"  I know without a doubt what they'll be missing out on and no one if they knew this would want to believe anything other than God.

Heaven has been described by people that had no knowledge of the other who saw the very same thing.  Their recollections are strikingly similar to one another.  The mansions mentioned are not symbolic, they are real as many have seen, painted, testified to and been witness to their awesome beauty.  

Many have seen not only their relatives, but also their beloved pets in heaven.  Who would choose not to believe when they have this hope of eternal life in paradise?  Many have talked about the colors in heaven too.  There are colors in heaven that don't even exist on earth and they all say that they're undescribable.  They all talk about the color of the eyes of Jesus--all who have seen Him say the very same thing.  Are you going to simply dismiss all of these people as delusional dreamers?  They're not all children, many are and were people who didn't believe at all.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What's the point of atheism anyway?


I've often wondered this myself. Of course, I don't waste a lot of time wondering. Just once every so often.

It's a term that people just throw around too. Especially by religious people. It's an easy sort of label to put on folks that fits into their own model.

I don't really hold an opinion. I don't know who or what "God" is. That doesn't mean that I don't want to continue looking or asking though.

One thing that I'm absolutely sure of is that every atom in our bodies came from a star that exploded. And, oh yes...to dust we will return. Which is interesting in it's own little way.

----------


## Terry1

Here's what waits for those who don't believe in God, listen to this mans testimony of seeing hell.

----------


## erowe1

> The current standard or old standards which we want to improve upon I suppose.


"Improve" according to what standard?

----------


## erowe1

> The statement that it is "right" to self-correct isn't a moral statment.  It is simply saying that when the facts contradict your premises, you should reexamine your premises because you've got a violation of the Law of Contradiction on your hands.


By using the word "should" in the above statement, you made it a moral statement.

----------


## Terry1

> I've often wondered this myself. Of course, I don't waste a lot of time wondering. Just once every so often.
> 
> It's a term that people just throw around too. Especially by religious people. It's an easy sort of label to put on folks that fits into their own model.
> 
> I don't really hold an opinion. I don't know who or what "God" is. That doesn't mean that I don't want to continue looking or asking though.
> 
> Opne thing that I'm absolutely sure of is that every atom in our bodies came from a star that exploded. And, oh yes...to dust we will return. Which is interesting that way.


That is an interesting belief.  Watch that video I just posted.  This man has no reason to lie, just look at his face and what happened to him in the plane crash.  Listen to what he says about the colors in heaven--once again--the very same thing all the others saw who had heavenly experiences.  But also listen to what he saw while he was in hell.  It's a very interesting testimony.

----------


## Terry1

Angels caught on tape singing, you must listen.  What you must realize is that there were only 7 people in this church practicing their music acapella with no instruments at all---Listen.  The solo you hear in this is not a human voice.

----------


## fisharmor

> The statement that it is "right" to self-correct isn't a moral statment.  It is simply saying that when the facts contradict your premises, you should reexamine your premises because you've got a violation of the Law of Contradiction on your hands.


The Law of Noncontradiction cannot exist without first recognizing truth from falsehood.
All I'm trying to get at is this: What is it that atheist scientists think is the arbiter of their right and wrong?
Is it consensus?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> By using the word "should" in the above statement, you made it a moral statement.


Not so.  It's simply saying that a contradiction can't exist, so that if one continues to maintain a position that is inconsistent with the facts one's position is logically invalid.

----------


## erowe1

> Not so.  It's simply saying that a contradiction can't exist, so that if one continues to maintain a position that is inconsistent with the facts one's position is logically invalid.


What you say here does not entail any "should."

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The Law of Noncontradiction cannot exist without first recognizing truth from falsehood.


If someone claims both A and not-A are the case, it doesn't matter which one is true because the statement is logically impossible.  All that is necessary is to be able to distinguish between a statement and its negation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not so.  It's simply saying that a contradiction can't exist, so that if one continues to maintain a position that is inconsistent with the facts one's position is logically invalid.


Why should a person be consistent?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> "Improve" according to what standard?


Can the old standard be improved on lol.  Seriously we can improve upon so many designs and standards.  

If for one would like to improve our current standard Foreign Policy.  Does that mean some Transcendent Foreign Policy in the ether is somehow informing me subconsciously?  If so, why isn't it informing our President?  

But really, Humans can look at so many things and ask "How can this function better?".  Can we improve Transportation?  Build a better car?  I think so.  

What if Ethical behavior is just another system that is open for being tweaked and improved upon?  What if we're just discovering better ways to do things and organize our societies?

----------


## erowe1

> If someone claims both A and not-A are the case, it doesn't matter which one is true because the statement is logically impossible.  All that is necessary is to be able to distinguish between a statement and its negation.


When you say that the claim that both A and not-A are the case is logically impossible, aren't you saying that the claim, "Both A and not-A are the case." is a false, as in not true, claim?

----------


## erowe1

> Can the old standard be improved on lol.  Seriously we can improve upon so many designs and standards.  
> 
> If for one would like to improve our current standard Foreign Policy.  Does that mean some Transcendent Foreign Policy in the ether is somehow informing me subconsciously?  If so, why isn't it informing our President?  
> 
> But really, Humans can look at so many things and ask "How can this function better?".  Can we improve Transportation?  Build a better car?  I think so.  
> 
> What if Ethical behavior is just another system that is open for being tweaked and improved upon?  What if we're just discovering better ways to do things and organize our societies?


Every time you say "improve" you are appealing to some standard against which something can be measured as better or worse. You are acknowledging, whether you mean to or not, that this absolute moral standard against which our ethical systems can be measured, really exists. And you're right. It does.

----------


## fisharmor

> If someone claims both A and not-A are the case, it doesn't matter which one is true because the statement is logically impossible.  All that is necessary is to be able to distinguish between a statement and its negation.


Says who?

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> You just threw out all of history.


Most of history is also lies, as history is written by the victor...
Have you seen what they teach as US history to the kids today!?

More on topic..
You actually believe some guy named Noah built an ark and put 2 of each on it?
You actually thing the earth was created in 7 days?
You actually believe that there was a guy named adam, and chick named eve, and its her fault for sin because of some fruit?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What you say here does not entail any "should."


It does if one assumes that the best way to understand the universe is to be consistent.   If I were to say that "If you want to find the area of a circle you should multiply the square of its radius by pi" would I be making a moral statement or would I simply be telling someone something about reality?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Why should a person be consistent?


Well, you've never had to worry about that.

The short answer is that it helps one to survive.  Try acting on the belief that (a) man cannot fly and (b) Sola can fly so if he were to step off a 100 foot building nothing bad will happen to him.

----------


## Deborah K

> If you want to claim there is a god, then the burden of proof is on you. 
> I don't need proof to claim god doesn't exist, *nothing exists until is proven to, welcome to science,* prove it or its fairy-tale.
> 
> I don't have "faith" that their is no god...
> I am saying I will not believe a god exists until there is concrete proof, which would require a in god in person to study.


Yet it is Carl Sagan himself who is quoted to have said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course, he was referring to intelligent life on other planets, but it can be just as easily applied to belief in a creator. Especially given that evolution is still just a theory and still searching for the missing link.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, you've never had to worry about that.
> 
> The short answer is that it helps one to survive.  Try acting on the belief that (a) man cannot fly and (b) Sola can fly so if he were to step off a 100 foot building nothing bad will happen to him.


Why should one care about survival, or the survival of others?

----------


## erowe1

> It does if one assumes that the best way to understand the universe is to be consistent.


I agree. And that is an assumption of the existence of a moral standard against which behaviors can be measured as either better or worse than one another.




> If I were to say that "If you want to find the area of a circle you should multiply the square of its radius by pi" would I be making a moral statement or would I simply be telling someone something about reality?


You would not be making a moral statement, but would just be telling them something about reality. But that choice is a false dichotomy, since moral statements are statements about reality. Also, that's not analogous to your previous statement using "should" or the followup one referring to a "best" way to understand the universe.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Every time you say "improve" you are appealing to some standard against which something can be measured as better or worse. You are acknowledging, whether you mean to or not, that this absolute moral standard against which our ethical systems can be measured, really exists. And you're right. It does.


What we could improve transportation?  I think most humans realize sitting in traffic sucks.  Maybe that could be fixed in the future through use of GPS and Google Car technology.  Or way off in the future we could all just teleport.  

Now I'm not sure if you're saying the my feeling that traffic sucks comes to me because a better standard exists somewhere carved onto the fabric of the universe and my sub-concious picks up on it somehow?  Or is it simply that sitting in traffic is obviously a waste of time and gas?

----------


## erowe1

> What we could improve transportation?  I think most humans realize sitting in traffic sucks.  Maybe that could be fixed in the future through use of GPS and Google Car technology.  Or way off in the future we could all just teleport.  
> 
> Now I'm not sure if you're saying the my feeling that traffic sucks comes to me because a better standard exists somewhere carved onto the fabric of the universe and my sub-concious picks up on it somehow?  Or is it simply that sitting in traffic is obviously a waste of time and gas?


I am saying that behind all of this that you're saying is a set of moral standards. The whole idea that life has a end toward which it should be used, such that any use of time could be criticized as a waste of time, presupposes that. And this is not the only example. Earlier in the discussion when we were talking about moral standards, it was clear that we were talking about something much more extensive than that.

----------


## erowe1

> What we could improve transportation?  I think most humans realize sitting in traffic sucks.  Maybe that could be fixed in the future through use of GPS and Google Car technology.  Or way off in the future we could all just teleport.  
> 
> Now I'm not sure if you're saying the my feeling that traffic sucks comes to me because a better standard exists somewhere carved onto the fabric of the universe and my sub-concious picks up on it somehow?  Or is it simply that sitting in traffic is obviously a waste of time and gas?


I am saying that behind all of this that you're saying is a set of moral standards. The whole idea that life has a end toward which it should be used, such that any use of time could be criticized as a waste of time, presupposes that. And this is not the only example. Earlier in the discussion when we were talking about moral standards, it was clear that we were talking about something much more extensive than that.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> Proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof
> 
> ...


Your going to have to do way better than some kids imagination to call it proof of god.

Please keep in mind, eye witness testimony is the weakest form of proof. 
Eye witness testimony is not enough, you need physical proof. 

You want my belief, bring me a god, NOTHING short of that will convince me. 

When one makes huge claims, like there is a god, concrete proof is required.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Yet it is Carl Sagan himself who is quoted to have said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Hey, that's a pretty good memory you got there.

Is also # 16 on the Baloney Detection Kit..... http://www.carlsagan.com/index_ideascontent.htm

Is it weird that I carry a copy of this in my wallet?

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> Yet it is Carl Sagan himself who is quoted to have said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> 
> Of course, he was referring to intelligent life on other planets, but it can be just as easily be applied to belief in a creator. Especially given that evolution is still just a theory and still searching for the missing link.


For the last god damn time, I do not need to prove god doesn't exist.
It is on you to prove it does if you want it accepted scientifically.

You are the one making a claim about an undetectable thing, now you have to prove it.

Please see higgs-boson, science believed it was there, the math says it would be, but until it was actual seen, they just had a theory!

You have a theory of god, you want me to take it as fact.. not without measurable proof.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You would not be making a moral statement, but would just be telling them something about reality. But that choice is a false dichotomy, since moral statements are statements about reality.


But are all statements about reality moral statements?  Is "2 + 2 = 4" a moral statement?  Just as you have stretched the meaning of "religious" and "religion" beyond their normal meanings, I fear you have done the same with "moral".

----------


## fisharmor

> For the last god damn time, I do not need to prove god doesn't exist.
> It is on you to prove it does if you want it accepted scientifically.
> 
> You are the one making a claim about an undetectable thing, now you have to prove it.
> 
> Please see higgs-boson, science believed it was there, the math says it would be, but until it was actual seen, they just had a theory!
> 
> You have a theory of god, you want me to take it as fact.. not without measurable proof.


So, you're saying the Higgs Boson didn't exist before it was actually seen?  

Also, maybe if you started answering our as yet totally unanswered questions, we can start showing more of our evidence.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I am saying that behind all of this that you're saying is a set of moral standards. The whole idea that life has a end toward which it should be used, such that any use of time could be criticized as a waste of time, presupposes that. And this is not the only example. Earlier in the discussion when we were talking about moral standards, it was clear that we were talking about something much more extensive than that.


So... what would if we could have the issue settled now instead of waiting for it to filter so slowly into the world?  Traffic is solved and we all have that time back.  

Guess what... I'm home early from work playing video games.  

I guess it would be cool if Jesus is a gamer and put that into the Universal Code of Behavior I guess.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Why should one care about survival, or the survival of others?


As for my own survival, I prefer existence to nonexistence.*  As for others, the world would be a pretty lonely place if I were the only one in it.  

*Compare _Hamlet_, Act III, Scene 1, beginning at line 1749.  http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org...=1&Scope=scene

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As for my own survival, I prefer existence to nonexistence.*  As for others, the world would be a pretty lonely place if I were the only one in it.  
> 
> *Compare _Hamlet_, Act III, Scene 1, beginning at line 1749.  http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org...=1&Scope=scene


Why should a person prefer existence to nonexistence?

----------


## Terry1

> Your going to have to do way better than some kids imagination to call it proof of god.
> 
> Please keep in mind, eye witness testimony is the weakest form of proof. 
> Eye witness testimony is not enough, you need physical proof. 
> 
> You want my belief, bring me a god, NOTHING short of that will convince me. 
> 
> When one makes huge claims, like there is a god, concrete proof is required.


The real physical evidence is staring you right in the face every hour of every single day.  You can't see it because it's always been there right in front of you since the day you were born. 

*Romans 1:20 
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse*,

Mankind is without excuse for their blindness and unbelief.

----------


## Deborah K

> For the last god damn time, I do not need to prove god doesn't exist.
> It is on you to prove it does if you want it accepted scientifically.
> 
> You are the one making a claim about an undetectable thing, now you have to prove it.
> 
> Please see higgs-boson, science believed it was there, the math says it would be, but until it was actual seen, they just had a theory!
> 
> You have a theory of god, you want me to take it as fact.. not without measurable proof.


God isn't a puppet master up in space dictating every move made on earth, like some atheists seem to think he must be.  You can't point to something concrete and proclaim "that is God".  God is in _everything_, he exists all around us.  He manifested in human form as the Christ to save us from ourselves.


The reason I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else is because believing in God requires acceptance of the gift of faith.  God exists for me and for other believers because we have chosen to accept his gift of faith.  He proves his existence to us every day by the way he touches our lives when we turn to him.  He does it in the form of small miracles - every day - all day.  You will never understand what I'm talking about until you make a decision to have the veil lifted from your eyes.

Why is it so easy for some atheists to accept the possibility that life might have been created on earth by some intelligent life form from somewhere else (when there's no proof) , but they just can't grasp the possibility that there is a divine creator?

----------


## Origanalist

> Hey, that's a pretty good memory you got there.
> 
> Is also # 16 on the Baloney Detection Kit..... http://www.carlsagan.com/index_ideascontent.htm
> 
> Is it weird that I carry a copy of this in my wallet?


Kinda.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> The reason I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else is because believing in God requires acceptance of the gift of faith.
> 
> Why is it so easy for some atheists to accept the possibility that life might have been created on earth by some intelligent life form from somewhere else (when there's no proof) , but they just can't grasp the possibility that there is a divine creator?


I wish I could have faith, I do.
I have tried, but I have never been able to find faith.. 
I wish there was something that gave life more meaning, but there is not for me.
My brain just will not accept something on faith. 

I also have MAJOR trust issues.. I can't trust anyone.. I just can't..
I always assume anyone I talk to is going to try and take advantage of me if they can.
Everyone I have given trust to has broken it, so how can I ever learn to have faith, if I can't even trust?
Faith is unconditional trust, and I cannot trust in a god who's "word" is a book filed with lies. 
I cannot believe that god made earth in 7 days, or that the earth is only 6000 years old or any of the sort, it goes against science proven fact.

I can accept life on other worlds coming here, as I know there are other worlds.
I know what life needs to happen, carbon, oxygen, radiation and time. 
Just as I can accept that everything we see in the solar system comes from a much older star that went supernova.
It proof is in the fact that elements heavier than iron exist here.
So shouldn't we be worshiping that supernova, as it was what lead to the creation of earth and us?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

@ LibertyRevolution

 His Holy Spirit will come to you, as He sees fit.  You will have no doubt, when God gives you faith and grace through, Jesus Christ, His Son.  God has touched many this way.  Please consider looking at this website and reading this testimony:

http://exsatanist.wordpress.com/

----------


## Deborah K

> I wish I could have faith, I do.
> I have tried, but I have never been able to find faith.. 
> I wish there was something that gave life more meaning, but there is not for me.
> My brain just will not accept something on faith. 
> 
> I also have MAJOR trust issues.. I can't trust anyone.. I just can't..
> I always assume anyone I talk to is going to try and take advantage of me if they can.
> Everyone I have given trust to has broken it, so how can I ever learn to have faith, if I can't even trust?


It's understandable, based on what you wrote, that you would have problems accepting faith.  Betrayal is one of the most, if not THEE most, heartbreaking actions that victims of it must endure. How can one have faith without trust?  Deciding to trust again is vital to your well being and happiness, however.  And you owe it to yourself to make every attempt at building trust again. Stephen Covey is quoted to have said: "Trust is the highest form of human motivation. It brings out the very best in people."  I would suggest starting by reading about other people who have survived devastating betrayal and learned to trust again.  There is a book called "Beauty for Ashes" by Joyce Meyer, who was a victim of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by her father.  She relates her story and the story of others who have been healed of their broken hearts.  I will buy the book and send it to you, just PM me an address.  If you've sincerely tried to find faith as you state, don't give up. Try reading the stories of others who have healed and found theirs.




> Faith is unconditional trust, and I cannot trust in a god who's "word" is a book filed with lies.


I'm sure you're aware of the 'saying': You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."  But, did you know that it is Biblical? (John 8:32)  Why do you think the Bible is filled with lies?  It's easy to cherry-pick the Bible and produce any conclusion you want -  this sub-forum is a classic example of that.  And the reason is because the writings of the Bible span 1500 years, with many different writers, so it stands to reason that there will be contradictions.  As you know, times change, and mores change in a matter of a generation or two - let alone 1500 years.  People like to criticize the practices and behaviors of the ancient people depicted in the Bible, not realizing that doing so naively inflicts modern-day mores on ancient practices. Only 200 years ago, our country was in the throes of slavery.  How fair would it be for future historians to paint our entire American history solely with that brush?  The point I'm trying to make, is that the Bible is a work spanning 1500 years by various authors that includes history, metaphor, advice, literature, and much more, and needs to be taken in its entirety. As you may have noticed, if you frequent the religion sub-forum, _anyone_ can take advantage of the Bible and twist it to match their belief system and agenda - which I believe, is why there are so many denominations. 

Having stated the above, I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired.  Therefor, even though I may not understand or may have trouble accepting some of it, I attribute that to my own limits, and not to God.  Years ago, I came to the realization that I don't have to have a full understanding of everything in order to accept it.  You would not believe how freeing that is.




> I cannot believe that god made earth in 7 days, or that the earth is only 6000 years old or any of the sort, it goes against science proven fact.


Not every person of faith takes this literally.  I don't believe you are required to take every word of the Bible literally in order to accept the gift of faith.  People who do are considered fundamentalists.  Not all people of faith are fundamentalists.  




> I can accept life on other worlds coming here, as I know there are other worlds.
> I know what life needs to happen, carbon, oxygen, radiation and time. 
> Just as I can accept that everything we see in the solar system comes from a much older star that went supernova.
> It proof is in the fact that elements heavier than iron exist here.


I can accept it too.  I also believe that God created evolution.




> So shouldn't we be worshiping that supernova, as it was what lead to the creation of earth and us?


Accepting that we were created doesn't require us to abandon reason and logic.

----------


## Terry1

> I wish I could have faith, I do.
> I have tried, but I have never been able to find faith.. 
> I wish there was something that gave life more meaning, but there is not for me.
> My brain just will not accept something on faith. 
> 
> I also have MAJOR trust issues.. I can't trust anyone.. I just can't..
> I always assume anyone I talk to is going to try and take advantage of me if they can.
> Everyone I have given trust to has broken it, so how can I ever learn to have faith, if I can't even trust?
> Faith is unconditional trust, and I cannot trust in a god who's "word" is a book filed with lies. 
> ...


I'm led to an answer in your case here and that is "it's not time for you---yet, but you will eventually be led to God".

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I sure would love to know why it's less offensive to potential Rand supporters than a discussion about 9/11 Truthers.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I sure would love to know why it's less offensive to potential Rand supporters than a discussion about 9/11 Truthers.


Apparently Bryan lowered the boom on the OP for said thread:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...om-one-Neg-Rep

----------


## Deborah K

I just want to add, Mark and I are going to Vegas this weekend.  And coincidently, we're staying at the Rio, where Penn & Teller perform.  But, since they seem to think Christians are stupid, I think we'll be spending our money on another show.  How stupid can you be to alienate such a large portion of the population. To what end?  Dumbasses.  LOL.

----------


## Schifference

From my interpretation of the boom getting lowered it was not for content but rather for an improper title. 


> Apparently Bryan lowered the boom on the OP for said thread:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...om-one-Neg-Rep

----------


## Terry1

> From my interpretation of the boom getting lowered it was not for content but rather for an improper title.


I'd say, considering where you placed that filthy-foul-mouthed video and on the day most worship God, would most certainly seem intentional on the part of a professed atheist.  So Bryan was right in everything he said and probably should have slapped you a bit harder IMO.  I thought he was a bit lenient myself seeing just how hard you slapped God and believers that day with that foul piece of crap in the religion forum.  Hope I wasn't too harsh here.

Another thing too, belittling Ron Paul's lovely wife really-really made me want to give you one of those little red spots you dislike so much.  You try having five children and lets see how well your hips and thighs hold up.  And all to defend that yucky guy Chris Christie.  What's his excuse for being a whale-eh?  Rather than give birth to five children, he ate them.  That's one guy I don't care for--forgive me Lord.

----------


## Schifference

Not at all seems like a response that promotes love. 


> I'd say, considering where you placed that filthy-foul-mouthed video and on the day most worship God, would most certainly seem intentional on the part of a professed atheist.  So Bryan was right in everything he said and probably should have slapped you a bit harder IMO.  I thought he was a bit lenient myself seeing just how hard you slapped God and believers that day with that foul piece of crap in the religion forum.  Hope I wasn't too harsh here.

----------


## Deborah K

> Not at all seems a response that promotes love.


Sometimes sternness is required.  Even Jesus used sternness and anger when appropriate.

----------


## Terry1

> Not at all seems a response that promotes love.


I'm flexible, it depends on what I'm dealing with at the time.  There is a time and a season for everything under heaven.

----------


## Schifference

> I'm flexible, it depends on what I'm dealing with at the time.


 What exactly are you dealing with now?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Right. Because I should take spiritual advice from a couple of Las Vegas showmen.


I think this is the thread winner.  Many here don't even go to church on Sundays, so what's the big deal?

----------


## Terry1

> What exactly are you dealing with now?


I was just catching up and read the thread from a few days ago (laughing here), I'm just fired up here a few days late is all.  I did find it amusing that you're so concerned about those rep points.  I just use that as a way to compliment some one or send a sneaky lil comment--*sneaky grin*  In fact I've only got two red spots and they're both by the same person and I gave him a +rep back for the sake of love.

----------


## Schifference

Say something against Christianity and those 2 little red dots will multiply 10 fold! 


> I was just catching up and read the thread from a few days ago (laughing here), I'm just fired up here a few days late is all.  I did find it amusing that you're so concerned about those rep points.  I just use that as a way to compliment some one or send a sneaky lil comment--*sneaky grin*  In fact I've only got two red spots and they're both by the same person and I gave him a +rep back for the sake of love.

----------


## Terry1

> Say something against Christianity and those 2 little red dots will multiply 10 fold!


You do realize that you didn't "just say something against Christianity" don't you.  What you did was a very bad thing Schiffy---very bad.  Bryan was very easy on you.  Now you're acting like that spoiled lil rich boy.

----------


## Schifference

What exactly do you feel I did that was so bad? 


> You do realize that you didn't "just say something against Christianity" don't you.  What you did was a very bad thing Schiffy---very bad.  Bryan was very easy on you.  Now you're acting like that spoiled lil rich boy.

----------


## Terry1

> What exactly do you feel I did that was so bad?


Ah jeez--where do I begin.

----------


## Schifference

Wherever you feel necessary.


> Ah jeez--where do I begin.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sometimes sternness is required.  Even Jesus used sternness and anger when appropriate.


And just wait to see his mood when he returns.

----------


## Deborah K

Schiff, by posting that clip on Sunday in the religious forums, with the title you gave it, you revealed to all your disdain for the faithful. By posting that clip you're essentially condoning it.  Surely you know this.

----------


## Terry1



----------


## Schifference

That may be your perception but actually I had just stumbled upon it and posted it because I had seen other Penn video's on RPF and posted it not even considering the day of the week because all days are the same to me. The content was the purpose and issues brought up are actual issues. I started a thread a while ago regarding Noah's ark. Had I stumbled across a video from another that presented similar content in a different manner I would have posted that. I have no disdain for the faithful. On the contrary my perception is that there is disdain for the non-believer. 


> Schiff, by posting that clip on Sunday in the religious forums, with the title you gave it, you revealed to all your disdain for the faithful. By posting that clip you're essentially condoning it.  Surely you know this.

----------


## Deborah K

> That may be your perception but actually I had just stumbled upon it and posted it because I had seen other Penn video's on RPF and posted it not even considering the day of the week because all days are the same to me. The content was the purpose and issues brought up are actual issues. I started a thread a while ago regarding Noah's ark. Had I stumbled across a video from another that presented similar content in a different manner I would have posted that. I have no disdain for the faithful. On the contrary my perception is that there is disdain for the non-believer.


If this was an isolated issue, I would accept this answer on its face.

----------


## Schifference

Please list for me the issues as you see them. 


> If this was an isolated issue, I would accept this answer on its face.

----------


## Schifference

If this thread did not belong in religion the moderators should have moved it long ago. I have in the past posted non belief threads that were moved to the religion forum!

----------


## Deborah K

> If this thread did not belong in religion the moderators should have moved it long ago. I have in the past posted non belief threads that were moved to the religion forum!


I'm not a moderator, so I can't explain why it's not in hot topics.  As to a list of issues, I have no desire to waste my time going through all of your anti-God threads to prove my point.

----------


## Terry1



----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I sure would love to know why it's less offensive to potential Rand supporters than a discussion about 9/11 Truthers.





> Apparently Bryan lowered the boom on the OP for said thread:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...om-one-Neg-Rep


Yes, I noticed.  But this thread  is visible on the board where potential Rand supporters can view it.  And this is not by far the only example of threads in the Religion forum that either mocks the faith of believers by atheists, or questions the validity of one's faith by those of a different faith (Catholicism gets mocked by Protestants all the time on this board).  

Many of Rand's supporters are concerned that he will be smeared/tarnished "by association" with 9/11 Truth topics that are visible on the board.  Seems this would be even more offensive since people tend to take their faith more seriously than whatever it is they believe about 9/11.  

I've asked Bryan about this via PM.  Maybe he disagrees with me, but I would certainly like to hear why.

----------


## Schifference

Anti-God does that make me less human or bad? Is questioning religion taboo? I am sure that if you actually read my posts you would see that I do not attack people for their belief or tell them they are wrong. I simply present or ask questions that seem worthy of answers.  


> I'm not a moderator, so I can't explain why it's not in hot topics.  As to a list of issues, I have no desire to waste my time going through all of your anti-God threads to prove my point.

----------


## Schifference

I think you are mistaken regarding who can view the religion forum. I think if you log out and come to RPF as a non-member I think that you would not have access to the religion forum. What good is a religion forum if you cannot question the validity of a faith? Maybe you should suggest many religion forums one for Baptist, Catholic, Hindu, ........ and not allow any questioning of ones perception of faith on any given forum.  


> Yes, I noticed.  But this thread  is visible on the board where potential Rand supporters can view it.  And this is not by far the only example of threads in the Religion forum that either mocks the faith of believers by atheists, or questions the validity of one's faith by those of a different faith (Catholicism gets mocked by Protestants all the time on this board).  
> 
> Many of Rand's supporters are concerned that he will be smeared/tarnished "by association" with 9/11 Truth topics that are visible on the board.  Seems this would be even more offensive since people tend to take their faith more seriously than whatever it is they believe about 9/11.  
> 
> I've asked Bryan about this via PM.  Maybe he disagrees with me, but I would certainly like to hear why.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think you are mistaken regarding who can view the religion forum. I think if you log out and come to RPF as a non-member I think that you would not have access to the religion forum.


Nope; I'm not mistaken.  I just logged out and back in....the Religion forum and this topic are visible to guests.

----------


## Schifference

I stand corrected. A month or so ago I was not able to access those forums without being logged in. But notice the edited question regarding religion. 


> Nope; I'm not mistaken.  I just logged out and back in....the Religion forum and this topic are visible to guests.

----------


## Terry1

> Nope; I'm not mistaken.  I just logged out and back in....the Religion forum and this topic are visible to guests.


Hmm, now that is strange because I wasn't able to view the Religion forum logged off until I reached a certain number of posts.  I wondered about that too.  All said though--I think most people can think for themselves and sort out opinions one from the other.  After all, aren't people who represent and stand for freedom and liberty for all supposed to walk that walk?  The beauty of diversity is it's ability to give people a choice and the freedom to sort things out for themselves.  As long as people are respectful to one another, opinions can be a beautiful thing in that regard, would you agree?

----------


## Schifference

That is the most logical post I think I have read of yours! Exactly the point. 


> Hmm, now that is strange because I wasn't able to view the Religion forum logged off until I reached a certain number of posts.  I wondered about that too.  All said though--I think most people can think for themselves and sort out opinions one from the other.  After all, aren't people who represent and stand for freedom and liberty for all supposed to walk that walk?  The beauty of diversity is it's ability to give people a choice and the freedom to sort things out for themselves.  As long as people are respectful to one another, opinions can be a beautiful thing in that regard, would you agree?

----------


## Terry1

> That is the most logical post I think I have read of yours! Exactly the point.


Well thank you Schiff, I appreciate that.

----------


## Cabal

I don't think liberty has anything to do with affording respect to any and/or all opinions. There are plenty of opinions that are not only undeserving of respect, but deserving of mockery and intolerance.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't think liberty has anything to do with affording respect to any and/or all opinions. There are plenty of opinions that are not only undeserving of respect, but deserving of mockery and intolerance.


This is true too, but unless people are free to give them respectfully, then where is freedom?  What would a society that closed the mouths of those who disagreed be like?

I can only imagine:

----------


## Cabal

> This is true too, but unless people are free to give them respectfully, then where is freedom?  What would a society that closed the mouths of those who disagreed be like?


I suspect it'd be a lot like the society we live in today. Weren't you just talking about how you wished Schiff had been punished more for his post?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I just want to add, Mark and I are going to Vegas this weekend.  And coincidently, we're staying at the Rio, where Penn & Teller perform.  But, since they seem to think Christians are stupid, I think we'll be spending our money on another show.  How stupid can you be to alienate such a large portion of the population. To what end?  Dumbasses.  LOL.


Go see Blue Man Group.  Seriously they rock.

----------


## Terry1

> I suspect it'd be a lot like the society we live in today. Weren't you just talking about how you wished Schiff had been punished more for his post?


That was not a respectful thread or opinion.  That was downright evil filth disrespecting the faith those believe in.  There's a difference there.

----------


## Deborah K

> Go see Blue Man Group.  Seriously they rock.


They do rock!  We saw them last time. Saw Carrot Top the time before - fun - ny!!!!!  Thinking about Cirque de Soleil this time.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think most people can think for themselves and sort out opinions one from the other.  After all, aren't people who represent and stand for freedom and liberty for all supposed to walk that walk?  The beauty of diversity is it's ability to give people a choice and the freedom to sort things out for themselves.  As long as people are respectful to one another, opinions can be a beautiful thing in that regard, would you agree?


Yes, we are and we do.  I just wonder why the conflicting standard between this topic and 9/11 Truth.  We can make up our minds about that too, but too many people are concerned that Rand will be "smeared by association" with 9/11 Truthers.  Why not this?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I'm flexible, it depends on what I'm dealing with at the time.  There is a time and a season for everything under heaven.


dope-smokin' hippies!!

if you don't love 'Merika, then git out!

lol

just kiddin'. 

good write-up of these guys in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Byrds

Huge influence - Bob Dylan, Beatles, Stones, David Crosby, country-rock, psych rock, Easy Rider... impressive!

Their version of "Tambourine Man" is awesome.

----------


## Cabal

> That was not a respectful thread or opinion.  That was downright evil filth disrespecting the faith those believe in.  There's a difference there.


So, in other words, it's okay to call for the silencing of those things you determine to be disrespectful, and 'evil filth', based on your own subjective notions of what qualifies as such. Like I said, we already live in such a society.

----------


## Deborah K

> So, in other words, it's okay to call for the silencing of those things you determine to be disrespectful, and 'evil filth', based on your own subjective notions of what qualifies as such. Like I said, we already live in such a society.


Oh come on.  Terry1 has just as much of a right to criticize Penn & Teller as Schiff has to post their idiotic, ignorant clip.  The point being, that there are consequences, such as backlash, to doing so.

----------


## Cabal

> Oh come on.  Terry1 has just as much of a right to criticize Penn & Teller as Schiff has to post their idiotic, ignorant clip.  The point being, that there are consequences, such as backlash, to doing so.


Never said anything about a right, or lack thereof, to criticize.

----------


## Deborah K

> Never said anything about a right, or lack thereof, to criticize.


You implied it when you suggested that Terry1 was calling for "the silencing of those things [you] determine to be disrespectful".

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Some who say they are Christian, are the most vile posters on the forum.

----------


## Deborah K

> Some who say they are Christian, are the most vile posters on the forum.


Can't disagree with that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Some who say they are Christian, are the most vile posters on the forum.


Just call them out on it and see what they say.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Can't disagree with that.


I didn't think you would, Deb.  Man alive, Penn and Teller are the least of our concerns.  Bless you.  How are you doing with your fast?  All done?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Just call them out on it and see what they say.


I have and usually get accused of all sorts of what not.  I know that admonishment is hard to take.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Some who say they are Christian, are the most vile posters on the forum.


True.   Which is why I don't think those people really are Christian. (by their fruits we can know them Matthew 7:20)

----------


## Deborah K

> I didn't think you would, Deb.  Man alive, Penn and Teller are the least of our concerns.  Bless you.  How are you doing with your fast?  All done?


Yep.

----------


## Cabal

> You implied it when you suggested that Terry1 was calling for "the silencing of those things [you] determine to be disrespectful".


I don't agree that it was implied within the full context of the exchange--particularly with regard to how it began. It appears as though you're looking at one or two posts in a vacuum and jumping to a conclusion that would lead you to perceive such an implication when there is no such implication.

----------


## Terry1

> dope-smokin' hippies!!
> 
> if you don't love 'Merika, then git out!
> 
> lol
> 
> just kiddin'. 
> 
> good write-up of these guys in Wikipedia
> ...


LOL, I was 10 years old when Turn, Turn, Turn became a hit in 1965.  Wow---time certainly does fly.  Dylan used to be one of my heart-throbs.  I bought everything he ever did---BUT--my all time fav was Pink Floyd.  I still love those guys. 

Bestest Evva! Helllllllllllllo!

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I don't agree that it was implied within the full context of the exchange--particularly with regard to how it began. It appears as though you're looking at one or two posts in a vacuum and jumping to a conclusion that would lead you to perceive such an implication when there is no such implication.


Cabal - I actually think you made a good point in post #215.  I believe Christ told his followers to shake the dust from their shoes and move on in the towns where the gospel was not welcomed.  Jesus did not say that others views should be silenced.  The New Testament is full of examples of treachery toward Christians that is much worse than Penn and Teller.

----------


## Deborah K

> Cabal - I actually think you made a good point in post #215.  I believe Christ told his followers to shake the dust from their shoes and move on in the towns where the gospel was not welcomed.  Jesus did not say that others views should be silenced.  The New Testament is full of examples of treachery toward Christians that is much worse than Penn and Teller.


Louise, did you watch any of the clip?  I couldn't even make it past 10 minutes. It's ignorant, wildly inaccurate, and wholly offensive, which I'm sure was the intention.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't agree that it was implied within the full context of the exchange--particularly with regard to how it began. It appears as though you're looking at one or two posts in a vacuum and jumping to a conclusion that would lead you to perceive such an implication when there is no such implication.


No, I read the entire exchange. In my flea-bitten opinion, you implied that Terry wishes to silence the things she determines to be disrespectful.

----------


## Terry1

> So, in other words, it's okay to call for the silencing of those things you determine to be disrespectful, and 'evil filth', based on your own subjective notions of what qualifies as such. Like I said, we already live in such a society.


There's limits and boundaries with regard to everything regarding civil and moral behavior.  Post a video with Penn tossing the F-bomb at God over and over and over, on a Sunday in the Religious forum.  I couldn't even listen to it all it was so foul and rotten.  Excuse me for saying this but what kind of person would do something so disrespectful to people they know it's going to offend.  Yes, Bryan was right.  It's not only "baiting", but immoral in the one place where Schiff knew it would anger and disgust people on purpose.  He was a very bad boy.  Even a decent civil atheist would have more common sense and respect than that for people who worship the God of the Christian Bible.

How would you like it if I posted a picture of your Mother and did the same thing to her that Penn did to the Lord we worship?  Maybe you don't like your Mother, but for those who do have reverence and respect for their parents would feel the same way most of us did.  It's all about respect.

----------


## Natural Citizen

You know, I do actually like this particular clip with Penn & Teller. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

In fact, I think that every poll on the forums here should, by default, have a FU Frank option.

----------


## Cabal

> No, I read the entire exchange. In my flea-bitten opinion, you implied that Terry wishes to silence the things she determines to be disrespectful.


Um, I didn't just imply that, I outright said that, and so did Terry in a previous post--something about "harder slapping" or some such. But you appear to be confused. Did you already forget what you posted before? Originally, you were claiming that I was commenting on a 'right to criticize', when I hadn't mentioned anything about such a right. You then claim it was implied, to which I disagreed, as any supposed right to criticize was neither here nor there to the point of my exchange regarding Terry's inconsistency. Now you're changing your claim of implication to something that was never in contention.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Louise, did you watch any of the clip?  I couldn't even make it past 10 minutes. It's ignorant, wildly inaccurate, and wholly offensive, which I'm sure was the intention.


I've heard so many vile things said about the followers of Christ.  Jesus told us to expect it.

----------


## Cabal

> There's limits and boundaries with regard to everything regarding civil and moral behavior.  Post a video with Penn tossing the F-bomb at God over and over and over, on a Sunday in the Religious forum.  I couldn't even listen to it all it was so foul and rotten.  Excuse me for saying this but what kind of person would do something so disrespectful to people they know it's going to offend.  Yes, Bryan was right.  It's not only "baiting", but immoral in the one place where Schiff knew it would anger and disgust people on purpose.  He was a very bad boy.  Even a decent civil atheist would have more common sense and respect than that for people who worship the God of the Christian Bible.
> 
> How would you like it if I posted a picture of your Mother and did the same thing to her that Penn did to the Lord we worship?  Maybe you don't like your Mother, but for those who do have reverence and respect for their parents would feel the same way most of us did.  It's all about respect.


I take no issue with the level of vulgarity used in that video, personally. And I certainly don't think that use of vulgar language makes someone evil, or filthy--it's actually quite common these days, at least from what I gather. I mean, a claim of evil is quite a bold claim, especially if you're basing it on nothing than a few cuss words. In any case, I'm not taking issue with Bryan -repping Schiff--that's irrelevant to me. But you were calling for more action to be taken in the form of punishment against him for posting the video while later claiming that ability to freely express different opinions is an integral component of liberty. Now, you've added a caveat to that position, claiming that this should only apply to 'respectful' opinions. But as I pointed out before, and have again shown here, your subjective, arbitrary definition of what is or is not respectful, or disrespectful, to the extent that it should be censored or uncensored--respected, or disrespected as a valid opinion to be freely expressed--isn't necessarily a universal one. Thus, my previous post:




> So, in other words, it's okay to call for the silencing of those things you determine to be disrespectful, and 'evil filth', based on your own subjective notions of what qualifies as such. Like I said, we already live in such a society.


Also, I don't claim that my mother is god, so Penn and Teller probably wouldn't be too interested in her picture, let alone doing a Bull$#@! show on her.

----------


## VIDEODROME

P & T Bull$#@! doesn't appear to be about being civil to anyone or anything.

----------


## Deborah K

> Um, I didn't just imply that, I outright said that, and so did Terry in a previous post--something about "harder slapping" or some such. But you appear to be confused. Did you already forget what you posted before? Originally, *you were claiming that I was commenting on a 'right to criticize'*, when I hadn't mentioned anything about such a right. You then claim it was implied, to which I disagreed, as any supposed right to criticize was neither here nor there to the point of my exchange regarding Terry's inconsistency. Now you're changing your claim of implication to something that was never in contention.


Show me where I claimed you were commenting on a right to criticize.  That was my response to your implication that Terry1 wishes to 'silence the things she determines to be disrespectful'.  My point being; just because she is critical of Schiff, and would have imposed a stricter infraction on him, does not necessarily equate to her wanting to 'silence the things she determines to be disrespectful'. 

Hope that clears this up.  If not, I give up.

----------


## Deborah K

> P & T Bull$#@! doesn't appear to be about being civil to anyone or anything.


It's fine to be irreverent while trying to get a laugh.  I get that.  But it's pretty stupid, imo, to be so vicious and insulting to a rather large sect of the population, if your goal is to create a following and make as much money as you can.  

This would never be acceptable if it was about gays, or blacks.  But for some damned reason, the faithful are free reign.

----------


## Cabal

> Show me where I claimed you were commenting on a right to criticize..


Seriously?




> Terry1 has just as much of a right to criticize





> Never said anything about a right, or lack thereof, to criticize.





> You implied it

----------


## Deborah K

> Seriously?


Are you trolling me?  Quit parsing words ffs!

----------


## Terry1

> Um, I didn't just imply that, I outright said that, and so did Terry in a previous post--something about "harder slapping" or some such. But you appear to be confused. Did you already forget what you posted before? Originally, you were claiming that I was commenting on a 'right to criticize', when I hadn't mentioned anything about such a right. You then claim it was implied, to which I disagreed, as any supposed right to criticize was neither here nor there to the point of my exchange regarding Terry's inconsistency. Now you're changing your claim of implication to something that was never in contention.


I never said a  word about silencing him, now don't be misquoting me okay.  Yeah, I did say a harder slap wouldn't have been out of line IMO.  Hey, me and Schiff are okay with each other, so what's your problem now?  Dude, you need to chill anyway.  You get way too excited over this stuff.

----------


## Deborah K

> I never said a  word about silencing him, now don't be misquoting me okay.  Yeah, I did say a harder slap wouldn't have been out of line IMO.  Hey, me and Schiff are okay with each other, so what's your problem now?


Cabal wants to nitpick I think.  The bottom line is, you were accused of wanting to silence that which you determine to be disrespectful, as if you have done or said anything other than criticize Schiff, and wanting to impose a stricter infraction on him -  which does not necessarily equate to wanting to silence him - which was my point - which got lost in the confusion over what I  was supposedly implying - which - oh never mind.

----------


## Cabal

> I never said a  word about silencing him, now don't be misquoting me okay.  Yeah, I did say a harder slap wouldn't have been out of line IMO.  Hey, me and Schiff are okay with each other, so what's your problem now?


It's a necessary implication of using force to punish certain behavior, as this discourages and suppresses certain behavior--in this case, the voicing of opinions--under threat of punishment. This isn't rocket science. In fact, it's a fairly basic libertarian principle.

My problem was with your inconsistency. I thought that was rather clear. You can't support the above--suppression of opinions by way of punishment because they don't conform to your own personal, subjective, arbitrarily defined definition of what qualifies as respect--AND preach about how different opinions are an integral component of liberty. Just because you personally deem something to be respectful or disrespectful--just because you like or dislike, agree with or disagree with something--doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be regarded as a valid or worthwhile opinion. 

Now, if you have objections to the validity of the content of the opinion being expressed, then by all means, refute it--show how it is wrong, inaccurate, inconsistent. If it cannot stand to such scrutiny, then it isn't an opinion worth much, is it?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> It's fine to be irreverent while trying to get a laugh.  I get that.  But it's pretty stupid, imo, to be so vicious and insulting to a rather large sect of the population, if your goal is to create a following and make as much money as you can.  
> 
> This would never be acceptable if it was about gays, or blacks.  But for some damned reason, the faithful are free reign.


I guess if they wanted to do that they would be more like the Republicans / Conservatives.  Basically, get in line with Hannity.  

Oh well, I'd just guess they thought there would be a niche somewhere for "Nothing is Sacred" TV.

----------


## Deborah K

> I guess if they wanted to do that they would be more like the Republicans / Conservatives.  Basically, get in line with Hannity.  
> 
> Oh well, I'd just guess they thought there would be a niche somewhere for "Nothing is Sacred" TV.


Then they ought to take that to its logical conclusion and take on gays, blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, ......

----------


## Terry1

> It's a necessary implication of using force to punish certain behavior, as this discourages and suppresses certain behavior--in this case, the voicing of opinions--under threat of punishment. This isn't rocket science. In fact, it's a fairly basic libertarian principle.
> 
> My problem was with your inconsistency. I thought that was rather clear. You can't support the above--suppression of opinions by way of punishment because they don't conform to your own personal, subjective, arbitrarily defined definition of what qualifies as respect--AND preach about how different opinions are an integral component of liberty. Just because you personally deem something to be respectful or disrespectful--just because you like or dislike, agree with or disagree with something--doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be regarded as a valid or worthwhile opinion. 
> 
> Now, if you have objections to the validity of the content of the opinion being expressed, then by all means, refute it--show how it is wrong, inaccurate, inconsistent. If it cannot stand to such scrutiny, then it isn't an opinion worth much, is it?


Are you on Red Bull or something?  I gotta go eat pizza with the better half now, then we've got a movie lined up-- see ya later.

----------


## Terry1

> Cabal wants to nitpick I think.  The bottom line is, you were accused of wanting to silence that which you determine to be disrespectful, as if you have done or said anything other than criticize Schiff, and wanting to impose a stricter infraction on him -  which does not necessarily equate to wanting to silence him - which was my point - which got lost in the confusion over what I  was supposedly implying - which - oh never mind.


Yeah, I mean--me and Schiff are okay now.  Cabal must've got his nap out today or something.  I have no idea what's up with him.  My better half's yelling down the stairs for me to come up there and watch a movie, not to mention I'm dead tired and starving here. LOL

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, I mean--me and Schiff are okay now.  Cabal must've got his nap out today or something.  I have no idea what's up with him.  My better half's yelling down the stairs for me to come up there and watch a movie, not to mention I'm dead tired and starving here. LOL


Go eat.  All is well.  Cabal will forgive us.

----------


## Cabal

> Go eat.  All is well.  Cabal will forgive us.


Forgiveness wasn't the topic at hand, respect was

----------


## Deborah K

> Forgiveness wasn't the topic at hand, respect was


You can't help yourself.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

So this is the terrible thread that got you demoted??!!  Bwaaaaaa!!!!  Moderators and posters everywhere: run for your lives!!!!!!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So this is the terrible thread that got you demoted??!!  Bwaaaaaa!!!!  Moderators and posters everywhere: run for your lives!!!!!!


I think the moderators have a very hard job here.  It is thought that the nature of politics, in the sense that it is a social phenomenon, is that it must respect, or set aside, religious views.  So I think a little bit of that thinking goes in to the moderation here.  Politics is seen as "neutral", and religious worldviews shouldn't be a part of the discussion. 

I disagree.  Politics is religious (as is everything).  And also, when someone posts something that is offensive to my worldview, I don't go apoplectic and call for moderation like this is a political issue that "should be neutral".

I think EVERY discussion about EVERY topic is open for being argued for.   Nothing is neutral.    Every position comes from a worldview that must be defended in the arena of ideas.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, we are and we do.  I just wonder why the conflicting standard between this topic and 9/11 Truth.  We can make up our minds about that too, but too many people are concerned that Rand will be "smeared by association" with 9/11 Truthers.  Why not this?


I'm indifferent to the 9/11 truth thing.  Personally its something I deliberately don't dabble in, but I'm fine with it if other people want to.

By contrast, there IS no more important issue than the gospel of Jesus Christ.  That issue is more important than any political issue.  If I were not allowed to discuss it, I'd probably feel morally obligated to give up my account.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I think the moderators have a very hard job here.  It is thought that the nature of politics, in the sense that it is a social phenomenon, is that it must respect, or set aside, religious views.  So I think a little bit of that thinking goes in to the moderation here.  Politics is seen as "neutral", and religious worldviews shouldn't be a part of the discussion. 
> 
> I disagree.  Politics is religious (as is everything).  And also, when someone posts something that is offensive to my worldview, I don't go apoplectic and call for moderation like this is a political issue that "should be neutral".
> 
> I think EVERY discussion about EVERY topic is open for being argued for.   Nothing is neutral.    Every position comes from a worldview that must be defended in the arena of ideas.


Well said, Sola.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I think the moderators have a very hard job here.  It is thought that the nature of politics, in the sense that it is a social phenomenon, is that it must respect, or set aside, religious views.  So I think a little bit of that thinking goes in to the moderation here.  Politics is seen as "neutral", and religious worldviews shouldn't be a part of the discussion. 
> 
> I disagree.  Politics is religious (as is everything).  And also, when someone posts something that is offensive to my worldview, I don't go apoplectic and call for moderation like this is a political issue that "should be neutral".
> 
> I think EVERY discussion about EVERY topic is open for being argued for.   Nothing is neutral.    Every position comes from a worldview that must be defended in the arena of ideas.


I understand what you're saying and agree with a lot of what you're saying.  Yes, nothing is neutral.  Everything is a judgment, either by omission or commission.  I was really speaking about advertising dollars, which really guide forum owners' decisions.  There's nothing wrong with that, but that's the reality on which this stuff turns.

----------


## erowe1

> I was really speaking about advertising dollars, which really guide forum owners' decisions.


Did the forum owners tell you this? Or did you just make it up?

----------


## Terry1

As long as it's kept civil and respectful--I never have a problem with opposing opinions.  Tossing the F-bomb, ridiculing and debasing someone's beliefs with foul speech is not what I call respectful.  I think that message has also been well reiterated and enforced amongst the TPTB as well.  Read Bryan's sticky at the top of the religion forum.  It pretty well explains this fairly clearly too. 

Someone can disagree with me as long as they're being respectful without name calling, ad hom attacks or filthy, foul-mouthed language that would even cause a drunken sailor to cringe at.  There has to be limits, otherwise there is no civility or respect for one another's beliefs--only terror and chaos.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm indifferent to the 9/11 truth thing.  Personally its something I deliberately don't dabble in, but I'm fine with it if other people want to.
> 
> By contrast, there IS no more important issue than the gospel of Jesus Christ.  That issue is more important than any political issue.  If I were not allowed to discuss it, I'd probably feel morally obligated to give up my account.


I don't want to hijack this thread with 9/11 stuff, but I do want to answer your question....look for another thread that I will start in either Forum Feedback or Hot Topics.

----------


## Terry1

I'm just wondering what Ron or Rand would say about someone like Penn and Teller endorsing them on nationwide T.V.  Does anyone think this is the image that Ron or Rand would endorse themselves?  Ron and Rand both are good Christians as well.  I can see why Ron Paul wanted to disassociate himself with some of these whack jobs that were endorsing him.  He had no control over that.

----------


## Schifference

I have followed this thread. My perception is that people that condemn it are condemning Penn's delivery. I don't think anyone has defended any of the issues brought up. I can only speculate what Ron or Rand think but I have repeatedly heard Rand say something to the effect of lets work on issues we have in common and can agree on.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think anyone has defended any of the issues brought up.


Issues like what?

I didn't watch it, mainly because it's pretty inconceivable that Penn and Teller have any good contributions to make to discussions about the veracity of the Bible. There's no shortage of material out there to research from people who actually have expertise in the field.

----------


## Terry1

> I have followed this thread. My perception is that people that condemn it are condemning Penn's delivery. I don't think anyone has defended any of the issues brought up. I can only speculate what Ron or Rand think but I have repeatedly heard Rand say something to the effect of lets work on issues we have in common and can agree on.


Schiff, I'm not blaming you here.  I just think it was a bad judgment call on your part.  We all make mistakes, but it wasn't just Penn's delivery, it was Penn literally spitting in the face of believers and God.  I know you don't believe, so you don't realize just how offensive this was to some of us believers.

----------


## Terry1

Double post--whoops!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't want to hijack this thread with 9/11 stuff, but I do want to answer your question....look for another thread that I will start in either Forum Feedback or Hot Topics.


I'm not sure what question I asked, but I'll check anyway

----------


## Deborah K

> I have followed this thread. My perception is that people that condemn it are condemning Penn's delivery. *I don't think anyone has defended any of the issues brought up.* I can only speculate what Ron or Rand think but I have repeatedly heard Rand say something to the effect of lets work on issues we have in common and can agree on.


I explained here, how easy it is to misinterpret the Bible:




> It's easy to cherry-pick the Bible and produce any conclusion you want -  this sub-forum is a classic example of that.  And the reason is because the writings of the Bible span 1500 years, with many different writers, so it stands to reason that there will be contradictions.  As you know, times change, and mores change in a matter of a generation or two - let alone 1500 years.  People like to criticize the practices and behaviors of the ancient people depicted in the Bible, not realizing that doing so naively inflicts modern-day mores on ancient practices. Only 200 years ago, our country was in the throes of slavery.  How fair would it be for future historians to paint our entire American history solely with that brush?  The point I'm trying to make, is that the Bible is a work spanning 1500 years by various authors that includes history, metaphor, advice, literature, and much more, and needs to be taken in its entirety. As you may have noticed, if you frequent the religion sub-forum, _anyone_ can take advantage of the Bible and twist it to match their belief system and agenda - which I believe, is why there are so many denominations. 
> 
> Having stated the above, I do believe the Bible is divinely inspired.  Therefor, even though I may not understand or may have trouble accepting some of it, I attribute that to my own limits, and not to God.  Years ago, I came to the realization that I don't have to have a full understanding of everything in order to accept it.  You would not believe how freeing that is.
> 
> Not every person of faith takes the entire Bible literally.  I don't believe you are required to take every word of the Bible literally in order to accept the gift of faith.  People who do are considered fundamentalists.  Not all people of faith are fundamentalists.


Penn's failure to understand the above is a reflection of his ignorance on the subject in general.

----------


## Schifference

Would you find it offensive for someone to tell you that your belief was wrong and you are not a Christian? 


> Schiff, I'm not blaming you here.  I just think it was a bad judgment call on your part.  We all make mistakes, but it wasn't just Penn's delivery, it was Penn literally spitting in the face of believers and God.  I know you don't believe, so you don't realize just how offensive this was to some of us believers.

----------


## Terry1

> Would you find it offensive for someone to tell you that your belief was wrong and you are not a Christian?


No, not at all.  There's one here that's always accusing every other denomination of that because they don't believe the same way he does.  It's the way you go about telling someone you don't agree with them.  There is a respectful right way to disagree.  Penn in that video looked like he was some crazy possessed individual on a mission to spit in the face of God and His followers.  I think he needs therapy myself--LOL

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well... I'm a fan of Bill Hicks, so maybe Penn's act doesn't faze me that much.  

Anway, for the Non-Theist side, there are probably better sources like the late Christopher Hitchens.  Or even Sam Harris. 

I think Dan Barker is any interesting case since he was an evangelical preacher who lost his faith basically to science.

----------


## Terry1

> Well... I'm a fan of Bill Hicks, so maybe Penn's act doesn't faze me that much.  
> 
> Anway, for the Non-Theist side, there are probably better sources like the late Christopher Hitchens.  Or even Sam Harris. 
> 
> I think Dan Barker is any interesting case since he was an evangelical preacher who lost his faith basically to science.


Wow, he lost his faith to science?  I wonder what he was believing before he made that trip?

----------


## Deborah K

> Well... I'm a fan of Bill Hicks, so maybe Penn's act doesn't faze me that much.  
> 
> Anway, for the Non-Theist side, there are probably better sources like the late Christopher Hitchens.  Or even Sam Harris. 
> 
> I think Dan Barker is any interesting case since he was an evangelical preacher who lost his faith basically to science.


Believing in a creator doesn't require that you abandon reason and logic.

----------


## Schifference

It does when presented with an unanswerable question. Then it is faith without which you cannot believe. Did Noah get 2 of every animal on a boat? Was the entire earth flooded? How does reason & logic support your answer? 


> Believing in a creator doesn't require that you abandon reason and logic.

----------


## Terry1

> Believing in a creator doesn't require that you abandon reason and logic.


Deb, you're great with these chocked full of wisdom one-liners.  I just lack the talent myself and get all wordy, but you summed that up so well.

----------


## Terry1

> It does when presented with an unanswerable question. Then it is faith without which you cannot believe. Did Noah get 2 of every animal on a boat? Was the entire earth flooded? How does reason & logic support your answer?


Not exactly. The Bible specifically states, “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3). Clean animals included seven of each animal on the ark. Only unclean animals came in pairs.

Just correcting that animal thing here.

----------


## Schifference

OK thanks for the clarification. Now explain with logic & reason how it happened. 


> Not exactly. The Bible specifically states, “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3). Clean animals included seven of each animal on the ark. Only unclean animals came in pairs.
> 
> Just correcting that animal thing here.

----------


## Deborah K

> OK thanks for the clarification. Now explain with logic & reason how it happened.


Is it really that inconceivable to you that Noah and his family built an arc knowing that a flood was coming, and put animals and supplies on it?  Or are you just hung up on the literal language?

----------


## Schifference

I am looking for a rational logical explanation of how this could possibly take place not a faith based miraculous one.  


> Is it really that inconceivable to you that Noah and his family built an arc knowing that a flood was coming, and put animals and supplies on it?  Or are you just hung up on the literal language?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Wow, he lost his faith to science?  I wonder what he was believing before he made that trip?


Oddly enough, I think Dan Barker was much like Sola Fide.  He participated in evangelism and missionary work in Mexico trying to help convert Catholics to Christians. 

Over time, he just went through a long process of walking away from Christianity.  He also decided the Bible was mostly just a mix of history and allegorical stories such as Genesis not to be taken literally.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am looking for a rational logical explanation of how this could possibly take place not a faith based miraculous one.


So, are you stating that you're hung up on the literal language?

----------


## Deborah K

Schiff, do you accept the idea of intelligent life on other planets and the possibility that we have been visited?

----------


## VIDEODROME

This thread is going places now.

----------


## Deborah K

> This thread is going places now.


Snark?

----------


## Schifference

Are you taking the stance that the Arc is a fictitious metaphorical story? If not please do not abandon rational logical reasoning and explain how it happened. 


> So, are you stating that you're hung up on the literal language?

----------


## Terry1

> OK thanks for the clarification. Now explain with logic & reason how it happened.


Reason and logic is relative to whatever your frame of reference is though.  I could answer that, but my answer would be based upon what I believe spiritually according to the word of God.  I guess then you could call it *spiritual logic*, not to be confused with secular logic.  

In other words, a believer could very well answer your question, but in your mind it will continue to beg yet another question and another after that always leaving you in a state of confusion because the spiritual the carnal will never mix or be understood in that same light of reasoning.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I  just said that as a side comment on how threads here go into major tangents.  

I wasn't trying to be snarky....

----------


## Schifference

> Schiff, do you accept the idea of intelligent life on other planets and the possibility that we have been visited?


From what little I know I cannot discount that another solar system with life exists. It seems plausible. I have no clue if any intelligent life from any where else has ever visited this planet.

----------


## Deborah K

> From what little I know I cannot discount that another solar system with life exists. It seems plausible. I have no clue if any intelligent life from any where else has ever visited this planet.


I didn't ask you if you had proof or a clue, I asked you if you accepted the possibility that we've been visited.  Do you or don't you?

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you taking the stance that the Arc is a fictitious metaphorical story? If not please do not abandon rational logical reasoning and explain how it happened.


It doesn't matter what I think.  You are the one asking the questions about the arc and I'm trying to discern what your real issue is.  Please answer the question: 




> Is it really that inconceivable to you that Noah and his family built an arc knowing that a flood was coming, and put animals and supplies on it?  Or are you just hung up on the literal language?

----------


## Schifference

These are your words, "Believing in a creator doesn't require that you abandon reason and logic." So use reason & logic to explain Noah and the flood. 


> It doesn't matter what I think.  You are the one asking the questions about the arc and I'm trying to discern what your real issue is.  Please answer the question:

----------


## VIDEODROME

So could Jesus be an alien?

----------


## Deborah K

> These are your words, "Believing in a creator doesn't require that you abandon reason and logic." So use reason & logic to explain Noah and the flood.


Are you afraid to answer the questions I have posed to you? If you want to understand my logic and reasoning, then be willing to pursue this dialogue, instead of deflecting.

----------


## Terry1

> So could Jesus be an alien?


If you ever have the crazy notion to watch that "Left Behind" series of movies or read the books on what's going to happen.  They say that's going to be the *big lie* told when the rapture happens and all of the believers disappear from the earth.  It will be that the aliens took them. LOL--  I don't know if that's going to be how things pan out, but just think about.  If believers are right and this does happen, how else would unbelievers handle that sort of thing?  They'd have to believe that aliens kidnapped them. 

In fact, I actually believe that people who claim to have seen aliens, have actually had encounters with demonic beings, but they are not believers, so that's the only way they can mentally sort out what they saw.  Biblically, demons can take on any shape or form they want.

----------


## Schifference

I neither believe we have nor have not been visited. 


> I didn't ask you if you had proof or a clue, I asked you if you accepted the possibility that we've been visited.  Do you or don't you?

----------


## Terry1

So a demon could very well take on this form and say "Hey VIDEODROME, wanna take a ride in my space ship"?

----------


## Deborah K

> I neither believe we have nor have not been visited.


The question is not whether you believe or don't believe we have been visited.  Semantics are essential right now, so please allow me to be specific here.  Do you *accept the possibility* that we have been visited?  Yes or no.  

Edit:  Please be intellectually honest or we won't get anywhere.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Yeah I would do it.   Gimme a ride off this crazy planet.

----------


## Deborah K

> So a demon could very well take on this form and say "Hey VIDEODROME, wanna take a ride in my space ship"?


That is freaky.  Do you have a link?

----------


## Terry1

> That is freaky.  Do you have a link?


I just grabbed that off of a Google search.  I'll try to find where it came from. ROFL!

Here--I found it.  It's some wacky site here: http://animalnewyork.com/2010/louisi...eting-monster/

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah I would do it.   Gimme a ride off this crazy planet.


LOL  You know what happens with you get in spaceships with strange aliens don't you?

----------


## Schifference

Is it possible that God does not exist? 


> The question is not whether you believe or don't believe we have been visited.  Semantics are essential right now, so please allow me to be specific here.  Do you *accept the possibility* that we have been visited?  Yes or no.  
> 
> Edit:  Please be intellectually honest or we won't get anywhere.

----------


## Terry1



----------


## Terry1

> Is it possible that God does not exist?


No because there's more evidence to support that He does exist, of course it depends on what you're seeing when you look at the evidence.

----------


## Schifference

Can your opinion be supported by logic & reasoning? Spiritual reasoning is not an option because that is like saying my dead mother is sitting here by my side because I have faith she is. Do you believe in misguided faith? A mother withholds medical care for her child because of her faith and then the child dies. 


> No because there's more evidence to support that He does exist, of course it depends on what you're seeing when you look at the evidence.

----------


## Terry1

> Can your opinion be supported by logic & reasoning? Spiritual reasoning is not an option because that is like saying my dead mother is sitting here by my side because I have faith she is. Do you believe in misguided faith? A mother withholds medical care for her child because of her faith and then the child dies.


Schiff, your logic and reasoning doesn't even exist on the same plane of thought as mine does.  We're on two separate planets you and I.  You might have more success if you had this discussion with a gnostic believer.  Now they seem to believe that they can obtain God through their own knowledge absent the Spiritual nature.

Wow, why didn't someone tell me how bad my syntax was in that post. LOL  I fixed it.

----------


## erowe1

> Can your opinion be supported by logic & reasoning?


Can a belief be warranted if it is not supported by logic and reasoning?

----------


## Schifference

Is Global Warming warranted? 


> Can a belief be warranted if it is not supported by logic and reasoning?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is Global Warming warranted?


These discussions become very boring and circular when you don't answer questions directed right at you.  Plz answer erowe's question.  It has the potential to start an interesting dialogue/group discussion.

----------


## Schifference

Where the beliefs of Heaven's Gate warranted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven&#39;...ligious_group)



> Can a belief be warranted if it is not supported by logic and reasoning?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Did the forum owners tell you this? Or did you just make it up?


Business 101

----------


## Cabal

> No because there's more evidence to support that He does exist, of course it depends on what you're seeing when you look at the evidence.


What evidence?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where the beliefs of Heaven's Gate warranted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven&#39;...ligious_group)


I have an interest in obscure cults (I know, I'm a theology geek).  I know a lot about Marshal Applewhite's beliefs.  If you want to know anything about Heaven's Gate, I could probably tell you.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Can a belief be warranted if it is not supported by logic and reasoning?


Possibly.  One might experience a personal revelation in which the person is convinced beyond all doubt that he has experienced God and His word.  But there would be no way for the person to convince someone else that the experience really involved God and wan't simply a delusion (even assuming that he could convince the other that the experience actually occurred). 

Aside from personal revelation, however, if a belief isn't warranted by logic and reasoning then wouldn't a belief in Baal, Zeus, or leprechauns be equally as legitimate as a belief in the Biblical deity?

----------


## erowe1

> Business 101


Source?

----------


## Terry1

> What evidence?


You just proved my point.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Source?


Say what?

----------


## Cabal

> You just proved my point.


So you have no evidence, or...?

----------


## Terry1

> So you have no evidence, or...?


I say there's evidence--you then say you can't see it, end of story.  It's what you choose to believe either way, you either see it or you don't.  I could point to a tree and say that's evidence, then you can stand there tipping your head while staring at and say--looks like a tree to me.

----------


## Cabal

> I say there's evidence--you then say you can't see it, end of story.  It's what you choose to believe either way, you either see it or you don't.  I could point to a tree and say that's evidence, then you can stand there tipping your head while staring at and say--looks like a tree to me.


So, you have no evidence. Right. Thought so.

----------


## Terry1

> So, you have no evidence. Right. Thought so.


I have it alright, it's you're own fault that you can't see it.  I could ask you a question like--Cabal--what's beyond-beyond and beyond that and where does everything begin and end and then---what would your answer be?

----------


## Cabal

> I have it alright, it's you're own fault that you can't see it.  I could ask you a question like--Cabal--what's beyond-beyond and beyond that and where does everything begin and end and then---what would your answer be?


Well then what is it? I keep asking you to produce this evidence you claim to have, and you keep refusing to produce it. I'm not asking you what you think proves your beliefs, I'm asking you for evidence that is verifiable, reproducible, and not in contention with the objective laws of physical reality--this is evidence. Hallucinations, suppositions, and delusions do not qualify as evidence. So when you say you have evidence, put up or shut up.

----------


## Terry1

> Well then what is it? I keep asking you to produce this evidence you claim to have, and you keep refusing to produce it. I'm not asking you what you think proves your beliefs, I'm asking you for evidence that is verifiable, reproducible, and not in contention with the objective laws of physical reality--this is evidence. Hallucinations, suppositions, and delusions do not qualify as evidence. So when you say you have evidence, put up or shut up.


Just think Cabal, out of all of those competitors, you actually out-ran them all and managed to become this.  This is really the best evidence there is right here.

----------


## Cabal

> Just think Cabal, out of all of those competitors, you actually out-ran them all and managed to become this.  This is really the best evidence there is right here.


The sexual reproductive process is a biological science, and does not require anything supernatural or superstitious to be explained or understood. Try again.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well then what is it? I keep asking you to produce this evidence you claim to have, and you keep refusing to produce it. I'm not asking you what you think proves your beliefs, I'm asking you for evidence that is verifiable, reproducible, and *not in contention with the objective laws of physical reality--this is evidence.* Hallucinations, suppositions, and delusions do not qualify as evidence. So when you say you have evidence, put up or shut up.


What's wrong with being in contention with the objective laws of physics?  Many of the most important ideas in science have come from pushing the boundaries of what we know of physical reality. For example, time travel was once fiction-seemingly at odds with physical laws.  Now physicists can send particles into the future using specialized accelerators and other equipment.  The implications of special and general relativity are still being explored to this day.

----------


## Cabal

> What's wrong with being in contention with the objective laws of physics?  Many of the most important ideas in science have come from pushing the boundaries of what we know of physical reality. For example, time travel was once fiction-seemingly at odds with physical laws.  Now physicists can send particles into the future using specialized accelerators and other equipment.  The implications of special and general relativity are still being explored to this day.


If you think you can refute and improve on what is currently understood about objective reality, feel free to enlighten us with sufficiently valid proof. But if your proof is "just believe" then I'm going to proceed to laugh in your face.

Obviously I didn't mean to imply that all things are currently known. But you already understood that and are probably just being obtuse and snarky, which is fine, if that's how you want to be.

----------


## erowe1

> Say what?


Well, you made an accusation against Bryan that seemed kind of snide to me. Then you said that you based it on Business 101. Have you taken Business 101? Did Business 101 really teach you that Bryan has to let his advertisers tell him what to put on this site and where? Has Bryan taken Business 101? Do you mean that Bryan's not a good businessman if he doesn't do that? Do you mean that Bryan is a good businessman, and that that's why you think he's such a shady individual? Or were you just pulling crap out of your butt?

----------


## Terry1

> The sexual reproductive process is a biological science, and doesn't not require anything supernatural or superstitious to be explained or understood. Try again.


Kewl video though wasn't it.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Well, you made an accusation against Bryan...


Where did I do that?

----------


## erowe1

> Where did I do that?


Post 255.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Post 255.


Yeah.  What about it?  Where's the accusation?

----------


## Deborah K

> Is it possible that God does not exist?


You continue to evade my questions.  You do so because you know exactly where I'm going with my questioning, and you don't want to admit that you believe in the possibility of something there is no evidence of.  Answer the question:

Do you accept the possibility that we have been visited by intelligent life from other planets? Yes or no.

----------


## Schifference

You have avoided my question in post 271 what number post was your question?  


> You continue to evade my questions.  You do so because you know exactly where I'm going with my questioning, and you don't want to admit that you believe in the possibility of something there is no evidence of.  Answer the question:
> 
> Do you accept the possibility that we have been visited by intelligent life from other planets? Yes or no.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Is it possible that God does not exist?


Yes

----------


## Deborah K

> You have avoided my question in post 271 what number post was your question?


You won't answer my questions because you would have to admit that you believe in something without any proof, while you criticize others for doing the same.  But I'll answer your question because unlike you, I'm intellectually honest.

I believe anything is possible with God.  I believe Noah and his family were told by God there would be a flood, so they built an arc and stocked it with supplies and animals.  I'm not a fundamentalist.  Fundamentalists take every word of the Bible literally.  That is not required in order to accept the gift of faith.   I accept the possibility that the rest of the story is metaphor with regard to 2 of every animal on the planet, whole world flooding, etc.  It's neither here nor there for me because my interest lies in the moral of the story.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> You won't answer my questions because you would have to admit that you believe in something without any proof, while you criticize others for doing the same.  But I'll answer your question because unlike you, I'm intellectually honest.
> 
> I believe anything is possible with God.  I believe Noah and his family were told by God there would be a flood, so they built an arc and stocked it with supplies and animals.  I'm not a fundamentalist.  Fundamentalists take every word of the Bible literally.  That is not required in order to accept the gift of faith.   I accept the possibility that the rest of the story is metaphor with regard to 2 of every animal on the planet, whole world flooding, etc.  It's neither here nor there for me because my interest lies in the moral of the story.


Either the bible is the word of god and thus infallible, or it is fiction written by man.
You cannot have it both ways, there is no gray area here. 

To me it is fiction and anyone that believes in god or the bible is delusional.

Moving on...

I do believe that is possible that aliens have been here.
We know there are planets in habitable zones around other stars, and we know that the building blocks of life are found in nebulae..
This is enough evidences to support the assumption that there MAY be life elsewhere.
That means they MAY have visited here, as they have had 14+billion years to evolve and get here.. 

Your turn now...
Now bring me proof of god please.

----------


## Queer_Libertarian_Radical

The thing about the god of the bible is that he is a statist.  Either you obey the creator and worship it and use the power of the state to impose god's will on earth.  He killed off 99.9% of the world's population (excluding sea creatures) because his science experiment failed.

God acts like a angry father figure.  He banished Satan, the fallen angel, from heaven for questioning his authoritarian rule.  He sent Jesus to earth only to crucify him and make him suffer.  God does not interact with his children (humanity), but works though several proxies such as burning trees.

As Fred Phelps, pastor of the westboro baptist church, pointed out that how can free will exist if god is all power and all knowing.  So free will is impossible in the bible.  So people who go to heave and hell are there before god decided before time and space existed that they would send x amount of people to heave and hell.

God also never brings up concepts of evolution, big bang, black holes, dinosaurs, other planets, other aliens outside the galaxy, etc.  Now you could argue that the bible isn't a science book, but still this is the WORD of god that exists for all entirety.

----------


## TER

> The thing about the god of the bible is that he is a statist.  Either you obey the creator and worship it and use the power of the state to impose god's will on earth.  He killed off 99.9% of the world's population (excluding sea creatures) because his science experiment failed.
> 
> God acts like a angry father figure.  He banished Satan, the fallen angel, from heaven for questioning his authoritarian rule.  He sent Jesus to earth only to crucify him and make him suffer.  God does not interact with his children (humanity), but works though several proxies such as burning trees.
> 
> As Fred Phelps, pastor of the westboro baptist church, pointed out that how can free will exist if god is all power and all knowing.  So free will is impossible in the bible.  So people who go to heave and hell are there before god decided before time and space existed that they would send x amount of people to heave and hell.
> 
> God also never brings up concepts of evolution, big bang, black holes, dinosaurs, other planets, other aliens outside the galaxy, etc.  Now you could argue that the bible isn't a science book, but still this is the WORD of god that exists for all entirety.


Case in point on why deviation from the apostolic and patristic faith eventually leads to heretical misunderstandings about the nature of God and how Christ saves us.

----------


## erowe1

> The thing about the god of the bible is that he is a statist.  Either you obey the creator and worship it and use the power of the state to impose god's will on earth. [sic]


That's completely false. Throughout the Bible the state is always the bad guys.

Those evil people in the Bible that you don't want God to punish, they're the statists.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As Fred Phelps, pastor of the westboro baptist church, pointed out that how can free will exist if god is all power and all knowing.  So free will is impossible in the bible.  So people who go to heave and hell are there before god decided before time and space existed that they would send x amount of people to heave and hell.


Fred Phelps said that?   Good, he's right.

----------


## Terry1

> Fred Phelps said that?   Good, he's right.


Phelp's isn't right about anything.  He's done more harm to the body of Christ than he's ever done any good.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Phelp's isn't right about anything.  He's done more harm to the body of Christ than he's ever done any good.


Anything?  Not the Trinity?  You are obviously incorrect.

Think about this:  _Fred Phelps_ is closer to the truth of man's will than you are.

----------


## moostraks

> Fred Phelps said that?   Good, he's right.


Color me surprised that S_F would agree with the Westboro baptist crowd.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Color me surprised that S_F would agree with the Westboro baptist crowd.


Do you believe in the Trinity?   So does Fred Phelps.  Color me surprised that Moostraks would agree with the Westboro Baptist Church.

----------


## Terry1

> Color me surprised that S_F would agree with the Westboro baptist crowd.


  I do believe it would have taken more than a feather to knock me over on that one too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Color me surprised that S_F would agree with the Westboro baptist crowd.





> I do believe it would have taken more than a feather to knock me over on that one too.


The Westboro Baptist Church holds to the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. http://www.godhatesfags.com/confessions/index.html

 The London Baptist confession endorses the Trinity.  Color me surprised that Moostraks and Terry1 agree with the Westboro Baptist Church.  These two must act the same way toward homosexuals that Fred Phelps does.

----------


## Terry1

> The Westboro Baptist Church holds to the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. http://www.godhatesfags.com/confessions/index.html
> 
>  The London Baptist confession endorses the Trinity.  Color me surprised that Moostraks and Terry1 agree with the Westboro Baptist Church.  These two must act the same way toward homosexuals that Fred Phelps does.


The difference between me and you is that I'd never make the statement that Phelps was right about anything he believes because everything he does is opposite what he says he believes, like some others.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The difference between me and you is that I'd never make the statement that Phelps was right about anything he believes because everything he does is opposite what he says he believes, like some others.


Obviously you must act exactly the same that the Westboro Baptists do.  You agree with them on the Trinity.   You believe what they believe.  Therefore you must act the same way they do.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Terry1

>

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Anything?  Not the Trinity?  You are obviously incorrect.
> 
> Think about this:  _Fred Phelps_ is closer to the truth of man's will than you are.


But do you believe Fred Phelps is saved?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *I have an interest in obscure cults* (I know, I'm a theology geek).  I know a lot about Marshal Applewhite's beliefs.  If you want to know anything about Heaven's Gate, I could probably tell you.


Like OTC?

----------


## Deborah K

> Either the bible is the word of god and thus infallible, or it is fiction written by man.
> You cannot have it both ways, there is no gray area here. 
> 
> To me it is fiction and anyone that believes in god or the bible is delusional.


Here's the thing....you don't get to dictate to me how I choose to believe in God or the Bible.  I've already stated that I believe with God all things are possible. I've also stated that the fact that some of the Bible confuses me and is hard to accept is due to my own limitations.  And to reiterate, I also believe that it is possible that some of the Bible is meant as metaphor. 





> I do believe that is possible that aliens have been here.
> We know there are planets in habitable zones around other stars, and we know that the building blocks of life are found in nebulae..
> This is enough evidences to support the assumption that there MAY be life elsewhere.
> That means they MAY have visited here, as they have had 14+billion years to evolve and get here..


And apparently, you also believe that 90% of the world's population is suffering from some form of mass delusion, since most of us believe in a creator.  That's pretty arrogant.




> Your turn now...
> Now bring me proof of god please


And once again I'll state that I don't owe you proof of anything:




> God isn't a puppet master up in space dictating every move made on earth, like some atheists seem to think he must be.  You can't point to something concrete and proclaim "that is God".  God is in _everything_, he exists all around us.  He manifested in human form as the Christ to save us from ourselves.
> 
> 
> The reason I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else is because believing in God requires acceptance of the gift of faith.  God exists for me and for other believers because we have chosen to accept his gift of faith.  He proves his existence to us every day by the way he touches our lives when we turn to him.  He does it in the form of small miracles - every day - all day.  You will never understand what I'm talking about until you make a decision to have the veil lifted from your eyes.
> 
> Why is it so easy for some atheists to accept the possibility that life might have been created on earth by some intelligent life form from somewhere else (when there's no proof) , but they just can't grasp the possibility that there is a divine creator?


And lastly, I wrote this to you but either you have chosen to ignore it or never saw it:




> ---->

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Why is it so easy for some atheists to accept the possibility that life might have been created on earth by some intelligent life form from somewhere else (when there's no proof) , but they just can't grasp the possibility that there is a divine creator?


Probably because the intelligent life form would still be part of the universe, bounded by space and time, and not a transcendent being. It's much easier to grasp the former than the latter.

In addition, it's easier to accept the general notion of a divine creator than it is to accept the parrticular one described in the Bible, IMHO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's completely false. Throughout the Bible the state is always the bad guys.
> 
> Those evil people in the Bible that you don't want God to punish, they're the statists.


Are you sure the state is ALWAYS the bad guys in the Bible?  I mean, King David was a man after God's own heart, Asa was considered to have done right in God's eyes, Josiah, etc.

I mean, I agree with what you're getting at, but how would you deal with the good kings?




> Here's the thing....you don't get to dictate to me how I choose to believe in God or the Bible.  I've already stated that I believe with God all things are possible. I've also stated that the fact that some of the Bible confuses me and is hard to accept is due to my own limitations.  And to reiterate, I also believe that it is possible that some of the Bible is meant as metaphor. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And apparently, you also believe that 90% of the world's population is suffering from some form of mass delusion, since most of us believe in a creator.  That's pretty arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your quote about God not dictating what happens on earth is not representative of all of Christianity.  I'd at least partially object to it.  And Sola would 100% object to it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you sure the state is ALWAYS the bad guys in the Bible?*  I mean, King David was a man after God's own heart*, Asa was considered to have done right in God's eyes, Josiah, etc.
> 
> I mean, I agree with what you're getting at, but how would you deal with the good kings?


I'm not so sure that David was a purely "good" guy.  Remember his adultry (Bathsheba) and proxy murder (Uriah the Hittite) to steal another man's wife.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not so sure that David was a purely "good" guy.  Remember his adultry (Bathsheba) and proxy murder (Uriah the Hittite) to steal another man's wife.


I'm with you.  I often use David as an example that even a man after God's own heart cannot be trusted with absolute power.  But, it SEEMS like God approved of most of the rest of the things he did.  it doesn't seem that he was sinning constantly by holding Israel's throne.  Which makes me wonder in the light of the rest of what I believe.

----------


## Deborah K

> Your quote about God not dictating what happens on earth is not representative of all of Christianity.  I'd at least partially object to it.


I didn't state that he does not dictate what happens on earth, because I believe he intervenes and that he has a plan. What I stated was that he's not a puppet master who dictates every move everyone makes.   I'm not a fundie, and I'm not a Calvinist.  And according to some, I'm not even a Christian.  I believe that God created us with the ability to choose.  




> And Sola would 100% object to it


Sola thinks I'm doomed to hell.  I think Sola has a screw loose.

----------


## Deborah K

> Probably because the intelligent life form would still be part of the universe, bounded by space and time, and not a transcendent being. It's much easier to grasp the former than the latter.
> 
> In addition, it's easier to accept the general notion of a divine creator than it is to accept the parrticular one described in the Bible, IMHO.


What specifically about the God of the Bible is hard to accept?  If you don't mind my asking.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What specifically about the God of the Bible is hard to accept?  If you don't mind my asking.


Some of the things the Old Testament God did were pretty hard to swallow, such as commanding the Israelites to commit genocide, killing the Egyptian firstborn, and using Job (described as "blameless and upright") as a pawn in a game of one-upsmanship with Satan.  In the New Testament, was it really necessary for God to cause Jesus to experience something as horrible as crucifixion?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Double post.

----------


## eduardo89

> I have an interest in obscure cults (I know, I founded and am the sole member of one).


Fixed that for you.

----------


## eduardo89

> Color me surprised that S_F would agree with the Westboro baptist crowd.


Phelps views Arminianism as a "worse blasphemy and heresy than that heard in all filthy Saturday night *** bars in the aggregate in the world".

Phelps considers Graham the greatest false prophet since Balaam, and also condemns large church leaders such as Robert Schuller and Jerry Falwell, in addition to all current Catholics.

Yup, that sounds like Sola.

----------


## Brett85

> Sola thinks I'm doomed to hell.  I think Sola has a screw loose.


He says that about any non Calvinist.  Just ignore him.

----------


## Schifference

Just curious if this is still a ban worthy thread.

----------


## erowe1

> Just curious if this is still a ban worthy thread.


As long as you don't criticize Trump supporters, you're probably OK.

----------


## Schifference

> As long as you don't criticize Trump supporters, you're probably OK.


Fair enough. Trump sucks. Hillary sucks. I have nothing to say about their supporters.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Just curious if this is still a ban worthy thread.


What was the purpose of you dredging up these old threads? Are you looking to retread arguments that appear to have been completely played out or are you just feeling nostalgic?

----------

