Does God Exist?

[-Cp]

Here's a great article on the age old question "Does God Exist?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp

[5stringJeff]

Good article, although I don't hold the young-earth creationist view.

[Mr. P]

Here's a great article on the age old question "Does God Exist?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp

I think the question should be, 'Whos God' not 'does God' exist.

Thump on. :)

[Gaffer]

I don't buy it. It's fundimentalism denying science and the real world.

Not all athiests are pro-abortion or morally corrupt.

The bible claims the world only existed for the past 4000 years. Yet the chinese have been around for 5000 years. But then they weren't known to the bible writers at the time.

[-Cp]

I don't buy it. It's fundimentalism denying science and the real world.

Not all athiests are pro-abortion or morally corrupt.

The bible claims the world only existed for the past 4000 years. Yet the chinese have been around for 5000 years. But then they weren't known to the bible writers at the time.

Actually - the Biblical timeline for Earth-age is 6000 years....

[-Cp]

Good article, although I don't hold the young-earth creationist view.

That's a bummer - you should spend more time reading that site then Jeff.. :)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

[Mr. P]

Actually - the Biblical timeline for Earth-age is 6000 years....

Yup, pretty silly ain't it?

[Gaffer]

Actually - the Biblical timeline for Earth-age is 6000 years....

Did they change it to allow for chinese civilization? It was always purported by the fundies that the world was create about 4000 years ago based on the begats.

The world is more than 4 billion years old. There was never a flood that covered the whole world. There's not that much water on the planet to do that even if you melt the polar caps.

[darin]

Did they change it to allow for chinese civilization? It was always purported by the fundies that the world was create about 4000 years ago based on the begats.

The world is more than 4 billion years old. There was never a flood that covered the whole world. There's not that much water on the planet to do that even if you melt the polar caps.


I've been a christian for nearly 30 years, and I've never heard people claiming a 'hard' number like "4000 years". News to me.

Frankly, the notion the world is BILLIONS of years old seems silly to me, however. :)

[jillian]

I'm kind of confused as to why the need for so many of these types of threads. People believe what they're going to believe, and hopefully everyone is comfortable with his or her beliefs. Also, last time I checked, this was a pretty secular board.

Not trying to be mean here, but I kinda don't get it.

[Gaffer]

I don't mind discussing the religious stuff here. As long as it doesn't degrade to name calling. I don't expect to change anyones mind anymore than they can expect to change mine. And as long as it remains in the religions thread.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm kind of confused as to why the need for so many of these types of threads. People believe what they're going to believe, and hopefully everyone is comfortable with his or her beliefs. Also, last time I checked, this was a pretty secular board.

Not trying to be mean here, but I kinda don't get it.

It's called religious fundamentalism Jillian. They try and convert you with their own brand of gobbledegook. Let them have their say. Doesn't really matter what type of board it is, its' good to know who's who...:wink2:

[MtnBiker]

It's called religious fundamentalism Jillian. They try and convert you with their own brand of gobbledegook. Let them have their say. Doesn't really matter what type of board it is, its' good to know who's who...:wink2:

I rarely post in religious threads, but I've gotta say this is silly. I witness conversations taking place not attempted conversions.

[jillian]

It's called religious fundamentalism Jillian. They try and convert you with their own brand of gobbledegook. Let them have their say. Doesn't really matter what type of board it is, its' good to know who's who...:wink2:


Yeah... but I keep thinking that on a new board, people are gonna see, not one, not two, but like three threads on this stuff at the top and go :eek2:

[MtnBiker]

Are you guys suprised that topics of religion are posted in a forum titled Religion/Ethics?

[Pale Rider]

God, whoever that person is to "you", exists in your mind, heart and soul. If you don't have him there, then he doesn't exist to you.

[Grumplestillskin]

I rarely post in religious threads, but I've gotta say this is silly. I witness conversations taking place not attempted conversions.

If you think either of the Pemberton boys wouldn't try and convert you in an instant, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. It is as basic to fundie Christians as a tool kit is to a mechanic. Look, I ain't saying it shouldn't be done, and I was not forced to participate on this board, but I call a spade a spade. Again, nothing wrong with it either...

[MtnBiker]

If you think either of the Pemberton boys wouldn't try and convert you in an instant,


I'll say again, I haven't witness any attempt on this board to convert someone. I have witness open discussion. Trying to cliam such discussion otherwise is a mischaracterization.

[Grumplestillskin]

Yeah... but I keep thinking that on a new board, people are gonna see, not one, not two, but like three threads on this stuff at the top and go :eek2:

Huh? What's problem? It's a religion folder?? And so what if people think that, they don't have to post on the thread??

[jillian]

Huh? What's problem? It's a religion folder?? And so what if people think that, they don't have to post on the thread??

Cause he did a bunch in a row and -cp likes "Christians only" threads. Was commenting more on the quantity than on the raising of the issue. No censorship involved.... don't believe in it.

[Gaffer]

He's keeping them in the regious folders and not carrying things to other threads like a certain person we all know likes to do. At least we now have some posts in the religious threads.

[darin]

Cause he did a bunch in a row and -cp likes "Christians only" threads. Was commenting more on the quantity than on the raising of the issue. No censorship involved.... don't believe in it.

So what's the problem? There are a number of Christians on this board; it's very reasonable to post a thread asking for THEIR perspective. So often many folk who attempt to use a thread, specifically asking for a CHRISTIAN point of view, to belittle and flame and derail those of us who Believe. As mentioned - if users don't like the nature of ANY thread, they are MORE than welcome to keep from replying. :)

[darin]

He's keeping them in the regious folders and not carrying things to other threads like a certain person we all know likes to do. At least we now have some posts in the religious threads.

Exactly. :) It's good discussion/debate so far - with very few people replying ONLY to belittle, etc.

[Gaffer]

Exactly. :) It's good discussion/debate so far - with very few people replying ONLY to belittle, etc.

Thanks for the rep. I agree it doesn't need to be full of belittling. I just enjoy a good discussion. I believe in facts, science and common sense.

[Gunny]

It's called religious fundamentalism Jillian. They try and convert you with their own brand of gobbledegook. Let them have their say. Doesn't really matter what type of board it is, its' good to know who's who...:wink2:

You seeing this as religious fundamentalism and attempted conversion, a dismissive attitude you generally express in most religious threads, is every bit as extreme as any religious fundamentalism.

It is possible to discuss religion on an intellectual level.:wink2:

[Grumplestillskin]

You seeing this as religious fundamentalism and attempted conversion, a dismissive attitude you generally express in most religious threads, is every bit as extreme as any religious fundamentalism.

Why? I'm not trying to convert anybody or force my opinion on anybody. I'm just giving my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.


It is possible to discuss religion on an intellectual level.:wink2:

With moderate religious folk? Absolutely...:D

[Gunny]

Why? I'm not trying to convert anybody or force my opinion on anybody. I'm just giving my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.



With moderate religious folk? Absolutely...:D

To hear you tell it, there's no such thing.

[Grumplestillskin]

To hear you tell it, there's no such thing.

Boooollllshheeeeet. Of course there is. Darin and Cp are fundies and I address them as such. The likes of Jillian and yourself aren't.

[Norse_soul]

Personally, I think that Religion is the problem. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. There is no such thing as "origional sin" or even a concept of sin. There is only right and wrong 'depending upon circumstance'. If you kill someone is it wrong? I firmly believe it depends upon the reason. Did you get in a drunken fight, or were you defending your family, or defending an old woman being attacked on the street. The christian religions are the worst for 'written in stone' sins. Thou shalt not kill. Look at nature to know the truth...

[Gunny]

Personally, I think that Religion is the problem. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. There is no such thing as "origional sin" or even a concept of sin. There is only right and wrong 'depending upon circumstance'. If you kill someone is it wrong? I firmly believe it depends upon the reason. Did you get in a drunken fight, or were you defending your family, or defending an old woman being attacked on the street. The christian religions are the worst for 'written in stone' sins. Thou shalt not kill. Look at nature to know the truth...

The Christian religion is no worse than any others where "right and wrong" is concerned. And while your approach to right and wrong may make sense to you, it would not make sense to a 13th century Japanese samurai. Nor does it make sense in some of these Third World countries where life is cheap.

There is no universal right and wrong.

Using nature as your standard, are you saying the natural selection/survival of the fittest is the determining factor for right and wrong?

[jillian]

Personally, I think that Religion is the problem. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. There is no such thing as "origional sin" or even a concept of sin. There is only right and wrong 'depending upon circumstance'. If you kill someone is it wrong? I firmly believe it depends upon the reason. Did you get in a drunken fight, or were you defending your family, or defending an old woman being attacked on the street. The christian religions are the worst for 'written in stone' sins. Thou shalt not kill. Look at nature to know the truth...

That isn't accurate. It doesn't really matter how one gets their sense of right and wrong, whether it is from their religion, their philosophical beliefs or whatever way they get them. But both testaments, as far as I know, allow self-defense, defense of otherss and defense of property as an excusable reason to kill. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, in the original Hebrew, the Ten Commandments don't say "Thou shalt not kill", they say "Thou shalt not murder", if translated properly. This would be consistent with the law on the subject as western nations apply it (I can't speak for non-western nations, because I don't know).

[Insein]

The Christian religion is no worse than any others where "right and wrong" is concerned. And while your approach to right and wrong may make sense to you, it would not make sense to a 13th century Japanese samurai. Nor does it make sense in some of these Third World countries where life is cheap.

There is no universal right and wrong.

Using nature as your standard, are you saying the natural selection/survival of the fittest is the determining factor for right and wrong?

Exactly. right and Wrong differ greatly in many cultures. Look at the Terrorists. They believe they are right for beheading those that do not believe in Ala. I don't think many other cultures would find that to be "right." Thats why laws are written.

[Gunny]

Exactly. right and Wrong differ greatly in many cultures. Look at the Terrorists. They believe they are right for beheading those that do not believe in Ala. I don't think many other cultures would find that to be "right." Thats why laws are written.

I mentioned Japanese samurai earlier ... in their culture, if the daimyo told a lesser samurai to kill himself (commit seppuku), that samurai was honor-bound to do so. If a peasant insulted a samurai, the samurai could justifiably cut his head off on the spot.

So yeah, it's just a matter of what we're brought up believing is "right or wrong."

[5stringJeff]

Personally, I think that Religion is the problem. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. There is no such thing as "origional sin" or even a concept of sin. There is only right and wrong 'depending upon circumstance'. If you kill someone is it wrong? I firmly believe it depends upon the reason. Did you get in a drunken fight, or were you defending your family, or defending an old woman being attacked on the street. The christian religions are the worst for 'written in stone' sins. Thou shalt not kill. Look at nature to know the truth...

So if I felt it was morally acceptable to beat you until you were unconscious, would that make it OK?

[Norse_soul]

The Christian religion is no worse than any others where "right and wrong" is concerned. And while your approach to right and wrong may make sense to you, it would not make sense to a 13th century Japanese samurai. Nor does it make sense in some of these Third World countries where life is cheap.

There is no universal right and wrong.

Using nature as your standard, are you saying the natural selection/survival of the fittest is the determining factor for right and wrong?

Yes, exactly. Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest is the only determining Factor.

[Norse_soul]

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that having Personal beliefs in a god, or gods...is wrong. My biggest problem with most organized religions is the fact that they leave no room for your own interpretation. In fact they frown upon you thinking for yourself when it varies with what they say. Like the Catholic church actively trying to stop the movie "the Da Vinci Code" from being released. Religion's have power only when they control what people think.

[Dilloduck]

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that having Personal beliefs in a god, or gods...is wrong. My biggest problem with most organized religions is the fact that they leave no room for your own interpretation. In fact they frown upon you thinking for yourself when it varies with what they say. Like the Catholic church actively trying to stop the movie "the Da Vinci Code" from being released. Religion's have power only when they control what people think.

The individual is responsible for what he thinks.

[Gunny]

Yes, exactly. Natural Selection and Survival of the fittest is the only determining Factor.

Interesting. So, in your honest opinion, the people of New Orleans should have been left to their own devices? Not trying to pick a political fight either.

Our society is based on the strong protecting the weak. They would otherwise die. If I understand you correctly, too bad for those that can't cut it, huh?

[Gunny]

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that having Personal beliefs in a god, or gods...is wrong. My biggest problem with most organized religions is the fact that they leave no room for your own interpretation. In fact they frown upon you thinking for yourself when it varies with what they say. Like the Catholic church actively trying to stop the movie "the Da Vinci Code" from being released. Religion's have power only when they control what people think.

I'm not big on organized religion, and do have my own interpretation.

[avatar4321]

Thankfully, the existance of God isn't predicated on whether we believe in Him or not.

There may be some uncertaining or disbelief in people now, but things will change. He will make His Mighty Arm bare before the nations and redeem His covenant people.

[manu1959]

Thankfully, the existance of God isn't predicated on whether we believe in Him or not.

There may be some uncertaining or disbelief in people now, but things will change. He will make His Mighty Arm bare before the nations and redeem His covenant people.

when the human race exterminates itself what will god do with all her free time?

[Hagbard Celine]

I doubt it, but it sure is fun to entertain the possibility that there are angels and demons and seraphim and Jesus flying around overhead. And it would be nice to know for sure if there is an afterlife. But like I said, I doubt it. It's more likely that God was created by man, not the other way around--and since no one save hillbillies and white people confused by the disparity between their racially inclusive world view and an actual incident in which they experienced the kindness of a large black man, has ever seen an angel, so they probably don't exist either.

[Dilloduck]

when the human race exterminates itself what will god do with all her free time?

Start all over ?

[theHawk]

Actually - the Biblical timeline for Earth-age is 6000 years....

I'm a little curious to know where any of these numbers come up. Genesis is so vague, isn't it possible it covers eons?

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm a little curious to know where any of these numbers come up. Genesis is so vague, isn't it possible it covers eons?

No, it's not possible. Adam and Eve were created out of clay 400 years ago and they rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday and Wednesday evening. And they didn't have belly buttons. :poke:

[5stringJeff]

I'm a little curious to know where any of these numbers come up. Genesis is so vague, isn't it possible it covers eons?

It was calculated by a bishop, IIRC, using the timelines in the Old Testament, and making the assumptions that 1) the "days" of Genesis are 24-hour days, not "ages" or "eons" (which are other translations of that word) and 2) OT geneaologies are complete (i.e. not missing any generations).

[Norse_soul]

Interesting. So, in your honest opinion, the people of New Orleans should have been left to their own devices? Not trying to pick a political fight either.

Our society is based on the strong protecting the weak. They would otherwise die. If I understand you correctly, too bad for those that can't cut it, huh?

Baically, yes. Especially in the case of New Orleans. They had ample warning of the impending danger, If you were too stupid to leave, that isn't my problem, "but they didn't all have cars!" WALK. And if you're going to shoot at rescue workers...Fuck off and die. In My opinion New Orleans is also the most racist city in the country. Their own governor calls it the "Chocolate City"

[Norse_soul]

Besides, the world is overpopulated as it is. Because we defend the weak, save those who would have died, and instead live paralyzed or retarded, because we uphold the 'values' of weakness...

[Hagbard Celine]

Besides, the world is overpopulated as it is. Because we defend the weak, save those who would have died, and instead live paralyzed or retarded, because we uphold the 'values' of weakness...

I disagree. We uphold the "values" of human life. Natural selection in the mortal sense stopped applying to humans a long time ago.

[Norse_soul]

I disagree. We uphold the "values" of human life. Natural selection in the mortal sense stopped applying to humans a long time ago.

Natural Selection in Any sense never ceases to be needed. It's how a race stays strong. Even more so in the human race, because we have no natural predator's. (Except each other of course)

[TheSage]

Natural Selection in Any sense never ceases to be needed. It's how a race stays strong. Even more so in the human race, because we have no natural predator's. (Except each other of course)

Exactly, and our self imposed unnecessary hierarchies are breeding followers, liars, and asskissers, instead of strong leaders with moral clarity and actual talent, intelligence and foresight.

[Norse_soul]

Exactly, and our self imposed unnecessary hierarchies are breeding followers, liars, and asskissers, instead of strong leaders with moral clarity and actual talent, intelligence and foresight.

:boom2: SHEEP

[TheSage]

:boom2: SHEEP


Yggdrasil!

[Gunny]

Baically, yes. Especially in the case of New Orleans. They had ample warning of the impending danger, If you were too stupid to leave, that isn't my problem, "but they didn't all have cars!" WALK. And if you're going to shoot at rescue workers...Fuck off and die. In My opinion New Orleans is also the most racist city in the country. Their own governor calls it the "Chocolate City"

I have a hard time faulting your logic. Matter of fact, I've said the same thing on more than one occasion. If you're too dumb to get out from in front of a hurricane, you deserve what you get; especially, if you had enough time to WALK to Texas before it hit.

[Gunny]

Besides, the world is overpopulated as it is. Because we defend the weak, save those who would have died, and instead live paralyzed or retarded, because we uphold the 'values' of weakness...

I'll have to think on it. I'm half-inclined to agree with your opinion, and do agree that your assessment of valuing weakness is correct.

What gets me the most is that it is those same weak that are protected by teh strong who are the most vocal critics of the strong. Like their lame asses would be alive without someone doing the fighting for them.

At the same time, I am inclined to help those truly in need, if I can.

[TheSage]

Besides, the world is overpopulated as it is. Because we defend the weak, save those who would have died, and instead live paralyzed or retarded, because we uphold the 'values' of weakness...


Norse. I thought you were cool at first, but this is a shitty attitude.

[Norse_soul]

Norse. I thought you were cool at first, but this is a shitty attitude.

Many races throughout the history of Mankind have adopted this attitude, including most Native American Tribes. Some tribes left weak or deformed children exposed to the elements in order to strengthen the bloodlines in the tribe. If my child were born premature and wouldn't survive without surgery and incubation, then that's what was meant to be, the skein of your life is written, the more you try and change it, the more you screw up natural selection, and the powers of nature itself...

[Hagbard Celine]

Natural Selection in Any sense never ceases to be needed. It's how a race stays strong. Even more so in the human race, because we have no natural predator's. (Except each other of course)

We have the intellect and technology to keep weak members of our species alive--members who would've been picked-off by natural selection, hence natural selection no longer applies to us humans.

[Hobbit]

Natural selection still applies to humans, but not fully. It's now rare that those with genetic disadvantages rarely die off early as a result. However, each person still chooses with whom to mate. Traits that make an undesirable mate are still weeded out or relegated to the dregs of society. When's the last time you saw a successful, good-looking, rich businessman banging some poor, ugly skank. Desirable traits for mating, such as beauty, intelligence, and physique are still more likely to be passed on than undesirable traits, such as ugliness, weakness, and stupidity.

As far as letting the incompetant die, I'm all for voluntary charity there. If somebody was too stupid to move out of the way of a hurricane, I'll be more than happy to help them out a bit, but I want the power to cut off that help if they piss me off.

One final note, Stephen Hawking is currently physically inferior to most of mankind. He cannot walk. He cannot talk. He can, however, perform complex differential equations in seconds and unravel the deepest mysteries of the cosmos, so I'm all for keeping him alive.

[Hagbard Celine]

Natural selection still applies to humans, but not fully. It's now rare that those with genetic disadvantages rarely die off early as a result. However, each person still chooses with whom to mate. Traits that make an undesirable mate are still weeded out or relegated to the dregs of society. When's the last time you saw a successful, good-looking, rich businessman banging some poor, ugly skank. Desirable traits for mating, such as beauty, intelligence, and physique are still more likely to be passed on than undesirable traits, such as ugliness, weakness, and stupidity.

As far as letting the incompetant die, I'm all for voluntary charity there. If somebody was too stupid to move out of the way of a hurricane, I'll be more than happy to help them out a bit, but I want the power to cut off that help if they piss me off.

One final note, Stephen Hawking is currently physically inferior to most of mankind. He cannot walk. He cannot talk. He can, however, perform complex differential equations in seconds and unravel the deepest mysteries of the cosmos, so I'm all for keeping him alive.

Did the Spartans have it right? :boobies:

[Hobbit]

Did the Spartans have it right? :boobies:

Nope. The Spartans selectively bred their population solely for war, and at that, they succeeded greatly. However, I doubt America would have the technology it had today if the physically 'inferior' were left out in the cold.

[Hagbard Celine]

Nope. The Spartans selectively bred their population solely for war, and at that, they succeeded greatly. However, I doubt America would have the technology it had today if the physically 'inferior' were left out in the cold.

Our country's name is "The US," not "America" regardless of how many times President Bush says it. What if the UK called itself "the United Kingdom of Europe?" or if China called itself "The people's republic of china...of asia?"

It's disgusting. :puke:

[5stringJeff]

Our country's name is "The US," not "America" regardless of how many times President Bush says it. What if the UK called itself "the United Kingdom of Europe?" or if China called itself "The people's republic of china...of asia?"

It's disgusting. :puke:

Actually, our country's name is "The United States of America." "America," "US," "USA," or "United States" are acceptable nicknames.

[Gaffer]

Natural selection still applies to humans, but not fully. It's now rare that those with genetic disadvantages rarely die off early as a result. However, each person still chooses with whom to mate. Traits that make an undesirable mate are still weeded out or relegated to the dregs of society. When's the last time you saw a successful, good-looking, rich businessman banging some poor, ugly skank. Desirable traits for mating, such as beauty, intelligence, and physique are still more likely to be passed on than undesirable traits, such as ugliness, weakness, and stupidity.

As far as letting the incompetant die, I'm all for voluntary charity there. If somebody was too stupid to move out of the way of a hurricane, I'll be more than happy to help them out a bit, but I want the power to cut off that help if they piss me off.

One final note, Stephen Hawking is currently physically inferior to most of mankind. He cannot walk. He cannot talk. He can, however, perform complex differential equations in seconds and unravel the deepest mysteries of the cosmos, so I'm all for keeping him alive.

I was going to bring up Hawkins myself.

[Gunny]

We have the intellect and technology to keep weak members of our species alive--members who would've been picked-off by natural selection, hence natural selection no longer applies to us humans.

Yeah, and look at what it's done for us.:rolleyes:

[Hobbit]

I was going to bring up Hawkins myself.

Hawking? I met him once (long story, let's just say I have sufficiently nerdy friends). Nice guy. Doesn't talk much.

[Gaffer]

Hawking? I met him once (long story, let's just say I have sufficiently nerdy friends). Nice guy. Doesn't talk much.

:lol:

I wonder why?

[LOki]

Personally, I think that Religion is the problem. Everyone knows what is right and wrong. There is no such thing as "origional sin" or even a concept of sin. There is only right and wrong 'depending upon circumstance'. If you kill someone is it wrong? I firmly believe it depends upon the reason. Did you get in a drunken fight, or were you defending your family, or defending an old woman being attacked on the street. The christian religions are the worst for 'written in stone' sins. Thou shalt not kill. Look at nature to know the truth...
Sin is being disobedient of God.

The problem is not religion, or the belief in God, but rather adherence to a religion that glorifies and worships as the supreme moral authority a God that considers disobedience the prime cause for punishment over evil.

[Doniston]

Sin is being disobedient of God.

The problem is not religion, or the belief in God, but rather adherence to a religion that glorifies and worships as the supreme moral authority a God that considers disobedience the prime cause for punishment over evil. So if there is no god, there is no sin.? I don't subscribe to that --to me you sin upon yourself

[Hobbit]

Sin is being disobedient of God.

The problem is not religion, or the belief in God, but rather adherence to a religion that glorifies and worships as the supreme moral authority a God that considers disobedience the prime cause for punishment over evil.

It's a bit more complex than that. Sin has consequences, but most of the consequences of sin do not stem directly from it being that "God said so." For the life of my, I can't find any commandment in the Bible that doesn't have a practical application, whether you believe in God or not.

[LOki]

It's a bit more complex than that.
If you're talking about what "sin" is, then you're wrong--sin is just that simple.

If you're talking about "the problem," I'll grant you that--I didn't mean to over-simplify, but to rather cover alot of ground efficiently.


Sin has consequences, but most of the consequences of sin do not stem directly from it being that "God said so."
Really? Considering the what "sin" means, the whole omniscience & omnipotence business (and every thing they mean), and the consequences that are relevent to the discussion, I'll just have to disagree.


For the life of my, I can't find any commandment in the Bible that doesn't have a practical application, whether you believe in God or not.
How about:<blockquote><b>Exodus 20:4:</b>"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"</blockquote>Hardly any practicality in there at all--I might go so far as to suggest it's rather impractical, or invites impracticality. :D

[loosecannon]

Natural selection still applies to humans, but not fully. It's now rare that those with genetic disadvantages rarely die off early as a result. However, each person still chooses with whom to mate. Traits that make an undesirable mate are still weeded out or relegated to the dregs of society.

So is this natural selection or unnatural or something else?


When's the last time you saw a successful, good-looking, rich businessman banging some poor, ugly skank.

I think this happens a million times a day in the red light districts.


Desirable traits for mating, such as beauty, intelligence, and physique are still more likely to be passed on than undesirable traits, such as ugliness, weakness, and stupidity.

Alcohol: helping ugly people get laid for 3000 years.


As far as letting the incompetant die, I'm all for voluntary charity there. If somebody was too stupid to move out of the way of a hurricane, I'll be more than happy to help them out a bit, but I want the power to cut off that help if they piss me off.

Spoken like vengeful God himself.


One final note, Stephen Hawking is currently physically inferior to most of mankind. He cannot walk. He cannot talk. He can, however, perform complex differential equations in seconds and unravel the deepest mysteries of the cosmos, so I'm all for keeping him alive.

We will never live long enough to know if he unraveled those mysteries correctly.

Natural selection would have offed him a decade back.

Or is that unnatural selection or something else?

[LOki]

So if there is no god, there is no sin.?That is correct.


I don't subscribe to that... That's ok, you don't have to, I'll bet you're not subscribing to the dictionary--not your fault.


...--to me you sin upon yourselfSin could also be monkeys to you, but we can always find an impartial reference to help us clear up our difference of opinion. ;D

[Hugh Lincoln]

I disagree. We uphold the "values" of human life. Natural selection in the mortal sense stopped applying to humans a long time ago.

Holy crap, is this ever wrong. Every time a woman passes me by for a better-looking guy, that's natural selection at work.

[Doniston]

That is correct.

You took the following out of context:

(quote) I don't subscribe to that --to me you sin upon yourself (unquote)

By spliting it into two parts and thereby changing the intended meaning. that is very disengeneous, and thus why should I give you the slightest credibility??? I personaly consider that a form of lying.


That's ok, you don't have to, I'll bet you're not subscribing to the dictionary--not your fault.
For your information I use the dictionary quite regularly, and Sin is not only described as Biblical.

[LOki]

You took the following out of context:

(quote) I don't subscribe to that --to me you sin upon yourself (unquote)

By spliting it into two parts and thereby changing the intended meaning. that is very disengeneous, and thus why should I give you the slightest credibility??? I personaly consider that a form of lying.
You must use "context" in a manner I am unfamiliar with.

I suppose you can have your own, personal, definintion for "lying" too.


For your information I use the dictionary quite regularly, and Sin is not only described as Biblical.Don't just sit there and tell me you use your dictionary; get it out mister, and school me!

[Doniston]

You must use "context" in a manner I am unfamiliar with.

I suppose you can have your own, personal, definintion for "lying" too.

Don't just sit there and tell me you use your dictionary; get it out mister, and school me!

1. if so, then apparently you don't know what a dicionary is.

2. Nope, just intentional deception.

3. Why don't you start using one yourself? --- however Check out number three below.
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

[LOki]

1. if so, then apparently you don't know what a dicionary is.I certainly do.

Here's one for you; DICTIONARY (http://www.m-w.com/)
and another; DICTIONARY (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=21561&dict=CALD)

I do, actually know what a dictionary is, and I also know how to use one--I'll demonstrate just after I deal with this bullshit of yours:

2. Nope, just intentional deception.
Like asserting that having each of one's assertions responded to separately is taking those assertions out of context?

OR

Like asserting someone has taken your statements out of context when the full context was provided, and your statement was unabridged?

OR

Like making up your own criteria regarding what a "lie" is, and then applying it to someone else for the sole purpose of suggesting they are a liar?

<b>That</b> kind of intentional deception?


3. Why don't you start using one yourself? --- however Check out number three below.
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
Well, Doniston, it's not apparent from your posting wether you make up these definitions or not, seeing as you don't provide sources and have demonstrated that you have your own ideas about what other things mean--that doesn't mean you are completely full of shit, it just means that there's no telling that you're not.

But here it is Doniston, the full dictionary definition I use ("context (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context)" included so you know I'm not "lying (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie)"):
SIN (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sin)

I'm not going to argue that you can't use "sin" the way you'd like to in your definition #3. You'll just have to excuse me if I don't take such hyperbolic usages of words (e.g. "This cheesecake is just sinful!") as the actual definitions for those words. So, despite the obvious fact that farting in an elevator (for instance) is a "reprehensible or regrettable action," is not really a sin as you might like to have it.

So setting aside your own, personal, special definitions and meanings for words, as well as setting aside that poetic license that muddies definitions for dramatic effect, the actual definition of "sin" is still properly characterized as being "disobedient of God," despite whatever fanciful dictionary you would like to subscribe to.

[gabosaurus]

God exists if you want Him to exist. To believers, God is very much alive.

[5stringJeff]

God exists if you want Him to exist. To believers, God is very much alive.

No, either God does exist or He doesn't exist.

[avatar4321]

God exists if you want Him to exist. To believers, God is very much alive.

God's existance isn't dependent on our beliefs any more than the world being round is dependent on our beliefs.

[Doniston]

So setting aside your own, personal, special definitions and meanings for words, as well as setting aside that poetic license that muddies definitions for dramatic effect, the actual definition of "sin" is still properly characterized as being "disobedient of God," despite whatever fanciful dictionary you would like to subscribe to.

Tell you what sir. I am not even going to reply to your (IMO) pitiful sensless rant, except the bit above so you can understand where my own, personal, special definitions and meanings come from. the same or equivilent will be in any reasonable dictionary, but my specific definition is copied from

http://dictionary.reference.com/




VERBATIM

I can't relate what I really think of you and your "Comments"

[Doniston]

No, either God does exist or He doesn't exist. Agreed, but that depends on what, how where (etc) is God. I hapen to equate God with Mother nature. and thus, to me is valid. and exists.

[loosecannon]

OK, three dieties walk into a bar; Allah, Buddha and Crom..........


......the bartender says "there is no Dog"

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[LOki]

Tell you what sir. I am not even going to reply to your (IMO) pitiful sensless rant, except the bit above so you can understand where my own, personal, special definitions and meanings come from. the same or equivilent will be in any reasonable dictionary, but my specific definition is copied from

http://dictionary.reference.com/




VERBATIM

I can't relate what I really think of you and your "Comments"That's nice. It implies you really think. Good for you!

Question: Do you consider it a form of lying that you actually take my posting out of its context, as much as you do when you think I've taken your posting out of context (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=62296#post62296)?

If you do, then you possess the intellectual integrity that might allow some sensible discussion in the future; if not, then you're just another one of those frothing retards that desperately flings the accusation of "liar" at anyone who disagrees with them.

[Doniston]

That's nice. It implies you really think. Good for you!

Question: Do you consider it a form of lying that you actually take my posting out of its context, as much as you do when you think I've taken your posting out of context (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=62296#post62296)?

If you do, then you possess the intellectual integrity that might allow some sensible discussion in the future; if not, then you're just another one of those frothing retards that desperately flings the accusation of "liar" at anyone who disagrees with them.

I do beleive that disengeniosity is a form of lying, do you or do you not agree.

OK, I told you exactly what it was you took out of context. Suppose you follow suit and do the equivelant. Can you do that???

and I do post the truth whether or not it hurts. that is the only way to be truely honest.

Then I responded to your ananity by posting the definition of Sin which even after posting you contested. That would seem to point to THIS described PERSON:


if not, then you're just another one of those frothing retards that desperately flings the accusation of "liar" at anyone who disagrees with them.

And Stangely enough (NOT), you didn't even mention the fact that I provided both Link and proof of the meaning of the Word. (I wonder why that is.) Some people just can't admit when they are wrong.

[LOki]

I do beleive that disengeniosity is a form of lying, do you or do you not agree.I presume you mean disingenuousity, and if so, yes, I suppose I can agree that disingenuousity for the purposes of misleading is a form of lying.


OK, I told you exactly what it was you took out of context. Since I did not take anything you posted out of its context, it is impossible that you could have told me what part of your post I did take out of its context--unless you have imagined some context you didn't provide in the first place; or, as I'm more likely to suspect, you just have your very own, personal, and special, notion of what "context" is that is inconsistent with what "context" actually is.


Suppose you follow suit and do the equivelant. Can you do that??? Why, yes Doniston. Yes, I can.

You took: THIS (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=63449&postcount=82) straight out of its context found HERE (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=62856&postcount=78).


and I do post the truth whether or not it hurts. that is the only way to be truely honest.Yes, Doniston, yes. And conveniently for you, truth is what you believe it is, and is not terribly subject to being factually accurate. So bravo to you sir, for truly believing your own bullshit--you're not a liar.:clap:


Then I responded to your ananity by posting the definition of Sin which even after posting you contested. That would seem to point to THIS described PERSON:
if not, then you're just another one of those frothing retards that desperately flings the accusation of "liar" at anyone who disagrees with them.I gave you sound reasons for disagreeing with colloquial usages as definintions for words.

The intersing part here Doniston, is that you, again, pulled my posting right out of context--and this time in such a manner as to obsfucate its point. An act you yourself asserted is the act of a liar. Here's the whole thing again for your review and edification:
Question: Do you consider it a form of lying that you actually take my posting out of its context, as much as you do when you think I've taken your posting out of context (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=62296#post62296)?

If you do, then you possess the intellectual integrity that might allow some sensible discussion in the future; if not, then you're just another one of those frothing retards that desperately flings the accusation of "liar" at anyone who disagrees with them.
What do you think, Doniston? What category do you belong to? Certainly not the one with intellectual integrity.


And Stangely enough (NOT), you didn't even mention the fact that I provided both Link and proof of the meaning of the Word.I know I asked for your sources--I didn't mention them because I accepted them for what they were--I'm sorry I didn't say "thank you."

More interesting, than my lapse in manners, is the way you completely ignored the reasoning provided for dismissing hyperbolic usages of words as their definitions. Why would you do that?


(I wonder why that is.)Let me guess...It's because they're liars, right?


Some people just can't admit when they are wrong. Apparently not.

[Doniston]

I presume you mean disingenuousity, and if so, yes, I suppose I can agree that disingenuousity for the purposes of misleading is a form of lying.

Since I did not take anything you posted out of its context, it is impossible that you could have told me what part of your post I did take out of its context--unless you have imagined some context you didn't provide in the first place; or, as I'm more likely to suspect, you just have your very own, personal, and special, notion of what "context" is that is inconsistent with what "context" actually is.

Why, yes Doniston. Yes, I can.

You took: THIS (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=63449&postcount=82) straight out of its context found HERE (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=62856&postcount=78).

Yes, Doniston, yes. And conveniently for you, truth is what you believe it is, and is not terribly subject to being factually accurate. So bravo to you sir, for truly believing your own bullshit--you're not a liar.:clap:

I gave you sound reasons for disagreeing with colloquial usages as definintions for words.

The intersing part here Doniston, is that you, again, pulled my posting right out of context--and this time in such a manner as to obsfucate its point. An act you yourself asserted is the act of a liar. Here's the whole thing again for your review and edification:
What do you think, Doniston? What category do you belong to? Certainly not the one with intellectual integrity.

I know I asked for your sources--I didn't mention them because I accepted them for what they were--I'm sorry I didn't say "thank you."

More interesting, than my lapse in manners, is the way you completely ignored the reasoning provided for dismissing hyperbolic usages of words as their definitions. Why would you do that?

Let me guess...It's because they're liars, right?

Apparently not. This post is so convoluted that I Dare not try to make heads or tails of it.

I will only note that it is funny that you say you can provide the place where I supposedly took your comments out of context yet you supply a whole post without pointing out specifically what I took out of context. and then said I did it again ----and again you point to a whole paragraph wthout specifics,which doesn't
equate with what you are claiming

I seriously have to beleive that you don't know what you are talking about, and as such, since you don't seem able to make the slightest bit of sense. I wont waste any more time on you.

BYE

[Pale Rider]

This post is so convoluted that I Dare not try to make heads or tails of it.

I will only note that it is funny that you say you can provide the place where I supposedly took your comments out of context yet you supply a whole post without pointing out specifically what I took out of context. and then said I did it again ----and again you point to a whole paragraph wthout specifics,which doesn't
equate with what you are claiming

I seriously have to beleive that you don't know what you are talking about, and as such, since you don't seem able to make the slightest bit of sense. I wont waste any more time on you.

BYE


I wish that BYE meant you leaving the board.

[gabosaurus]

I wish that BYE meant you leaving the board.

As the Dead Kennedys once said, "God is dead if you're alive." :laugh2:

[LOki]

This post is so convoluted that I Dare not try to make heads or tails of it.

I will only note that it is funny that you say you can provide the place where I supposedly took your comments out of context yet you supply a whole post without pointing out specifically what I took out of context. and then said I did it again ----and again you point to a whole paragraph wthout specifics,which doesn't
equate with what you are claiming

I seriously have to beleive that you don't know what you are talking about, and as such, since you don't seem able to make the slightest bit of sense. I wont waste any more time on you.

BYE:lol: You are clearly delusional.

[Doniston]

:lol: You are clearly delusional. On the contrary, I have no delusions about you.
If sometime later on you wish to discuss actual issues, I will be arround.

[LOki]

On the contrary, I have no delusions about you..You appear to be completely delusional.
You claim I took you posting out of context: I didn't. In fact, I took great care to maintian the context of your post as I responded to each of your assertions.
You suggest I lied to you: I didn't. Not a single time.
You suggest I'm disingenuous with you: I'm not. I have been nothing but genuine and accomodating of you, and your fuzzy notions of reality. I've left wide open, for you, opportunities to fine-tune your assertions. You choose instead to ignore the points.
You claim my posts are sensless: They are fully sensible. My assertions are accompanied by valid reasoning and evidence. Reasoning you dismiss without any validly responsive rationale.
You claim my posts are convoluted: My posts are straight forward and direct to each point you make. You ignore or simply deny, contrary to the plain evidence apparent to all, that I've done so.
You ignore, as if it didn't happen, each instance you practice the very action you claim is an action of a liar, right after you suggest I'm a liar despite that I never did those very actions.
When you take my posts out of context, clearly and plainly, you pretend like you haven't.
You ask me to demonstrate you've taken my posting out of context: I do so unabiguously, and you claim I haven't.
Each of your patent and verifiable denials of reality are the evidence I submit to support my assertion that you are delusional.

(And I dare...sweet Jesus...I double dare you to demand I link to proof of all the above as if such proof wasn't plainly evident to all within a couple dozen posts above, and BB code was some arcane mystery.)


If sometime later on you wish to discuss actual issues, I will be arround.I'm here now, on planet earth; I'm just not interested in discussing the "actual issuses" of your world of delusions as if they were actual issues.

BTW:

I suppose you can have your own, personal, definintion for "lying" too.
2. Nope, just intentional deception.

I wont waste any more time on you.I suppose you will claim that your last post here was not a waste of time on me, or you'll claim is was unintentional, yes?