Wildly Successful Origins Giveaway

origin2"You're not supposed to be here today. We are not ready!" That was the reaction of one atheist at UCLA when we showed up on the 18th to give away 2,000 books. He was right. We originally intended to give the copies of On the Origin of Species out on the 19th, but because of the threats of book burnings, of "unilateral resistance," and the many threats to tear out the Introduction, we changed our strategy. We are so glad we made this move. Atheists had planned to disguise themselves as students and collect multiple copies themselves to stop students getting the books.  

 

One atheist wrote: "I wish people would stop ragging on him distributing the books early. It's a good strategic move to try to pre-empt our events, themselves intended to oppose his. It's a purely political thing and in his position I'd likely have done much the same thing. It's pretty similar to a route being changed or a meeting set earlier than scheduled in order to foil a protest -- it's a legitimate tactic, no matter how frustrating." 

 

The Yale Daily News said, "The book-giving event was originally scheduled for Thursday, effectively ruining the plans of the SSA to counter the creationists' event with their own, more satirical, on-campus event." 

 

The Secular Student Association went to some expense with colorful bookmarks with a picture of a banana on them. I offered to pay their printing bill, but as yet haven't heard back from them.

But for a few copies being destroyed and one atheist managing to collect 22 copies for himself, everything went very smoothly. All we wanted to do was peacefully pass out the books and it was wildly successful.

  

A team in England also passed out 1,000 copies to Oxford University students. Richard Dawkins has told students to rip out the Introduction, that they are cousins of bananas, that nothing created everything, and that anyone who didn't believe as he did, was "wicked." So we went to his home university to let students know that they are not cousins of bananas, that God created them, and that they are free to believe anything they wish. We also sent him a very nice gift basket along with his own copy of the book, and yes . . . I had a banana put into the basket. But we didn't say who the gift basket was from. We will leave him to formulate his own theory as to its origin.

 

 We are working on a documentary of the Origin into Schools project, and will give you progress reports.

  

We are so grateful to the nearly 2,000 Christians that cared enough about the lost, to help us get the gospel into the hands of 171,000 people (minus 22). Please know that this is just the beginning.

 

Comments (637)
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - disconnect cont'd
    All an unbeliever(you)sees though, is the suffering here on Earth, with no
    hope/desire/imagination for a place called heaven, where all suffering ceases.
    Can you be born into the 3rd world and love life, love family, love nature, and
    love God despite circumstances? I am willing to say yes to that! For there is
    PROMISE of something better than this world that is full of constant yearning.
    When we yearn it is because we seek something that doesn't exist here on Earth.




    Whoever told you that converting to Christianity would make life here on Earth
    enjoyable they flat out lied! You will never be satisfied here, and you know
    it! We know it.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - finally... the disconnect
    antitheist

    There HAS to be something after this life! Would you say that you ended up in
    Canada(free Health Care and all) because of natural selection or survival of the
    fittest or whatever. What makes you better than the poor people/races that
    landed or got stuck in the 3rd world countries to die from malnutrition and
    unsanitary conditions? Christians believe people were created,thus all equal
    and loved by God...



    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Hasty Generalizations
    Black people are great dancers, basketball players, and love fried chicken and
    watermelon, and like to riot.



    You catch my drift? You can't generalize Christians based on a few effin
    idiots! (i don't mean black people are idiots)



    I also met a nice family who have left the luxury of the US to be missionaries
    in Tanzania. Shoot I forgot to ask them if they brought peanuts for when they
    return to the people.

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Truly?
    antitheist

    I love people. So do you. I also deeply care about the plight of the homeless
    people in the U.S and abroad in 3rd world countries, because they are all
    creations of God. Put it this way, I love everything and anything because God
    made it for a purpose, whether you see it as good or bad. But I think instead
    of pointing the finger at Christians for "not even giving a peanut" i
    suggest you take a look at yourself as well. If we all really cared as much as
    we say we do, we would give it all up like the apostles did and live in the
    third world, period.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Dendrochronology..
    For the record, dendrochronology (dating via rings in cross-sections of trees)
    is based only on the observational fact that those rings grow at a rate of one
    per year, and that different years produce different types of rings, very like a
    finger-print. Not only can a decent dendrochronologist confidently place the
    rings of a tree on a time-line to the nearest year, he/she could also show the
    exact dates of any events that would cause a marked effect in trees, such as
    droughts, plagues, forest-fires, and exeptionally good growing seasons. There's
    a lot to be learned from trees!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Char...
    Have you read my challenge below? You must understand; I think that you're one
    of the kindest, most honest people on this site. I know that you're trying to
    tell me something you feel is important, and I appreciate that fact that you
    think it would help me (though I really don't see how).

    I'm honestly trying to see things from your point of view, so I can at least
    sympathize with the position of people that I honestly don't think I could ever
    again be a part of. All I ask is that you do the same for me; look at what I'm
    trying to tell you, if for no other reason, because it would show you where the
    real divide is. Disagreement is not wrong, rather it is the genesis of
    understanding...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s CHar  - what are your thoughts?
    antitheist

    What are your thoughts about former atheist scientists such as Professor Anthony
    Flew, who have come to a self conclusion that there had to be intelligent design
    or a First Cause god?

    This is probably another disconnect... I have been finding a lot of
    well-renowned scientists of the present and the past stating that there had to
    be intelligent design. I am pretty sure you have researched this also. Did you
    find flaw in ALL of their logic already?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Dr. VEITH!!!
    My sister has just agreed to read TGSOE if I am willing to listen to Dr. Veith's
    lectures on young-Earth creationism. I've taken her up on the challenge, and am
    currently into roughly hour 7 in the series. I'd love to debate this guy's
    theories...does anyone out there know his work? I can hook you up with the
    .mp3s if you don't!

    To quote good ol' G-man; CHOMP CHOMP! That's me chomping at the bit!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - poulation contd
    a theory that suggests that overpopulation will destroy mother earth due to
    polution and food shortage. I don't doubt this. I do think though when chaos
    strikes, you will be exhibiting "survival of the fittest" Who will be
    killing who then? Rest assured us Christians will not be ravaging the streets,
    hoping to come out on top. Us weak little Christians will be too busy praying!
    Maranatha! Ask the Muslims they don't care to die either.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Weak little Christians...
    ...who are responsible for the Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadores, Jesuits
    in general, and those people who scream "GOD HATES FAGS!" at funerals,
    while paying to upkeep a charming little website on which the number of days
    certain homosexuals have been burning in hell, are going to be too busy PRAYING?
    HAHAHA! You think I'm betting on THAT!?! Are you seriously out of your mind?




    No, I went out and learned how to make a fire, grow a garden, and be REALLY hard
    to find. As well as to be quite lethal with a sword, for which I need no
    bullets.



    You 'weak' little Christians are busy telling the people of Haiti that the
    earthquake is their fault because they 'made a deal with the devil.' Right.
    Keep praying.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Population control?
    Wow im glad you think an embryo is human life. But the rest of your answer about
    too many orphans, homeless, etc reminds me of Bob Barker and The Price is Right.
    At the end of each show he would remind us all to control the pet population and
    have our cats and dogs spayed and neutered.



    Is this aome part of Eugenics or something?I have to look it up.



    You need not fear us Christians antitheist. I believe there is a theory that
    thinks...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - No.
    It's about taking care of what we already have before we bring more in. Think
    about it like the population economy. If someone already spends his money on
    stupid investments, is the solution to give him more money?



    If we spend our population on non-functioning 'social' systems, should we really
    be bringing in more unwanted population?

    I know you'll say we should all stop having sex, but I bet you'll give the exact
    same odds I would on THAT happening!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Short on time a few more questions
    What is it about atheists that would cause them to spend so much time,
    attention, and energy refuting something they don't even think exists?



    You have said because we kill.



    You kill, you don't believe in the preservation of life vs preservation of life
    moral dillema. I had two abortions because I didn't know better. You know
    better and you still agree with it.(preserve orphans over developing).



    I would think you were a much more credible atheist if you were fighting the
    real enemy. No one that you are speaking with on this site is killing anyone.
    Be a true warrior and fight the ones that are really doing the atrocities you
    speak of. Maybe put your time and energy into protesting that Islamic
    terrorists be tried in military tribunal, not in Civil court. CHristians are
    praying for this and they are acting by talking to their state reps. Nobody
    else really cares. Canadian Atheists don't care a...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Truly?
    According to Rudolph Hess, Hitler was a 'good Catholic,' I've personally had to
    stand guard at an abortion clinic because a fundamentalist Christian group was
    threatening to murder the doctor (they had no idea that he dealt specifically
    with ectopic pregnancy; most of them had no idea what that was! IDIOTS!), I've
    personally stood by the target that was used for the Nagasaki bombing. Do you
    know what that target was? Look into it!

    Ever hear of 'Fair Trade' products? Look into it, and realize what you ARE a
    part of! Ever bought a Disney product? You have given money to the largest
    employer of child labour in the world.

    Consider different scales before you start telling me who to fight. I know VERY
    well who I do battle with, and why.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Tree Time-
    The science of dendrochronology is based on the Theory of the Big Bang as the
    starting point for time. Same for the ice-core samples....
    You know the book of Genesis. The creation narrative states that (1)God spoke
    everything into existence, and (2)He called it good (not perfect). As such, He
    created trees, dogs, and man, not the seed, pup, or baby to grow, but fully aged
    items. He created the earth with relative age. Just using the narrative, which
    creationists do, this could discount dendrochronology.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Relative age?
    Perhaps I'm not understanding here...if things were created with age already
    pre-set, why would that be any different than there being billions of years to
    age them?

    And why the effort to pre-age everything? Why would it be important to move
    photons literally billions of light-years from their points of origin, just so
    we could pick them up with space-age, outside-the-visible-spectrum equipment?
    It seems like a lot of trouble has been put into proving that the universe is
    billions of years old, especially if it's all for us; a species that the bible
    has stated will be ended shortly.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Language-I believe that...
    the drawing has been completed by a creationist, Michelangelo. The ceiling of
    the Sistine Chapel depicts one person's studied answer and drawing to the events
    of the creation.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Interesting....
    You site a work of art (albeit a particularly incredible one by a gifted artist
    with nearly unlimited funding and no deadline) that was commisioned by the
    Catholic church. While I find it amusing that the Catholics don't even seem to
    realize that the great artists they paid (with a quiet nod to wood-pile stacked
    around the garrotting post) weren't even painting what they were paid to paint
    (not surprizing; they also don't seem to realize that their whole religion is
    based on a combination of Egyptian monotheism, Roman polytheism, and Dante's
    Divine Comedy), I wonder how you reconcile Catholic art with creationism.
    Genuinely curious here...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Tiger Woods!
    antitheist

    Now you know exactly why it is hard for a rich man to enter into heaven! Tiger
    Woods is a prime example! Do you get it yet? The whole world looked up to
    Tiger. In the public eye he was a master of golf because of his discipline,
    perseverance, determination, values maybe etc, and on top of that he has a
    charity. Little did we know none of those attributes carried over into his home
    and spiritual life. He is like the rich young ruler who would not give his
    possessions up, but rather hold on to them and not desire what really matters
    (God, salvation, family.) We Christians pray that he gets his family back
    together.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Uh...
    No, I think he's just a young man who found out that he had no problem
    whatsoever attracting women. Pay ANY young man that much money, and see what he
    does. In all honesty, Tiger was no surprise to me at all.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - uh
    The lesson is, a man with many riches, more often than not does not have the
    best character. The riches hold him back from containing his pride and being
    humble. Not that hard of a moral.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - An interesting sidebar...
    Did you know that the official Church of Tiger Woods recently disbanded, having
    decided that he was not, in fact, the messiah? I'm really not joking here...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - family unit
    antitheist



    It's a long sermon, but i think you will find it interesting.



    http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-100
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Whattttt?????????????
    In an older post you asked why the Bible doesn't have anything about the family
    structure?????????????????????? Oh my my it has plenty. If I show you, will
    you respect it a little more?



    You fib, you did not read this Book!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Respect?
    If you read what I wrote, I stated that the bible has no specific laws on
    POLYGAMY, which is true. In fact, it has multiple cases of multiple mates,
    married AND unmarried, and though the multiples always seem to be women, there's
    no rule against marrying/consorting with multiple men. In essence, I was
    pointing out that there's nothing biblical against a woman taking five husbands,
    or two men sharing twenty-five wives.

    It will earn my respect when people stop killing eachother over it.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - No you said family
    "Off topic here, but strangely, there seems to be no law at all, biblically

    speaking, regarding that lightening-rod issue; the family structure."



    Read the sermon. And get a real Christian persepective.



    Polygamy- the sermon tells you why women do what they do.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - No, I said, POLYGAMY!
    Here's the full quote, which you ever-so-carefully edited;

    "Off topic here, but strangely, there seems to be no law at all, biblically

    speaking, regarding that lightening-rod issue; the family structure. Yes, I

    know homosexuality is forbidden (stupidly; it harms noone), but no structure of

    polygamy is ever condemned..."



    Again, read what I wrote.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - ...and, you'll pardon me...
    ...but I just spent 8 hours of my life listening to a very educated man expound
    on the literal truth of the 'great flood' story (see above reason). I find
    myself more disgusted with creationist propaganda than ever. I mean, everything
    the guy said was well-reasoned, nicely cited, and very well presented.
    Providing that the only type of rock on the planet is sedimentary.

    I'm serious when I say that this guy actually called scientists uninformed for
    believing that T-Rex ate meat! GAAAAAAH!

    So if I'm snappy for the next bit, sorry, but my head's swimming with glaring
    errors that I don't wish to project onto anyone here.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Validity continued...
    The thing is that they still feed all that garbage of evolution with no proof to
    the schools and universities. They taught that God was just imagined and that
    babies is in the womb of the mother can be in some stage of evolution as a proof
    when the photos were tampered with and then say that it is ok to have abortions.
    You see, in order to have this we would have to be morally insane or taught
    incorrectly in which case they are both wrong and God hates this stuff. That is
    why we have a conscience for us to know that wrong is wrong and good is good. It
    is our choices that make or break us. Jesus Christ is the answer for our sinful
    nature and he took care of all these things; sin and death so we would be able
    to live forever in love, joy and peace.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Let's make a deal, then;
    You actually sit down and read TGSOE, and I'll re-read the bible. You obviously
    know nothing at all about science in general, and are spitting out lines of
    argument that have already been well-and-truly debunked. You could at least
    take the time to find out which ones and how, so you could make a better case.

    Here's a thought for you; there are numerous passages in your bible that teach
    humility. I don't think that there would be any better teacher of humility for
    some of those ultra-rich televangelists than conclusive proof that their
    ancestors weren't always modern humans (proof we have). The real issue in your
    above post is that you're too arrogant to acknowledge the reality. You just
    HAVE to believe you're special.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Validity,,,, Ready set go!
    Except for the animals that were saved, 2 of each kind, 7 pairs of the clean
    animals for sacrifices, yes even dinosaurs. Let's just say that you can fit an
    awful lot of animals on an ark that holds over 530 railroad cars full of space.
    That's a lot of space. The dinosaurs could have been babies or such and God made
    all the animals docile for the sake of the journey, not to mention they all were
    herbivores until they got off the ark in which God said that they would fear us.
    So, people adapt to where they end up staying and thus change colors and such
    over time. That is not evolution but adaptation. There is no proof of evolution.
    God made sure of that and the hoaxes don't work.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - OF COURSE!
    Why didn't I think of that? Would you care to explain why there are NO natural
    marsupials found outside of Australia? Like, literally NOT ONE? I mean, when
    Noah's boat opened up, somewhere in the Middle East, you mean to tell me that
    every Kangaroo/Koala/Wombat ran out, then SWAM THOUSANDS OF KILOMETERS across
    the remaining ocean, without a single one dying (marsupials are all un-kosher,
    so there'd be only one pair, remember?) and all settled in the same place? You
    truly expect anyone with any brains to believe that?

    And don't be stupid; no man ever had to run from a T-Rex.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Here's a story...
    ...about a little Knight who lived in a BLUE world! And 6 days and 6 nights and
    everything was NEW to him, it was all BLUE, inside and outside! BLUE, his
    house, with a BLUE little window and the streets are BLUE to him:

    He's BLUE! DABADI, DABADIE 'n' DABADI, DABADIE 'n' DABADI, DABADIE!!!

    (bopping head vigorously)

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Validity.....Ready set go!
    Did you know that stalactites and stalagmites can be made in very large way in
    less than a 100 years as opposed to the hog wash that says it was made this long
    ago because we have to have a reason without God and that doesn't work. You must
    acknowledge God to have done what He said He did or you have to argue with the
    same evidence and proof that there was a flood that covered the earth entirely
    for about a year because God already judged the world once and promised not to
    destroy it by water again and He gave us a sign and a promise by sending the
    rainbow since it had never rained until the time of the flood. We look at things
    and propose things lasted much longer but the oldest tree is about 4000 years
    old and not any older due to the flood and the extensive damage of all the earth
    being destroyed.....
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Did you know...
    That the simple math of trigonometry can be used to calculate distances up to
    around 10 million light-years, with today's instruments? Measurements taken at
    opposite ends of the Earth's orbit for the base of the triangle, in a process
    called 'paralax.' Now, this is grade 9 math here.

    What this means is that the NEARER stars that we can distance using this
    measurement have had to send thier light towards us for, you got it, over ten
    million years. There is no known way to speed up light in the vaccuum of space.


    6,000 years is simply bupkis. We have more annual tree-rings than that, and
    they can't be put down in rapid progression. It's one per yer.

    Keep trying!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s ichat  - Antitheist
    Truly, truly enjoyed the debate above, though it was rather one-sided. Have been
    a humanist/atheist/call it what you will, for while now, and the comments above
    from the hallelujah crowd only serve to reinforce my convictions.

    Antitheist - good work, mate. You're a star!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - All I can say...
    ...is that this IS a very important issue on both sides, and definitely needs a
    great deal of further discussion. I chose this particular venue when I heard
    about Ray Comfort's 'Origin of Species' campaign, and I've been here discussing
    ever since.

    Again, this discussion needs to be had on both sides, because we both need to
    figure out how to address one another. Obviously, Glen's method simply doesn't
    work; it gain's his side no respect, and I've not heard a single convert to his
    way of thinking emerge.

    Similarly, neither does mine. While I've managed to make some inroads to
    understanding with a few people here (thanks, people!), I've yet to hear anyone
    tell me that they hadn't thought about it that way.

    We'll figure it out eventually, I hope.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - My way..
    Hillarious, hey Antitheist I am really sorry but I have helped several people
    come to Jesus. It isn't my way it is His. All I do is witness to Christ
    Crucified and Jesus does the rest. I don't waste a lot of time preaching to you
    what has already been preached and then rejected by you. Your rejection is the
    reason you don't have or know about God. I do recognize that speaking to each
    other would be a great thing. But on this issue it is divisive and was made that
    way By Jesus with His Manefestation in the flesh. I have not tried to convert
    you. Not once. It has been done, you have confessd to accepting it and
    subsequently rejected it. God will not be mocked and you cannot return because
    you will hold Jesus up to contempt. It saddens me greatly 'cause I really like
    some of the person inside of you. You are just so young to loose it.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Meeting a deity...
    You know, many people have told me what my reaction to actually coming
    face-to-face with God will be. As though they knew either me, or God. They've
    always assumed two things; that I would beg forgiveness, be terrified, and see
    the error of my ways, and that God would tell me that I didn't 'believe' hard
    enough, and have me tortured for all eternity in a manner beyond human
    comprehension.

    I cannot answer for a deity I find no reason to believe exists, but for myself,
    I guess, I would ask questions. Lots of questions. Perhaps I would only need
    to ask one to understand the rest; Why?

    There are no answers to this in any philosophy. Perhaps that's my biggest beef
    with religion on the whole. You haven't got even the slightest speculation of
    an answer to that question.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - My biggest beef...
    with religion, is religion. The pharisees practiced religion, and so do the
    "Christian" cults. A cult is any so called "Christian"
    organization that says their authority is the Bible, yet this
    "denomination" was founded by some person who says they were a
    "messenger" from God. Like the Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's
    Witness, Pentecostal Onesness, and yes CATHOLICS! And antitheist you were in a
    cult also. Cults like to use "half verses" taking the scripture out of
    context. Cults don't promote the reading of the Bible for yourself because you
    just might find out the REAL Gospel of Jesus Christ. And when you do, you won't
    need the cult church anymore and the founder becomes bankrupt!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Look up the definition;
    ALL religions fall under the definition of 'cult.' And don't worry, your
    religion comes straight out of Roman Catholicism as well, which is the oldest
    extant Christian church, and was responsible for the formation of the bible you
    read.

    So far, I haven't seen the Mormons going bankrupt at all!

    And I must say that no matter which scripture I quote, someone takes massive
    issue with the fact that I read what is there. Case in point, my own sister
    told me that the rape/marriage verse I quoted earlier is valid, because it
    doesn't mention the girl crying out, so she must've LIKED it, and so it's really
    HER fault!

    Do you see what I'm getting at here? Read what's actually there!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s villagetree  - mocking..
    for Jesus, Glen?

    Since when is that worthwhile? I've had this situation played out in front of me
    hundreds of times- when certain Christians- are so sure of their own salvation
    that the way the approach others is often rude, confrontational and
    disrespectful.

    It doesn't work.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Gospel of Jesus Christ
    Nobody is a Christian who hasn't been



    delivered out of error into truth, and that



    truth is that the Bible is the Word of God in



    which the doctrine of salvation is clearly



    revealed in its fullness, that is a belief in



    the true God, the God who is a trinity, the



    God who revealed Himself in the incarnation of



    the second person of the trinity through a



    virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died a



    substitutionary death, rose from the grave in



    a literal resurrection, ascended into heaven,



    sent the Holy Spirit, reigns with the Father



    at His right hand, intercedes for the saints



    and some day will come back to establish His



    eternal Kingdom in glory. That is the



    substance of the foundation of gospel truth.



    And nobody is saved apart from understanding



    that, not ...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Bible fear cont'd
    All a "conservative" atheist would have to do next is become aware of
    something called sinful nature (they are a slave to sin), and realize that their
    "conservative" values cannot be maintained by their own will. And even
    if they lived a perfect life according to the laws (pharisees, the rich young
    ruler Mark 10:17)it would not be good enough without dying to self and being
    born again in Christ and having the full armour of God (ephesians).
    Christianity and the Bible simply seeks to deliver us from the slavery of sin
    and enslave us into righteousness. Find that in the Koran.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Nature
    Yes, I have a nature. I do not think that there is a concept of 'sin' per se,
    but rather a view of actions and consequences. Without the concept of 'sin,'
    you see, I can use a bad word, or leave a harmful relationship. Without the
    concept of action/consequence, however, we run into bigger problems. There's
    absolutely no 'sin' in using CFCs, for example, but the consequence of using
    them is dramatic and severe.

    Billy Graham has publicly stated that the Haitian earthquake was cause by a mass
    deal with the devil. His solution is that they should all just pray.

    I don't buy into this view at all! In my view, praying is equivalent to doing
    nothing, which would cause the entire population of the country to die of
    exposure.

    What we all undeniably have is a physical nature. Debate the rest, sure, but
    act on what we know is there.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Act on what we know is there.
    The conflict of two natures. Romans 7:15 from the Apostle Paul:

    For what I am doing,I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would
    like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I
    do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So
    now,no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that
    nothing good dwells in me,that is,in my flesh; for the willing is present in me,
    but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I
    practice the very evil that I do not want...



    Yes, Christians pray, but they DO act. They will be in Haiti "doing"
    far longer than any other organization, I can assure you that.





    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Just like...
    ...they've been 'doing' in Africa? Give money to our charities, but none of
    them say a single thing about the oppressive western trade laws that make the
    poverty unavoidable.

    One of my co-workers is from Ethiopia. He lived through that great famine we
    all saw on TV. He said there were missionaries all over the place, but not a
    single one of them brought so much as a peanut.

    In all the piety advertised on late-night evangelical infomercials, I've never
    seen anything that would make a real change. Give 'em food, don't teach 'em how
    to feed themselves. They migh just learn how, and then where would our charity
    be?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Why do people fear the Bible?
    antitheist

    You know what I find fascinating about the Bible? Without it we wouldn't have
    debates about anything. We wouldn't be talking about homosexual rights,
    pornography, pedophilia, divorce, adultery, fornication, break up of the family,
    euthanasia, etc. Why do people hate it and fear it so much if it gives
    honest,loving,truthful, even if authoratative, advice about all these issues?
    (Christians call this the "Truth") I know there are atheists that still
    have "traditional" values. They just need to know that they stem from
    what Christians know is the "Truth"...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Other religious texts...
    Char, on this one you're just plain wrong. Moral conversations have been going
    on since well before the bible ever existed, and many of the answers have been
    the same from the very beginning. For example, on abortion (hot topic, and one
    I still don't have an answer for myself) the only ancient civilization that did
    NOT practice infanticed was actually ancient Egypt.

    Homosexuality is famously discussed in the Middle East. The Chinese had
    mastered civil duty and rights long before Rome had, but it took Ghenghis Khan
    to actually show them that there was such a thing a (admittedly limited) women's
    rights.

    And ALL religions speak of how to conduct your sex-life, according to their
    views. The only thing uniquely discussed in the bible is the specific names
    applied to the Deities.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Do you think...
    That a child is best raised with a mother and a father?



    That mating with something of the same sex is unnatural even in evolution
    terms?



    That watching Pornography can lead someone to more serious things like rape,
    molestation, adultery, etc?



    That an embryo is not human life?











    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Ah, the harder questions!
    These may be the best questions anyone has asked me yet, because no matter how I
    answer them, I make enemies, and so I'm forced to announce my 'side' in the
    war...but I've also stated that I answer all questions honestly, so I will
    answer each of your tough questions in order, with explination, in the following
    posts.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Do I think...
    ...That a child is best raised with a mother and a father?



    In general, yes, but in specificity I have to conclude that there are some
    mothers and fathers that are better than others. There are some single parents
    who do better than couples, and some homogeneous couples who who may do better
    or worse than either of the above. My own dad was a good provider, generally
    tried his best, and could have a lot of fun. That said, he also worked out of
    town most of the time, and could be violent at times. Who did he do better
    than? Who did he do worse than?

    I guess I put the question back to you, Char; do heterosexual parents love thier
    children more? And how can you measure?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Do I think (2)...
    That mating with something of the same sex is unnatural even in evolution

    terms?

    No. There are numerous examples of sexless or hermaphroditic species.
    Gastropods (snails, slugs) are hermaphrodites, ie. all homosexual. If there is
    a deity, and he hates homosexuality, then he's created a hypocracy.

    As to humans, exclusive homosexuality precludes the chance of reproduction, and
    so cannot work, and will be taken care of in nature.

    That said, there may be something to be said for bisexuality; vitually every
    warrior-based society promoted this as a means of strengthening cameraderie
    among troops. Don't think for a second that whatever culture you came from is
    immune!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Do I think (3)...
    That watching Pornography can lead someone to more serious things like rape,

    molestation, adultery, etc?



    No. I think that sexual repression leads to continuous feelings of guilt later
    in life. I'm currently studying abnormal psychology in university, and there is
    a surprizingly strong corelation between conservative religious upbringing and
    obsessive-compulsive disorder.

    I often hear people saying that so-called-sexual-sin leads to crime...I counter
    that sexual repression leads to psychological harm and poor, impulsive
    decisions.

    Don't blame porn for people's lack of education on sexual matters. Blame
    conservatism.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Do I think (4)...
    ...That an embryo is not human life?



    Now this one is tough. Really tough.



    Yes, an embryo is human, and it is alive. Exluding dangerous medical problems
    (ectopic pregnancy, etc) I would generally not advocate abortion...

    ...EXCEPT for the fact that we still have orphans, street kids, homeless people,
    and so many kids going from foster-home to foster-home.

    Before the nervous-system develops, the foetus wouldn't be able to suffer; I
    assure you those people I've listed do.

    In short, I argue for the fixing of the problem of unwanted people before we go
    adding more unwanted people into the world.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - I notice...
    ...that so far, noone has looked up who King James is. I'm curious about
    that...because one of the most trusted biblical versions of the bible is, of
    course, the KJV. If you all trust it so much, wouldn't you want to know the
    source?



    I'm genuinely curious about what people here will get out of the history, which
    is fascinating...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Actually I did and...
    I posted, but it was never put up. Don't know if I was wrong or they did not
    want to break up the post.

    King James undertook the task of unifying people in England through religion.
    There were petty arguments among churches and church leaders because each church
    had its own version of the Bible. King James sought unification through one
    translation.

    He used over 50 men who were leading scholars in their fields (Ancient Languages
    and Divinity). He divided the men up into 4 separate groups, divided the
    scriptures and gave each group a set of scripture to validate. When 1 group
    finished, they passed on their work to another for a second validation.
    Published KJV in 1611, and it took over 50 years for widely gained acceptance.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Good!
    'Tis the standard view. What he also did was to alter the footnote and margin
    texts to ensure that there was no translation or interpretation that could
    question the divine providence of the royalty.

    See, the old hand-copied bibles tended to be more accurate (and most modern
    biblical scholars agree that the KJV is the LEAST accurate popular version) and
    also tended to question the upper-classes. King James utilized the newly
    imported printing press in it's first European majour usage to 'drown out' all
    the hand-copied version with sheer volume and affordability. Brilliant tactic,
    that, but I question the motives...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Matthew  - Jesus did not say
    that we cannot be his followers if we have possessions. if you are referring to
    the rich young ruler of Mark 10:17-25, then you need to reread the passage.
    First, the man called Jesus
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - And Jesus said;
    ...that he had to give up all he owned. "Rich," and "needle,"
    were mentioned.



    Hold up a needle. Next to a camel. According to the biblical account, you have
    a better chance of getting that camel to walk through the eye of that needle
    than to get into heaven. I'm not sure where I went wrong in my reading, but I
    think it's pretty straight forward.



    But let's use some OTHER metaphors, for fun!

    "A snowball's chance in hell!"

    "A red-sweater's chance in Star-Trek!"

    "A T-bone's chance at Oprah's house!"

    "A fact's chance on Glen's desk (had to do it!)"



    I know how to read. I know what 'context' is. I also know how to use word-play
    to achieve mischievious results. And I'm pretty sure that wasn't the aim here.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Then you should go and read the passage. Jesus was speaking about this man's
    idol worshiping of his money and possesions. Nonthing more. This man had
    amassed so much wealth that he'd would rather keep it than follow GOd. That is
    Idol worship. Try to understand what is going on rather than trying to place
    Justification onto it.

    I liked the red shirt in Star trek comment. LOL.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Interesting...
    ...so you justify having stuff based on reading-in an interpretation which was
    not stated in the text, which cleverly leaves you able to keep all your stuff,
    as long as your gold isn't in calf-form? Convenient!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Still wrong Anti but please continue trying. I don't have any faith in you.
    But let's hope God does.

    Again you are using the word Justify. I justify nothing.

    Again you have some esoteric malarky to stae in you Justification steps. It is
    just left field and outrageously wrong. Good luck.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Justify!
    Um...you justified having possessions by putting a spin into a passage that was
    not there, in black-and-white. What was there, in black-and-white, is that rich
    people have pretty much zero chance of getting into heaven.

    This is not left-field; it is what your book actually says. Just admit that you
    are not willing to follow it.

    I don't have any faith at all, just my best attempts to understand what I can
    sense for myself, and a willingness to alter my interpretation in the face of
    better evidence.

    The evidence I have at this point is as follows;

    1)You believe the bible is an unalterable, perfect text.

    2)The text says rich people don't go to heaven.

    3)You deny you are rich.

    4)By nearly any standard, you are rich.

    5)You deny that what the bible says is true, unless you can 'interpret' what it
    says to allow you to continue being rich.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - "Rich" in the Bible
    Cmon, you have to know that there are rich(money, assets) people that are in
    heaven because they have met the requirements of being in heaven. That is
    repentance of sin and belief in the Saviour Jesus CHrist period. Following the
    10 commandments for your information is NOT what Christians believe is the way
    to heaven, nor do we even consider that righteousness. I believe you are
    misunderstanding hyperbole, and misunderstanding the faith as a whole. With
    that said, I don't think you are yet qualified to refute anything a Christian
    says. You don't know the book!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Point already made...
    ...Oh, I know the book quite well, and I've had the 10 commandments debate
    before. The O.T. is still in effect, according to the words Jesus said.

    "Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets.
    I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true." Matt 5:17, GWT

    Apparently, it is YOU who don't know the book that you say I'm not qualified to
    comment on.

    I know what Christians believe, and I know what the bible says. Those two
    things are not equal.

    Again, if it is possible to add one's own 'interpretation' to scripture to allow
    for possessions, then there should be no problem with interpreting the bible to
    allow for evolution by natural selection.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Pharisee
    You are just like the pharisee's that continually questioned Jesus about the OT
    scripture. Jesus rebuked them and I rebuke you. You know, us Christians know
    why you don't understand the Bible. Unfortunately for you it is something
    supernatural called the Holy Spirit. Without it, we could not properly discern
    the message of the Bible. All witnessing is is telling the Gospel account in
    hopes that the person will investigate it for themselves. Yes, we are
    witnessing to you (an act of doing) and we also pray for you. Why? Because we
    are commanded to love our neighbor and love our enemy. If you don't care to
    believe, we are deeply saddened and just move on, in hopes that someday you
    will. And move one so someone else may receive it.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Rebuke all you want...
    ...I just quoted what was in there. I don't follow the fairy-tale, and I notice
    that you don't either. The difference is that I admit that the ideas are not
    congruent with a good life, and you claim to know something about what Jesus
    said that wasn't written down. You've literally put words in his mouth. What
    was said directly was; a)rich people have a REALLY hard time getting into
    heaven. b)the OT laws are NOT revoked!

    It makes no difference to me if you reject that, but don't claim that the bible
    is literal, undeniable, unquestionable truth if you feel you can just
    'interpret' away the inconvenient parts.

    To test your case, quote the verse in which Jesus states that the laws of the OT
    are no longer in effect.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Rich and not Dishonorable
    We place a high value on things. Jesus never knocked the rich man for having
    stuff. He stated that the rich man was owned, thus a slave to his stuff and also
    an idol as he cherished it more than going to heaven and doing as Jesus Christ
    suggested since he had such a worldly attachment to it all. You can have stuff
    and share it, give it away, enjoy it and God will bless you and give more stuff
    to share and give away. God challenges us in this and shows us that we can be
    rich and humble and live for God and not stuff. Thus, why Jesus said it was
    harder for the rich man to get rid of his stuff due to his heart and motive of
    having the stuff. Many people live life in a temporal form and miss the infinite
    and supernatural because they consider knowledge without the wisdom of God and
    it is the Fear of God The Creator that is the beginning of Wisdom. Knowledge
    without God's Wisdom is pointless because without God there would be nothing...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Got Nike?
    You fail to realize a sad truth of economics; for you to have so much, 8 people
    must give thier lives to providing you with it. For some of us, it's far more.
    Last year, Tiger Woods (great guy, he!) was paid more by Nike than they paid the
    entirity of the population of people who produce the products they hired Tiger
    to sell.

    If you have 17 cents in your pocket, then you are doing better than half the
    world. Make more than $2/day? Then you are in the top 20%.

    Seriously consider what it takes to pay for the life you now live, and who
    REALLY pays for it, and ask yourself if it is truly 'Rich, not Dishonourable,'
    for you to have it.

    Surprizing even myself, I ask you, WWJD?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Nike. Pish Posh
    Let me get this straight. You are claiming that we cause people to die by supply
    and demand? What do you wear? What kind of things do you do for fun? You see,
    God is God. We are human beings made in God's image and likeness. You think you
    have all the facts but yet miss the point. We live in a fallen world and that is
    just the way it is. People have a natural bent toward evil due to sinful nature.
    It is hard for us to deal with but God allows the earthquake to kill both
    Christian and Non-Christian alike. The question is where one places their
    allegiance. Either to God or anyone or anything else. You are good at taking
    things out of context. Do you actually read or do you just take someone's word
    for it. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be
    ashamed but able to divide rightly the word of truth(God's Word)
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - I wear..
    ...nothing brand-name. Ever. And my hobbies are music and martial arts. As
    for reading, I average one book every two days or so. Here's how I judge what
    is valid; if it works, it's valid. If a book tells me how to kick harder, and I
    try thier technique, and I don't kick harder, the method is not valid for me.

    So if a religion claims it can show people how to be moral and peaceful, and
    those people who read it do not become moral and peaceful, but rather use that
    book to justify becoming even MORE evil than they were when they started,
    well...that pretty much shows it's value, doesn't it?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Christian  -  "Where is your trust?"
    Matt.19:16-30 The "rich" young ruler came unto Jesus in search of a way
    that he may save himself. Jesus revealed
    that only God is good and that you must be perfect to enter into life. The
    young man claimed that he had kept the commandments from his youth up,and asked
    Jesus what he lacked. Jesus aware of his self-righteousness said unto him,
    "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give unto the
    poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow
    me."(Pro.8:10-21;1Tim.6:17-19;Rev.3:14-19)But when the young man heard that
    saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.(This revealed that
    he loved himself more than he loved his neighbor.)Matt.19:19,Jame.2:8;Jame.2:5-9
    Jesus then revealed that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of
    heaven and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
    ...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Christian  - "Where is your trust?" continued
    than for a "rich" man to enter into the kingdom of God. This shocked the
    disciples who accepted the notion of the day that the "rich" were
    blessed and therefore certainly saved. Verses 23 and 24 correct that
    misunderstanding. In verse 26 Jesus made His point clear, it is impossible for
    men to save themselves; but with God all things are possible. It is not wrong to
    have "riches".It is wrong to trust in "riches". (1Tim.6:17;
    Pro.10:15, 18:11, 28:11; Psa.52:7, 62:10) There are many examples of believers
    who trusted in God and were rich. (Luk.16:11; Gen.13:2; 1Sam.2:7; 1Kin.3:13;
    1Chr.29:21,28; 2Chr.17:3-5; Job42:10-17...)
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Breathe33  - I don't want to say I'm right....
    Alright

    I'm a human bein'

    Bein' happy and sane

    Oh, but human beings

    We all need to quit

    Bein' inhumane



    Yeah, I don't want to say I'm right

    I just want you to know

    I'd don't want to say I'm right

    I just want you to know



    I've a reputation

    For replacing my confidence with fear

    But I'll be untiringly embracin'

    The love that I have found to be sincere



    I don't want to say I'm right

    I just want you to know

    I don't want to say I'm right

    I just want you to know



    To know that there was a man who lived one day

    With holes in his hands

    As some do say

    I believe we'd be friends if we talked and prayed



    So we do

    That's right we do



    I don't want to say I'm right

    Cuz I just want you to know

    I don't want to say I'm right

    I just want you to know



    Yeah, I don't want to say I'm right

    Cu...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - What I have learned about Christianity
    antitheist



    Christianity which is a relationship, and is polar opposite of religion, is
    about humility, period. As gory as it sounds, Christianity IS death to self.
    I love my new found definition and practice of love. LOVE= the will to extend
    one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth.
    ONLY Christians will love an unbeliever enough to tirelessly talk about the Good
    News. It was hilarious to me what the Koran says about Christians and
    unbelievers. (pretty scary, it actually names Christians!) If I were an atheist
    i would spend more of my time trying to convince Muslims that Islam is a
    "fairy tale", rather than deal with the Christian version. (I might
    speak sense to a possible jihadist)



    In some older posts antitheist, you take Bible verses simply out of context,
    when you quote Jesus and his words about war and division, riches, women, etc.
    Can you pleas...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Char
    Can I please what?

    If we inject the concept called 'context' into biblical passages, it leaves them
    open to interpretation, which is anathema to biblical literalists. My point in
    showing passages such as I've shown is that if we take them literally, scripture
    is indeed very violent and destructive, and must be opposed every bit as much as
    any other philosophy that leads to such ends.

    That said, it's good to see you back here, Char!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - Can you please..
    tell me what you know about the gospel of Jesus Christ, even if you don't
    believe that the Bible is the Word of God, as Christians do. Like what do you
    believe Christians get out of the book? Just curious to what non-believers have
    interpreted the book to be.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Great question, that!
    There are a lot of reasons that people follow religion, not all of them bad.
    There is a social function to religious meetings, access to people who will
    listen, and many people find comfort in thier beliefs.

    But here's where I worry about religion's power to sway, many times (but
    admittedly not all) in the wrong direction; There is also the grand social
    stigma attached to questioning religion's texts, and various powerful people's
    interpretations of them, that I find disheartening. Perhaps the following
    conversation that I had with my own dad might just explain a little...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Conversation with Dad...
    "God gave you everything!"

    "How do you know that?"

    "The bible says so!"

    "How do you know it's right?"

    "I KNOW!"

    "How?"

    "(word I can't post here)!"



    When I was much younger, and not in possession of three black belts, this would
    have erupted in violence, so of course I never asked. And that's the problem;
    my situation is not unique. And it's not just limited to the personal
    relationships people have. I mean, look at just this thread - It IS the
    'Atheism' section of the site, but when a real, live atheist speaks, well,
    you've seen what happens in cyber-space, right? I don't dare ask any questions
    in public.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - Your dad...
    Thank you, Anti-theist, for sharing this part of your life. The part about you
    and your dad fighting each other. It shows where the pain came from that drove
    you where you are today. It also shows why you think any warnings are seen as a
    threat of harm. It all stems from your encounter with your Earthy father. No
    wonder you cannot entertain the though of God as a Father to you. You are not
    alone in this endeavor. Many have gone on in this world just as you do. But
    remember this please, love never forces you to do anything. Also remember that
    your dad is a human trying to do the exact same thing as you are. He just made
    a bad mistake and does not know how to fix it. And maybe he cannot fix it now
    because of the resentment built up in your heart.

    Now dot go yellen at me. Honestly examine it. Use your scientific self and
    look at it. You may not be able to and that is okay. THere is a way to do it
    but it will take ...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - No yellin'
    But that's just one chapter of my life, and I'm well and truly over it. Again,
    the problem was solved by action, and nothing else. While me and my dad
    disagree on a great many things, we both at least know where the other comes
    from. I wouldn't change any painful experience I've had; I wouldn't be who I am
    without them (though I coulda saved some time). Pain and difficulty are not
    just things we want to avoid, but rather they are the motive for action, change,
    and innovation.

    "Take solace in your discontent, for contentment breeds stagnation."
    -Deepak Chopra

    I hold precious little resentment, as it is generally a wasteful emotion,
    focused on an unchangable past. Learn the lesson, and let it go.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - The Bible
    antitheist

    The thing about the Bible, just like any book or story you read, you cannot just
    take a sentence or a chapter or a volume, and determine what the moral to the
    story is. I am sure you know this.



    I might as well have considered myself an atheist from birth up until last year.
    Why? Because growing up I never gave consideration to God. It doesn't even
    matter if I believed in God, because I wasn't living like there was one like I
    do now. All those years, I didn't even crack open the Bible or care to know the
    stories and the lessons that were in it. I didn't know the true synopsis of the
    Bible. But I did know the Iliad and the Oddysey and the lessons in Greek
    mythology...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Char  - The Bible cont'd
    ... So within the past year, I decided to see what the Bible was all about. I
    do this by attending Church and listening to various pastors that are on the
    internet. I also use various study Bibles that have extensive notes. Needless
    to say, I have learned a lot. All those cliche verses that we see around us in
    the world now have a totally different meaning. Why, how? Because I actually
    read the verses before and after it. I am awaiting your response to what you
    think the story of the Bible is about. Any true Christian (not Oprah) will tell
    you there is only one interpretation of the Bible. Only through extensive study
    not even blind faith will the story be revealed.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - If I take the whole story...
    ...you won't like this, but I'm pretty sure this is in fact the basic plotline
    of the bible;

    A divine being creates the world, and puts humans at the top of the food-chain,
    with specific drives and instincts. Said being decides that following those
    instincts is a crime punishable by death, and when those humans (surprize!)
    follow their instincts, humanity is doomed.

    Said being finds Himself in a bind; He doesn't want to kill everyone (nevermind
    that he decided the crime AND punishment, and should have the power to alter
    either) so he makes up for humanities sins by becoming a human and having humans
    kill him (doesn't make sense to me at all).

    He then plans to kill anyone who wasn't impressed by his actions, and let the
    others live.

    I know that sounds harsh, but that really is the gist of the bible.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - 2nd paragraph..
    Your second paragraph is false. Following a false antecedant leads to a false
    conclusion. This line is false.

    False: 1) puts humans at the top of the food chian. Before the deception
    happened what did they eat. It is not stated in the text of the bible. BUT
    after they were decived they were told what they'd eat. 2) Humans following
    thier insticts got us here. his again is a lie. Our instincts were already
    there when we were created. The rebellion took us away from God and it came
    from other than us. 3) The death is a result of choosing to seperated ourselves
    from God. Not sex or any other bogus justification you are seeking.

    This is just a quick three in the paragraph that are false. You only need one
    to nulify the logical progression.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Are we not...
    ...much more valuable than sparrows? I was referencing the assuption
    Christianity makes about man's place in the world.

    Your second statement makes no sense, but I think I know what you're getting at,
    and you probably know what I'm getting at; according to the creationist view,
    your Deity creates man, insticts and all, knowing full-well that the rules were
    to be set in direct opposition, and then decides that not only is breaking any
    rule warranting of death, but that the very FIRST breaking of the rules
    warranted death for everyone, forever.

    Oh, and the text does specifically state that they could eat
    non-knowledge-granting fruit.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Char
    I'm sorry for being so blunt there, I know it offends you (it should; it offends
    ME, but for different reasons) though I only mean to tell it as I see it. And
    the way I see it, the bible has had an incredible effect on our civilization so,
    like it or not, and I don't dislike all of it, it is something to be looked at
    very carefully. Again, take off the Christian glasses and read what is there,
    in black-and-white. Try reading the book of judges, but substitute all the
    names with German names, and God with The King. If you can do that, and still
    feel that the bible is a book that should teach you everything you need to know
    about being a good person, then I may have to take another look for myself,
    because there would have to be something I missed...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s DevineDestiny  - No Intel just heart
    Dear Anti, I am not the smartest rock out there and I do not want to debate with
    you. I want to appeal to your heart. I just want you to think about any times
    that you made a decision that didnt seem to set well with you and you wanted to
    be forgiven or maybe a time when someone hurt you and you didnt deserve it. You
    wanted them to tell you they were sorry. You are a unique design. Only one of
    you. No one else like you. You were created with knowledge of right and wrong,
    good and bad, love and hate. Your soul knows the differences. Those qualities
    were created in you. I just want you to look with a different set of eyes. You
    have invested a lot of time to the mind process. I ask you to invest some time
    in the heart process. One thing that no one has said to you, that you should
    know, you are loved. I love you because you are unique and I have never even
    seen you. I love you because that is how I was created. I want you to know t...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Do you not understand?
    I'm not a sad, angry, or unhappy person, generally. I'm not fearful, or
    anxious. I'm not unfeeling, nor unloving. Why is it that being an atheist
    causes people to assume all these things, as though my life could be nothing but
    emptiness and pain without religion? That is far from the truth! In fact, the
    one thing that I have now that religion worked so hard to take away from me is
    control over my own life.

    Yes, emotions are real, and they have physical effects, but they all start from
    thoughts...something to consider.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Control? Ha, ha ,ha you are funny. Since you have so much control I would love
    to see you stay alive for even on your own control. just for starters! And
    what about the influenza bug. I would love to see you use your control to never
    catch it. What about diarrhea. Can you use your own control to not even have
    this? I really doubt you can control much of anything really. Even your anger
    at me for example. Religion does not take away control over you life. If you
    are being controled like this you are certainly not in a Christian faith.
    Christianity bring with it LIBERTY. That words means freedome. FYI.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Take two...
    ...immodium and call me in the morning.

    One of my friends holds a Ph.D. in Theology, he is quite religious, and he says
    that there is nothing around today that Jesus would recognize as 'Chistianity'
    anywhere.

    And how's your liberty coming? Guess your 'freedome' means that you are free of
    all the stuff the rest of us have to do, eh? Don't gotta pay rent, eat, go to
    work, or respond to draft calls, am I right?

    You are not any more 'free' than I. The difference here is that I don't have
    imaginary divine surveillence making me feel guilty 24/7.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - deviod of understanding
    Freedom from the judgement of the law. Grace is my hope not the law. Law sets
    nno man free. You cannot escape it no matter how you justify it.

    I am more free than you. In fact I am free and you are bound. The law is your
    very captivator and you cannot see it. Your only sight is the world and in that
    I am held by the same things such a rent and the rest of the dulrums listed.
    And I am not feeling guilty. If you don't feel guilty when you do wrong there
    is something very wrong with you. Physcological counseling can help you with
    that. I hope.

    And speaking of diarrhea of the mouth maybe you should take your own advice.
    D'oh, there I go again being mean to the poor antitheist guy. Sorry man. BAD
    GLEN! BAD!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - How...
    ...do you figure I'm bound? And what 'law?' There are numerous laws, set down
    by various people for sometimes very good reasons (murder is illegal) and
    sometimes stupendously stupid reasons (so is chaining a giraffe to a lamp-post
    in San Fransisco). Reasonable laws are great things to follow, and I do so.
    Idiotic laws can and must be opposed, legally when possible, and by
    ever-increasing civil disobedience when not.

    Off topic here, but strangely, there seems to be no law at all, biblically
    speaking, regarding that lightening-rod issue; the family structure. Yes, I
    know homosexuality is forbidden (stupidly; it harms noone), but no structure of
    polygamy is ever condemned...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Antitheist1 - In the beginning...
    Let's start at the beginning. We move through scientific and philosophical
    arguments, then move through history.

    1)How did the earth as we know it begin?

    2)When did the earth begin?

    3)Where did the earth begin?

    Here, earth and universe can be interchangeable, but please make clear where you
    specify which is which.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Beginnings...
    No, the Earth and the Universe are not interchangable in the scientific point of
    view. The current theory on the beginning of the solar system starts with a
    supernova. We can see these, and their remnants. Elements up to Iron56 are
    produced by fusion reactions in stars roughly 100 times the mass of our sun.
    Something strange happens at the point where Iron56 is produced, however,
    because no energy can be produced via fusion from this element, making it the
    ultimate nuclear ash. The nuclear process shuts down, and in a very rapid time
    span, all the energy that was holding the outer layers of the star out against
    the star's own gravity is stopped. The star then collapses under it's own
    weight...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Beginnings LOL
    Oh, please. Yes, BIG BANG. God Spoke and BANG it Happened! Allow me to enlighten
    you a tiny bit. LOL Here is the problem with a supernova creating anything...
    Ready? Oh, that's right you don't know what happens when something explodes. You
    were taught by a man that God doesn't exist and that something that EXPLODED
    with Immense destructive force can somehow make any kind of sense of how
    anything has any balance or could come together as a cohesive unit. Think about
    it. You have a building destroyed and what do you have? A BIG MESS. You people
    sit around and strive to figure everything out without God and where does that
    lead to to more problems in your THEORIES because that is all they are is
    thoughts without God that make no sense at all. There is balance in this
    universe because there was, is and always will be God Almighty and you and I
    were both created by Him and for Him but we can choose to try and explain Him
    away an...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Your problem...
    ...is one of proof. You assert that what you state is true, and cannot be
    questioned, even though you have no evidence for the creation story either. You
    have this concept called, 'faith,' which has been proven wrong time and again.
    Recall; we KNEW the world was flat. It is the center of the universe. Disease
    is caused by demonic possession. All this stuff people once attested to,
    exactly the way you attest to the truth of your story; with no proof. Nothing
    but faith.

    I will convert to you religion, and you only have to do one thing to get me to
    do it; prove your concept. Show me your deity. Show me said deity creating
    something. Anything.

    Until then, the evidence points to big bang, and nothing further.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - I don't have the problem...
    You see, you are in denial and until you grasp and hold onto the fact that God
    is God, he created you and he gets to make the rules and we are to follow them
    out of respect, love, honor and admiration of The Creator. Stop spending so much
    time trying to deny God His Creation and look at the painting, the house and the
    universe and realize there is God and He is The Creator, The Grand Architect,
    The Almighty Sovereign and you get to stand in front of Him and back all your
    grand theory to His face but then it will be too late. So,consider if you are
    wrong then you are going to be miserable for all eternity if you continue to
    deny Him. I honestly don't have enough faith to be an Atheist or Anti-Theist or
    any of those other things other than Christian because I have looked, researched
    and experienced and at the core of this universe is God and His Only Begotten
    Son which redeemed me by His opposing act of unselfishness by dying on t...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Well in that case...
    ...let's look at the evidence you have provided;

    A big list of titles.

    That's it? That's your proof? That's your evidence? I could call you
    "Dragon's Bane," but that doesn't show anything about you and slaying
    dragons.

    Then you go where every Comfort-styled evangelist goes; THREATS! YOU'RE GOING
    TO HELL! ETERNAL TORTURE! FLAMES, BRIMSTONE, SUFFERING! YOU'LL BEG TO
    BELIEVE, BUT GOD WILL LAUGH AND CRANK UP THE HEAT!

    But he loves you.

    I find it amazing that you think anyone would be convinced by that. Never
    underestimate the power of self-righteousness.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Beginnings2
    At this point, a mass hundreds of times our whole solar system falls to the
    center of the star, generating heat as it crashes, whereupon the mechanical
    energy of falling is converted into a massive explosion that slams atoms
    together so hard they fuse into the higher elements in the only process known in
    nature to produce them (we can do this a few atoms at a time in particle
    accelerators). Your wedding band is a small chunk of supernova.



    But to continue, the aftermath of this type of explosion is a huge cloud of
    debris, which starts to coallesce into natural, gravitational spheres,
    consisting mainly of Hydrogen with other elements scattered throughout. This
    was our sun, about 5-7 billion years ago...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Beginnings3
    At some point, the mass of the hydrogen collapses enough to force the first
    fusions of hydrogen into helium, which releases energy, which pushes the central
    mass outwards and starts the formation of a disc of swirling debris. Because
    the density of the hydrogen becomes less with the first fusion explosions, the
    first formation of a star is fitful, condencing and exploding in a very
    predictable and specific pattern known as Cepheid variable stars (important!
    The predictability of brightness and periodicity of these stars is essential in
    measuring distances over 10 million light years). Once a balance is struck
    between the gravity of the star and the outward push of the fusion reactions,
    the star formation is complete, and the nuclear fireball burns constantly...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Beginning4
    The leftover disc of debris, swirling around the sun, begins to collide and
    stick together via gravity, which in most cases creates another star (in our
    case it nearly did-Jupiter) but in our case, which is the case in about 20% of
    solar systems we know of, created only planets as major bodies. As these
    planets grew in size and started pulling the debris that was close to their
    orbits into them, they both grew in size, and were bombarded constantly with
    space debris. At this point, the Earth would have been a giant, glowing ball of
    molten rock, with an atmosphere of toxic gasses. One supermassive collision
    likely tore a chunk out of the Earth's mantle, leaving us with the moon we see
    today, which is why our moon is unusually large, and unusually similar in
    composition to the Earth.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Beginnings5
    At least I think this is 5...

    It is after this collision that we have our oldest rocks from. They are Zircon,
    dated at roughly 4.4 billion years, +/- 1%. They show that liquid water was
    already present at that time, as well as the first continents. There is some
    evidence that there may have been organic life of some sort around already, but
    I'm not too solid on understanding of that chemistry, so I'll admit that I can't
    explain it well enough, and go do more research!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Beginnings6
    As to the universe itself...that's one strange reality, and one not easily
    understood. For that, Steven Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes" is
    likely the best source of information on the big bang theory. While I have yet
    to show the mathematics (I was always bod at math!) my own personal hypothesis,
    untested to be sure, is that faster-than-light matter, which moves back in time,
    coalesced in the center of the universe, creating what might be referred to as a
    place where speed equalled EXACTLY the speed of light, which releases the entire
    mass/energy of the substance. Thus, in reverse time, the mass and energy of the
    universe equalled infinity, resulting in an acceleration of the
    slower-than-light, forward time universe towards the center. So, strangely, the
    start of the universe may also have been it's end...man, it's my theory, and I'm
    not sure I understand it at all! ;)
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Beginnings Reply  - Just Me
    Well explained.

    So, what happened, and I will use your time-frame, and for argument's sake, we
    will use 7 billion, what happened 2 seconds before 7 billion years ago?

    What was there?
    How did it get there?
    How did the Iron56 get here to do what it did?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - The argument from infinite regression...
    ...is the one that you are implying here. ie. go back in time far enough, and
    you must come to a beginning, but what was before the beginning? This leads to
    an infinite regress for which the termination can be only, in the creationist
    view, some being that exists outside the laws of nature.

    There are three problems with this view;

    1) It doesn't stop the infinite regress. To replace a natural infinite regress
    with a supernatural infinite regress only makes it MORE improbable, not less.

    2) No evidence supports it, and

    3) It's not the only possibility.

    For the record, it seems that time and space themselves occured with the big
    bang, and thus there is in fact no time or space before, which is what I'm
    trying to explain with my hypothesis, mathematically. However, I would rather
    admit that I don't know than interject the impossible to explain it...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me -  - Yes I am moving toward...
    Infinite regression, but with science in mind.

    You see, Sir Isaac Newton gave us the fundamental laws of force and motion.
    These laws have been the foundation of many of the physical sciences, namely
    Physics.

    What Newton said with his 3 laws is something we innately know, for every
    action, there is a reaction, or, more plainly, for every result, there is a
    cause.

    Now before you think that I have changed Newton's words, look at his hypotheses,
    and see if I am correct. An object in motion stays in motion unless a force
    acts upon it. Effect (result)- a ball is thrown toward a wall and bounce back.
    Cause - the force applied to the ball from the static wall causes the bounce.
    Cause and Effect
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Cause and Effect
    Which leads naturally to the origin of cause. If I'm not mistaken, the rest of
    the argument from goes like this;

    "The only thing that could have caused the first action is a Deity."

    "Can you show me proof?"

    "..."

    The theory that I have laid out attempts to show cyclical (ie. no energy gained
    or lost) forces in the universe. Incidentally, physics as we know it regards
    time as a dimension, no different from 'up,' or 'east.' As such, there WAS in
    fact no time before the big bang. In fact, there was no, 'before,' at all...



    Injecting a Deity into the equation just brings up the same question; Where did
    the Deity come from? What was before it?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Cause and Effect...
    If the theory you laid demonstrates something cyclical, then something had to
    happen (outside of the cycle) to cause the Big Bang. What was that? And, how
    did that thing inject itself in a natural cycle? (Okay...) And, where did it
    come from?

    Doesn't your theory of the broken cycle violate some of the laws of
    thermodynamics? Based on all the best evidence as gathered from
    astrophysicists, doesn't all energy burn itself out?

    And, where in nature have we observed creation ex nihilio?

    All the best,
    Just Me.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Broken?
    Again, 'outside' is a spatial dimention. There is no, 'outside.'

    Yes, there is the law of entropy, which postulates that within a closed system,
    all the energy will eventually convert to heat, and dissapate to a uniform heat.
    That does not, however, destroy or create any energy at all. It's all still
    there. My hypothesis (and again, in all good conscience I must reiterate that I
    could very likely be wrong) postulates that time-reversed matter, or hyper-light
    matter, is headed towards the beginning of the universe, even as we head away
    from it.

    The universe seems to be a truly closed system, estimated at 900Ym, but after
    recent work in the field, it seems that the motion of the universe my truly be
    perpetual, both forward and backward in time...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Theories...What you posit (1)
    requires some amount of faith. You have to have faith that these elements were
    in existence at the right time in the right location. Further, your faith must
    grow to continue to the beginning of life. That is a LOT of Faith!

    Here our argument becomes cyclical. You have no proof, and I have no physical
    proof to offer you right here, right now. So, we must turn to philosophy.
    First, I put forward, Occam's Razor: "entities must not be multiplied beyond
    necessity", or in other words, the simplest explanation tends to be the best
    one.

    Which is simpler? Your theory, or any other theory out there explaining the Big
    Bang, but not explaining how everything came together for the Big Bang? Or, is
    it possible there is a creator? Let's just answer this. Which is a simpler
    explanation?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - In that case...
    Mine. In order to solve the cyclical argument, your solution is to insert the
    most powerful, intelligent, and complex entity imaginable. That would seem to
    be the most complex possible solution to the problem. Scientifically speaking,
    your solution has to be considered as a possibility, however remote. However,
    'proof' is a mathematical word, and cannot be used in any other scientific
    sense. Maybe 'evidence' would be the better thing to expound.

    I have a lot of evidence.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - So what you are saying...
    is that the simple solution is there was nothing in the great vacuum of
    nothingness, then something happened to create a Big Bang, and boom...our galaxy
    was forming...then over years the Earth cooled to the exact right temp to
    sustain life, it just happened that there is the exact correct amount of ozone
    in the atmosphere to sustain life, the earth is spinning at the exact speed
    necessary to sustain life, the earth is on the exact axis required to sustain
    life, the earth formed itself exactly the distance from the sun necessary to
    sustain life....all of this exactness randomly happened. If probability truly
    worked like this, then I would be a millionaire several times over because I
    would play the lottery every week!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - 6 Magic Numbers...
    Great book, that. One thing that I've never heard either scientists or
    creationists posit is something that seems obvious to me, but apparently
    everyone else misses (hey, I could be just wrong here, it must be admitted) is
    that while it seems that the universe is perfectly tuned to our existance, I
    rather think that maybe we are merely evolved to use what happens to be there.
    I often hear scientists talk about 'life as we know it,' and I find that rather
    strange. True, carbon chemistry is extremely rich, and liquid water is a great
    solvent, but I think life here uses both becuase we happen to have so much of
    them...it's not random, rather it is opportunistic.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - So your theory,,,
    of a closed energy system that never lost energy, that had an element intrude
    upon it from somewhere, causing the Big Bang, is simpler? I would have to begin
    to wonder where the closed energy system came from, where the intrusion on the
    system came from, why the intrusion....I have a LOT of questions about origins
    with this theory...it seems the simpler theory is a creator for the creation...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Language.
    I see what you mean about it seeming simpler. The way we have learned to speak
    makes things seem much simpler than they are, at times. Imagine, if you will,
    that you had to explain the creation story using only mathematics. Much more
    complicated, no?

    Or try to explain E=mc2 using words. Complexity is a term that is relative to
    the language being spoken. So, which origin would it be simpler to draw or
    animate?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Faith
    On faith; I must also take issue with the terminology here. What I have is a
    combination of curiosity and evidence. My way of experiencing the world is
    subject to alteration based on new and conflicting evidence. No faith involved,
    just ideas, which change as I learn and test.

    Essentially, I know what it would take to prove any theory I've laid out wrong.
    One verified fossil chihuahua in the precambrian strata, evolution by natural
    selection would have to be entirely re-vamped.

    One verified massive particle accelerating past light speed, relativity is
    wrong.

    Now, what would disprove your theory?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - What you posit (2)
    Requires a great amount of faith as I mentioned before. Expounding on this, to
    my knowledge, we have never been able to recreate anything near the conditions
    of the beginning of the Earth. We have tried, but we have failed. Also, we have
    never created something out of nothing. If I remember correctly all attempts to
    create life or matter has either failed (the sheep) or caused a great deal of
    fear (the nuclear accelerator that would create a black hole). So, there is a
    lot of faith embedded in your theory, especially in light of the fact that we
    can't use the same elements mentioned in the Big Bang theory to create anything.
    We can change and mold what is already there, but we can not create something
    from...nothing...which you say was there in the beginning (and end according to
    your theory).
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Nothing...
    No, we have never created something out of nothing. Science holds that to be
    impossible. The theory I posited does not do that, either; the motion is
    perpetual. Time...hard to explain here...'rotates' would be the best word.

    The sheep was alive, the LHC is running now without any black holes, and the
    conditions of early Earth biology are being studied by Prof. Robert Hazen, a
    crystalographer, who has already shown experimentally that proteins
    spontaneously emerge in those conditions. If he can show the emergence of a
    catalist (possibly RNA, as a hypothesis) he will have agruably started a system
    that can self-replicate with variations, which is all that is needed to start
    evolution. None of this is faith...it is what we are currently doing.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Answering your questions...(1)
    Christians and Jews both believe that the Deity is God (Yahweh..sorry to my
    Jewish friends for printing the name). He is the Uncaused Cause. In as much as
    your theory is difficult to understand, wrap your head around that one. He
    always has been, always is, and always will be. Christians believe in the triune
    God, that is 1 God in 3 persons (The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit). We know
    that before the beginning of the Earth, God was in company with Himself (Genesis
    1, and John 1). I am using Genesis as a historical Jewish text, and John 1 also
    as a historical text - we can explore this if you want.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Historical
    At this point, I have to give the historicity of the bible the same credence I
    give to, say, the Illiad. Based in some actual events does not validate the
    entire text. James Clavell's 'Shogun' was based on an actual set of people, in
    an actual place, doing things that really happened. I learned a great deal from
    it. However, that does not preclude the fact that it was fiction, set in
    historical events. I have no doubt that Judaism came out of Egypt. In fact, I
    have good reason to believe that the Moses story contains quite a lot of truth,
    and can be learned from. I do not, however, see any reason to take it as
    verbatum, plain-text truth.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Speaking of historicity...
    There are only about 643 copies available to study of the Iliad. Homer lived in
    about 900 B.C. The earliest known copy of the Iliad written was about 400 B.C.,
    500 years after the original telling. With the Old Testament, we have the
    Massoretic Texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), both tested for accuracy. There
    are more copies of these texts, but is the historicity less valid than that of
    the Iliad? I say no. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of the historicity
    of the OT.
    The New Testament (NT) blows the OT away. The earliest known copies are found
    to be written within 60 years of the original time, and there are more than
    24,000 copies in existence. This evidence is overwhelming (and scientific, at
    least about the document age and accuracy).
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Answering your Questions (2)
    I would also like to point out that your use of "Deity" philosophically,
    through a priori argument, assumes that "Deity" exists. I know you use
    it as a point of reference, but the use itself claims the existence of the
    Being. This is the first philosophical argument, the Ontological Argument - God
    is that which no greater can be conceived.
    We can continue throwing science around about creation, but eventually it will
    boil down to philosophy because you and I will continue to ask for proof. We
    must turn to other areas...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Ontology
    Of course. The ontological argument is one I've seen, and it's easily bested as
    follows;

    Efficiency is a desirable attribute. The most efficient things accomplish more
    work with less energy. The most efficient thing possible is to accomplish all
    possible work with no energy. The most efficient Deity imaginable would create
    the universe while not even accomplishing the work of maintaining existance in
    any time frame. This would be the thing than which no greater thing can be
    conceived.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Okay, maybe I took a...
    wrong turn somewhere. Your premise "the most efficient thing possible is to
    accomplish all possible work with no energy" then turns to the
    conclusion,"...create the universe while not even accomplishing the work of
    maintaining existence in any time frame"...What is the correlation of energy
    and maintaining existence and time frame?

    Using your 3rd premise of accomplishing all possible work with no energy can
    explain Creation, and does not deny the conclusion the most efficient Deity
    would create the universe while not expending energy...a little change in the
    wording to agree with the premise.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Existance
    Existance requires energy. If we take it in quantum theory, an atom consists
    essentially of condenced energy, which is held together to form sub-atomic
    particles. The only thing that can essentially exist IS in fact energy.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - But again...
    I must ask; what would disprove your theory?



    I use 'Deity' as a means of speaking of your belief system while maitaining
    respect for your sensibilities. This posits my understanding of what you
    believe, and my unwillingness to offend. Mentioning something does not mean
    that it exists, or I think we'd all mention Jessica Rabbit a whole lot more ;)
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Disproof is ...
    That there is no Deity. To prove the negative, we would have to reach beyond
    our own understanding and knowledge, something not yet possible. So, your next
    move is to state that I can not disprove the theory or hypothesis that a Deity
    exists, not being able to disprove a theory nullifies the theory...Yet the same
    argument can be made for evolution and creation of the universe... sure there
    are mathematical possibilities, but there is not a method yet to disprove these
    theories.
    Plenty of scientists and lay people alike still accept macro-evolution, can it
    be disproved? Not yet, so does this mean that macro-evolution is out? People
    are still searching for the missing link, so I think that some still hold the
    theory valid. I am not using the population to "prove" my argument, I
    just mention this by way of example.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Disproof
    Evolution can quite EASILY be disproven! The classical example is; one fossil
    rabbit in the precambrian strata. That none has been found does not prove
    evolution, but does lend credence to the theory (an important word; a theory
    must explain all available facts, and have NO known disproofs extant - a hard
    thing to achieve. This is different than hypothesis, which is an idea which has
    not yet been tested thouroughly enough to acieve theory status).

    On missing links; this is a common gripe of creationists, who do not understand
    that species do not suddenly change from one to another, but rather alter slowly
    over time. Every individual that survives to reproduce is, in fact, a link.
    You have never seen an adult of any species, who has reproduced, that is NOT a
    link!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Can be, but hasn't...
    yet been disproven....Just because you and I don't have evidence, YET, that
    there is no Deity, doesn't mean that there is no disproof for the theory....just
    like your example...the Deity theory can be disproven, and as far as you and I
    know, may have already been, but dead people tell no tales, now do they?

    What evolutionists fail to understand is that commonalities among species may
    not point to a common ancestor, but to a common creator. I refer back to your
    discussion of chicken having a teeth gene. Might this also not be a
    possibility?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Fair enough
    I'll admit the possibility, but I have to consider a few things about it's
    liklihood.

    There are bad designs in nature. There are organs and structures that simply do
    not do the job they were intended to do, or do them very poorly. Or are prone
    to catastrophic failure, with no way to heal. I wonder, therefore, if we are
    designed, have we been designed to fail? And how could that be seen as good
    design? And what about vestigal structures? We have vestigal tails, and
    vesigal muscles with which to wag them, why?

    Evolutionarily speaking, this all makes perfect sense. Design? There's a lot
    of explaining to do!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - An after thought on possibility
    I just realized that I have to admit the possibility of creation, whatever I
    think about it's likelihood...I'm wondering then, if you don't have to admit the
    possibility of billions of years of evolution. And perhaps we both have to
    admit the possiblility that we're in the Matrix, and that those weird, Grey
    aliens programmed this matrix as a training simulator for capture-and-probe
    operations in the real world. Or maybe the possibility that satanism is right;
    that the creation story is accurate, and that all the suffering and error in the
    world is due to the creating deity being a sadistic prankster.

    These are all possibilities, and I have to admit them all as possibilities. Do
    you?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Beginnings LOL
    Let us consider THE BEGINNING without God.
    NOTHING, that is precisely what we will always get without God. You do not have
    uniformity without Intelligence to make it so. You must deny God as The Creator
    of His Creation in order to do that and then you would have nothing without
    anything and we would not be here now. God is mysterious and unlimited but God
    is Love and out of the expression of His Love He Created Us specifically to have
    a close relationship with Him as Adam and Eve did in THE BEGINNING. You see, if
    you take away BILLIONS OF YEARS and add the times table that God gave us in The
    Holy Bible we have a real starting point. We think we are so smart that we have
    all this great intelligence but Solomon said that there is nothing new under the
    sun and much knowledge has been lost and forgotten by man. Did you know there
    were batteries 5000 years ago? Hmm, did you know that if you base things with a
    half-life of the ea...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Tree rings
    The biblical timeline is disproven conclusively by the science of
    dendrochronology, which counts tree rings, and can be used to date, accurately
    to the nearest year, up to over 11,000 years before we see gaps in the tree
    record. Antarctic ice-core samples can show the annual ice-pack layers up to
    sever hundred thousand years. Simply put, grade 1 addition disproves the 6,000
    year biblical history conclusively.

    And you seem to think that you're so smart, as well. The most recent research
    into time theory shows time as a physical direction, like, 'in,' or, 'south.'
    It has an actual, spherical shape. So, what part of a circle is it's beginning?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Christian  - The Word of God Endures Forever
    Col.2:8 See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves
    captive by his so called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle
    fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men's idea of the
    material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the
    rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the
    teachings of] Christ (the Messiah). By the way, the letter to the church at
    Colossae was written about A.D. 60 or 61 and is obviously relevant to this day!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    I love antitheists answers to these questions. They are all placed after
    everything was made. His position is that all this stuff has always been here
    and simply recycles. This is held by the observations by astrophysicists
    obsverving the currently visible universe. What Antitheist does not have the
    capacity to understand is that all this stuff was called into existance at some
    point. Every last law that man discovers was created and placed into action by
    God. And He loves watching man use His mind and curiosity (that God gave us) to
    discover how this thing works. Even when man makes mistakes and had to go back
    and erase and change the theories placed forth so man can understand. God just
    loves it. Man is awesome.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Uh...
    ...this isn't your debate, Glen, so I feel no need to respond here.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Open board. You can feel free to discuss it elsewhere.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Glen, please..
    I am trying to engage Antitheist1 in a logical, adult debate. If I understand
    his position scientifically, socially and politically, maybe I can share my
    position in ways that he understands. I appreciate your passion, but this is
    between me and him.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - OK.
    Refute any of what I just said, SCIENTIFICALLY.



    Good luck.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Scientifically....
    Let us engage with your science that bases everything millions or billions of
    years ago. You have a half life of Billions of years and the real half-life of
    things is about 3000. Your radioactive dating methods took 3 volcanic ash
    testings and said they were all over 40 million years of age and one of them was
    a whole 50 years old. I would say that there is a flaw in your thought process
    by automatically basing things in a long long time ago period. God created the
    heavens and the earth in 6 days.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Citations, please!
    I would like to see this volcanic atomic decay dating mistake you refered to.
    Where did you hear about it, so I can see for myself?

    And see my above post on parallax measurements for your answer to the 6,000 year
    old heavens.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s glen  - Taunting
    Telling antitheist that he is sealed is not taunting! Telling him this
    frightens him. That is why he acts the way he does. If he really belived that
    God is a fairy tale he would simply laugh it off. As it is he reacts to it!
    Listen people. Here is an example. Now here is your challenge. Get Antithesit
    to REPENT! If you can then I am a liar! If you cannot then Hebrews 6 is a
    reality for you and Him. I will pubically repent on this site if Antitheist
    actually repents and accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his personal Lord and savior.

    If not, you guys get to see God's work alive and in action!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Just a little too strong
    Glen,

    Just a small critique, you have been a little heavy-handed with A1. #1 He says
    he was raised Messianic Jew, he never says he accepted Jesus as Savior and Lord,
    therefore, he has not lost redemption, right now he rejects it. #2 Just as much
    as Hebrews 6 applies, so does 1 Peter 3:verses 8-12, 15, and 18. One of his
    premises for rejecting anything religious is the "holier-than-thou"
    attitudes of the religious. We must present our case with meekness and fear
    (KJV) or gentleness and reverence (NASB).
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - Just me
    Yea i guess i have been heavy handed. Perhapse not the best. Nevertheless
    number 1 is not accurate. He has stated clearly the he was a believer for many
    years. Although I can see a stiuation where this is an action plan believer not
    a true Holy Spirit conversion beliver. Antitheists rejection is not due to the
    holier thean thou situation. It is something much more painful. It centers
    around not seeing God from what I can glean without know the person. I think
    anti has been in a situation where he demaned the sight of God because he
    thought himself worthy and nothing happened. Arrogance is rejected by God. Just
    my opinion here...I really don't know why.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Sorry, G-man
    But you're dead wrong here. Religion had me convinced that I was so UNworthy
    that I might as well not exist. There was no universal love, just fear and
    guilt and extortion. Casting that aside is the only way I survived. No help
    came, so I had to step up and fix things without it. That, at least, worked.

    Demanded? No. Back then, who was I to even ask? Now I just do what I can for
    myself, and I've been much more successful. The guilt and fear are gone. I
    have hope, and the will to make it real. And noone to punish me for it.

    For those of you in those truly demented 'Fear and Guilt' cults - You CAN leave!
    Life is so much sweeter without!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    I am certain you have stated that you were a believer. Is that untrue?

    As far as the unworthiness issue is concerned I understand this quite well.

    Sin is the punishment not God. Without Jesus' ransom you will be forever without
    God. Right now you have the restrainer preventing evil from over running your
    life. Later, there will be no restraining. Without the Spirit of God evil will
    devour you. This because you want it to be so. THis is not a threat, nor is it
    punishment. It is fulfilling your desire.

    Now becasue of Jesus who am I? i am God's son. And that gives me acces to Him
    directly.

    hmmm, unworthyness. this I can understand.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Um...no...
    Oh, don't worry, there was a time when I was more out of control than I care to
    admit. Noone brought me back to being a decent human being other than myself.
    I saw that what I was doing was wrong for myself, and I stopped doing it, with
    effort, admittedly.

    And how's about a little evidence of that direct line to the omniscient
    intelligence of the universe? How 'bout a Unified Field Theory? Or why does H.
    Pylori lead to enlarged-fold gastritis and stomach cancer in some, but not all
    people? What's a workable treatment for psychotic disorder?

    I notice that, just like people with direct-lines to aliens, people with direct
    lines to omniscient minds never get any useful information from them, only
    reiterations of moral ideas that have already been put forward.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Again you need Justification when non has been given. Men and thier chioce of
    independence from God and how He designed us to live is the problem. That
    chioce has lead to the detructive maladies you are refering to. God did not
    give us a justification for our own destruction of the entire creation. He gave
    us as a gift Deliverance. He redeemed us. He paid the price for our lack. I am
    really sorry you don't get that. And God gives much useful information to His
    Children. Just because you are not getting it does not mean you are not being
    given it. You simply refuse to listen to it.

    you still did not answer the question. Have you stated in other discussions that
    you were once a beliver?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - If...
    ...you mean that I was brainwashed into saying things I know now are simply not
    true, then yes, I was a believer. For a very long time, even asking a question
    would have had dire consequences for me. Well, those people have no power now.
    I'm still here.



    So you say you're getting 'useful' information? I'm curious, what information
    are you getting from the supernatural, Glen? Is there ANYTHING that I couldn't
    find in a hundred-year-old schoolbook?

    And you have not answered a great many of my questions, either!

    For the record, let's ask one more time;



    How do you justify having possessions when Jesus said repeatedly that you could
    not be his follower if you have them?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Blue Knight 3477  - Sorry Fruity Anti....
    Listen up and listen good. You think that we are a cult. Are you stating that as
    an absolute because you claim that something is right and what do you proclaim?
    If you know what is right and wrong then what do you claim that you got that
    from? God is the only moral code and all the other processes of laws are ripped
    off from God's Commandments for ALL of us. The way I see it, you think might
    makes right due to the evolutionist point of view and the mightiest survive. God
    is Almighty and we are nothing without Him.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s villagetree  - Simple
    We are communal animals- our natural emotions give us our 'morals'. We love our
    children, we take care of our parents in illness, we bring food to our neighbors
    in need- because we are, sympathetic and compassionate animals.
    It's really that simple.

    Awhile back, I was watching a family of cardinals teaching their young to fly.
    The parents were somewhat outnumbered, as they'd had a large family that year.
    Soon, a single woodpecker landed near them on a branch- and joined in the
    training session. He sailed back and forth from branch to ground with the young
    ones- doing exactly what their parents were doing. He felt like helping and
    did;)

    Did he learn this from a book?

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Raeosunshine59  - more research
    After Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again. Constantine's son,
    Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire,
    actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene creed. His
    advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the
    Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made bishop of
    Constantinople.

    Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed,
    especially Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became
    the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces,
    frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius and
    installing Antipope Felix II.

    As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula, three camps
    evolved among the opponents of the Nicene creed. The first group mainly opposed
    the Nicene termino...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Yes!
    If nothing else, you've shown the willingness to look. Now that you've shown
    knowledge of the historical record, the real question is, what does it all mean?
    What was happening there? And why?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Just Me-debate
    Yes, I've agreed to your debate as offered below. I do, however, ask that you
    agree to my terms before I begin (I'm just thinking you may not have seen my
    acceptance below, so please look).
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Just-Me-Debate
    Agreed. Your terms are acceptable.

    Thank-you for this opportunity to discuss like adults belief systems. I think
    it will be enlightening for both of us and anyone else that cares to read. I
    responded, I just don't know if it was ever posted. I did recommend that we get
    alias emails at Yahoo or some other site just to protect home email accounts
    (and the requested anonymity). Do you agree?

    Where do you want to begin? I have read almost all of your posts, so I think I
    have a good idea where you stand on the whole evolution bit. I agree with a lot
    of it. Macro-evolution is out. Micro-evolution does exist and has been mostly
    proven.

    Shall we begin at the beginning? Where it all began...which is?

    Just Me
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Yes.
    You can drop me a line @ ceevro@gmail.com . Include my cognomen in the
    subject line.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - I suppose...
    ...I need to know where you stand!

    1) Do you believe the bible is literally true, or partially or entirely
    allegorical?

    2) What benefit do you see in religion that can be gained in no other way?

    3) What portion of your particular faith makes it stand out from the others? In
    other words, how far removed from your denomination would one have to be to be
    irretrevably doomed, and why?

    4) Why would you like to have an open discussion with someone who is diametricly
    opposed to religion in general?

    5) What evidence supports and (this is always a tougher question) opposes the
    theist philosophy, in your opinion?

    I think that's a good start.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Where I stand is...
    1) I believe the Bible is the true, inerrant Word of God, wholly inspired by the
    Holy Spirit as documented by men and women. Some of the teachings may be
    metaphorical, but the Bible itself is a true history.
    2) Religion isn't such of a benefit as practiced today. The original purpose of
    the gathering of people was to experience Christ (Matthew 18:20)and to encourage
    one another (1 Thess. 5:11). Not much is gained by modern "religion".
    Instead, I prefer relationship. Relationship is delving deeper with another. The
    first relationship is with Jesus, the second relationship is with other
    believers who agree with this point.
    3) Let's not confuse denomination with Christianity. There are several
    denominations in Christianity, and true believers in all, as well as
    non-believers and hypocrites. There are several religions, but one,
    Christianity, accepts 1 Creator, God, triune in personality, with God the Son
    being...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - My rebuttal...
    ...is up under your original posts below. Methinks the censors here take the
    weekend off, which is why the posts take so long to kick in.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Nate  - Awesome!
    Praise the LORD! Love your work, Ray!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Peace  - Meeting of the minds...
    Has anyone ever considered meeting someone where they are and loving them to
    where Christ wants them to be? I have read many posts here and some of them
    begin with logical thought but it amazes me that after a while most make a sharp
    detour at some point when the other party does not move to your way of thinking
    at the time you have exhausted your best arguements. Maybe it is time to stop
    at that point and pray before you make the person you are trying to lead to
    Christ more sure that your way is obviously a way they didn't and now absolutely
    don't wish to go. It is better to stop and leave them wanting more than to
    continue on to a point where they are plugging their ears. "For out of the
    abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"(Matthew 12:34). If your heart is
    filled with the Holy Spirit and the truth of the Word of God it will produce
    godly speech that brings life to the speaker as well as the listener.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - I couldn't agree more!
    The issue at hand here is that noone has put forward much of an argument to me
    at all! I give respect to those people who have actually tried to see me as a
    person (Char, Just Me, Professor of History, Dave) and honestly tried to tell me
    something they feel is important. People like that give me hope. They are the
    type of people I would be proud to call friends.



    There is a rule in business, however, that is worth considering; a satisfied
    customer tells a friend. A dissatisfied customer tells 8 friends.



    Essentially, one bad experience does more harm than 10 good experiences can
    correct.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Peace  - Meeting of the Minds...
    I have had more than my fair share of bad experiences in church, and it sounds
    like you have too. I think the difference is that I do not blame God for the
    free will that He gave each of us out of love. I realize churches are made up of
    foulable people just like me and are hospitals for sinners not hangouts for
    saints. I too have friends that I have had to distance myself from because the
    church that they attend says that if you were not baptised there you are going
    to hell and I don't want to stand that close to very close to them on on their
    day of reconning. I feel pain for yours and anyone elses bad experience at the
    hands of someone weilding their form of "justice" instead of weilding
    the sword of the Spirit wearing the breast plate of rightiousness. So many
    people speak what they feel is truth without checking thier references and
    making sure what they say and the advice they give lines up with the Word of
    ...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Peace
    ...God.



    Speaking of the Word of God, I posted yesterday in reference to your post
    regarding Luke 14:26, but I obviously hit the wrong key, the post never showed
    up. I asked what the translation from the original text says. In the version
    you use it says hate. However, it does not mean hate in the literal sense in
    today's English. I would like to submit that the actual meaning is to turn
    away, to not let the beliefs or directions of other people that you love or even
    one's old self stand in the way of being a Christ follower.

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Hate
    There are indeed many ways to translate many of the words in the bible. For
    example, 'neighbor' as used in 'Love thy neighbor' refers only to Jewish
    neighbors. In fact, there has been a frightening ongoing debate about legal
    issues in ultra-conservative circles in which some people are trying to prove
    that non-jews are non-human. Again, I find this type of reasoning appalling,
    but it seems that most religions have clauses to that effect.

    That said, 'turn away,' or 'hate,' or 'abandon,' is not what I would call
    healthy for anyone involved. I would never recommend that ANYONE abandon his
    children.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Fair enough.
    Thank you.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Dave  - Antitheist1 - cont'd
    Eventually they returned to Canada and this is where I joined up with them in
    Vancouver. I listened to John speak about his conversion and the more I heard,
    the more I wanted to know this Jesus. (the fact that they gave me a place to
    sleep in their small basement suite further cemented the idea in my head).
    Fast forward about a week and I was looking for an apartment I could afford...
    it was now about 2200hrs and I was feeling pretty dejected... my father had
    disowned me, I didn't have a home of my own to go to, I was tired and hungry, I
    had quit my job in order to spend all of my time with John, I didn't want to
    return to the drugs and alcohol, but... so I decided to see if this whole 'God
    thing' really worked.
    I found a secluded place in an old schoolyard and laid down on the grass... I
    was too tired to kneel... and prayed, it was a very simple prayer...
    "God" I said... "if you're there... prove it". I lai...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Dave  - Antitheist1 - cont'd
    When I met with John it was at first awkward... for me... not so much for him...
    he was REALLY HAPPY! to see me?!? As the evening progressed he told me about how
    he and his wife were found sleeping on the streets in Zurich. Helen was very
    sick and should have been hospitalized but they had no money, so they slept on
    the sidewalk (which really wasn't fashionable in those days) hoping that she
    would get better... a small group of Christians on the way home from an evening
    service stumbled upon them and took them home. They nursed Helen back to health
    over the course of several weeks. During this time they also taught John and
    Helen the basic premise of the Christian faith... of course John and Helen had
    by this time seen it in action and were convinced it was something they too,
    would like to be a part of. They accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour and
    were baptized. They remained with this group over the next few months, lear...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Dave  - Antitheist1 cont'd
    What I can tell you about is my own personal journey...
    35 years ago I was a rebellious, drug-smoking, alcoholic wasteland (you'll find
    a large percentage of Christians come from this same type of background, but
    you'll find plenty more that were just simple ordinary folk... we've all had to
    walk our own paths). I returned to work one night, still dazed from the 3 hits
    of Mescaline I had taken two days earlier when I "heard" a voice saying
    'go find John'... when I say I 'heard', I don't know if it was an actual audible
    voice or if I sensed it... whatever it was, it was POWERFUL! I also
    instinctively knew that the John I was supposed to find was an old enemy of mine
    whom I had spent many, many hours fighting with - knock 'em' down, drag 'em out
    hardcore, kickin', slammin' 'n' scratchin' fights. The command was so powerful
    that when I returned home the next morning I reached for the Bible my
    grandmother had given me b...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Dave  - Antithesist1
    Your observations concerning the history of Christianity are bleak but
    understandable.
    Over the centuries a great deal of what has been done in the name of Christ has
    been wrong - the parallels also, between Christianity, Islam and other major
    religions are plainly there for all to see.
    Even today, people claiming to be Christians are the 'enemies of Christ'...
    witness the atrocities in Bosnia for example. On the surface, Christianity
    doesn't seem to have a very good track record... then when you read the Bible
    you are left to wonder... how can God be 'good'? Why must a 6-year old die a
    horrible death? Why did God, not only allow, but actually command genocidal acts
    against other nations? If God stated that His commands were to be kept 'for all
    time'... why then do Christians today disregard them?
    It is good to question, God isn't threatened by our need to investigate and
    understand - He is the One who gave us this abi...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Dave  - What is missing here...
    ...is love. Antithesis, I have read this blog from the beginning and I am DEEPLY
    ASHAMED by the many here who claim Christianity as their domain - yet attack,
    provoke, taunt and slander you.
    To Glen in particular - STOP what you're doing, you've become a fool and NOTHING
    that you have written bears any semblance to the teachings of Christ that you so
    brazenly proclaim - did Jesus taunt those who questioned Him? Did He gleefully
    rub His hands together while proclaiming them to be swine and happily anticipate
    their future in hell? What's the matter with you?!? Get out of here and study
    your bible, learn humility - when you have something to offer other than your
    own profane ramblings... study it again... learn to pray, learn to do as Christ
    did... I don't recall Jesus ever teaching us to proclaim a man as being evil
    because he was of a differing opinion
    Col. 3:12 Therefore, as God
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Hello Dave, nice letter. I know that I am in a blattle with Anti. I do find a
    lot of fun watching him run in circles but I do not taunt him. It saddens me
    greatly that he is sealed. My words directed in this matter are to confront the
    sin. Obviously to no avail as he is not salvagable BY HIS OWN DEEDS. Not minie.
    No onwe can be turned until they are confronted. No one. I conofront His
    directly! Calling me a fool is also against Bible rules so it is not only me
    that is affected by this man. Also if me bieng a fool towards this man prevents
    people from reading his crap then so be it. Exposure to Satan's lies gets the
    sheep into trouble. If my actions prevent that great! I am doing a good
    service. If telling someone that they cannot be brought back to repentance is
    not in the teachings plaese read Hebrews. I am beggin you. Man is not evil
    because of a difference in opinions. manis evil becasue he chooses to be evil.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Battle!
    You're waging it wonderfully, Glen! You've sure shown me!



    Now, what is it that you've actually accomplished in this heroic struggle of
    yours? You've not only not changed my mind, but in many cases proven to me that
    there needs to be someone here like me who is willing to debate against
    impossible odds (yes, Glen, debating you on anything is impossible; you are
    quite expert in plugging your ears and shouting over and over to drown out what
    you don't wanna hear, like many 2-year-olds). You haven't presented your case,
    just asserted that you're right. What are you attempting to do?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    You are also as good at plugging your ears so that arguement is really
    powerful.

    And you still have not repented and will not due to the essence in Heb:6. And I
    am NOT trying to get you there. It is impossible! When God says it's impossible
    and gives the reason, one should pay attention. It is impossible.

    I simply stand against you and the powers controlling you that is all.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Sigh...
    There are no supernatural powers controlling me, Glen. Again, I'm not a demon,
    I'm an atheist.

    And on the subject of impossibility, that's one of the nearly universal features
    of religions; eternal damnation for apostatism. In Mormonism, it's called a
    'blood sin.' This type of sin cannot be forgiven unless the person who
    committed it is murdered (it still happens, and often). In Buddhism, anyone who
    attempts difficult meditations and gives up are irrevokably blocked from
    Nirvana. In Raelianism, the aliens have embedded technologies that register
    when you've finished their e-book, and you get banned from the list of people
    who might be cloned indefinitely if you don't immediately become a Raelian. And
    in Islam...you don't want to know what the prescribed punishment is.

    So how do you know YOUR version is the right one?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    you ask this question repeatedly without end even when answered well. No answer
    will satisfy your thirst.

    BUT your very existance is the very proof I currently see to verify the truth
    that Jesus Christ is Lord.

    Aside from the other more meaningful ones.

    So how do I know? This is the question asked even of Jesus whilst He was here.
    Did you know that? Do you know the answer He has given to this question?

    Since you complain about ME not reading I insist on you reading. Find it since
    you are so much more educated in the word than I am. If you do then you will
    know the answer. If not then remain right where you are.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Prophets...
    ...are identified by things they say coming true, according to the bible. I saw
    the US economy collapsing years before it did. I told several people, who
    didn't believe me. Does that make me a prophet?

    And you still haven't answered. Existence is proof of existence, nothing more.
    The Etiological viewpoint is a means of understanding, not a verification of
    reality.

    And since you have refused to look up what I've asked you to, I'll return the
    favour. Quote your own sources, or don't expect me to find them for you.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Taunting...
    "Anti your a cook! I think you are on too many hallucinogens yourself. Your
    post is nothing but a lie to start and comically bad at that!"

    and,

    "ANd you are still a cook! Beleive the web, funny, funny man!"

    and,

    "Sorry Oh hateful one."

    and,

    "I am of the position to say, "May the Lord rebuke you." and

    just let you fester in your works."



    Yeah, Glen. You haven't said ANYTHING to me that might be taken as hurtful, or
    taunting, or arrogant at all! I at least admit to the fact that I take as hard
    a stand with you as you have with me. And I back up what I say.



    Thus, backed up once again by YOUR WORDS, I submit that you, Glen, are a liar.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    This is not taunting! If you are hurt by words that direct your attention to
    God then you are hypocritical at best. You are the one that believe God is a
    fairy tale and as such does not exist. Hence this type of referal is empty and
    has no authority. "Oh hateful one" yeah that is just fun and games.
    Sorry it hurt you. I guess you are more vulnerable than I thought. Even Paul
    turn over some of his followers to Satan so they may learn what it means to
    repent. That is all I say to and about you. It is speaking action into your
    life. Taunting is much more childish than these things.

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - No hurt taken.
    Sorry. You just don't have the power to hurt me, G-man. You are still evading
    the hard questions. I find that cowardly. I ask you a question, and you skip
    it to remind me that you think I'm going to be tortured for all eternity. Is
    that your way of dealing with questions you don't want to answer? Claim the
    questioner is possessed?

    Perhaps I was more trying to direct your attention to something than you were
    trying to direct me...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Oh, and...
    ...this was by far my favorite Glenism;



    "By the way, I would no more ask for your involment in any good works I do
    than I

    would ask say Osama Bin Laden."



    Beautiful sentiment, Glen. I ask you, have you ever talked a suicidal person
    that you have never met off the bridge they were attempting to work up the guts
    to jump off? I have, and not in the line of my profession. How would you
    react? Honestly tell them that their rejection of the life god gave them means
    they're going to hell regardless of what they do? Goodness is not defined by
    what you believe, but what you actually do. Can you not see the logic here?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Wow wonderfully bent.

    I am glad to hear you have successfully stopped a jumper. Good work!

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Bent?
    I think that was about as straight as I could be...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Peace  - Peace be with you...
    Glen, you give reference to books of the Bible, but not direct scripture
    reference. Here is one that I think that you need to take a look at as well as
    a few other people who say much but cite little of relevance. My brother I
    respectfully rebuke you. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Just 'cause Glen don't like homework...
    The scripture listed here is as follows:



    "16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
    correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be
    thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2Tim 3:16-17, NIV.



    Fair enough. Now, which scripture is it that you intend to use to prove that
    there were no dinosaurs, or that distances measured by paralax (triangulation
    using earth's 6-month change in solar position) as being more than 10 million
    light years (ie. more than 10 million year old light) really show that creation
    is only 6000 years old?



    The bible cannot be literally true. Please, prove me wrong if you can!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - Confused
    What does this have to do with the price of beans in China?



    I am not being mean by this. I simply see no relevance? if you have a specific
    point then tell me.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Thanks, Dave.
    Yes, I'll admit that I've resorted to some pretty harsh commentary, primarily
    out of frustration, when I've asked questions and seen nothing more than a
    skirting of the answer. Is it really so hard for a theist to say they don't
    know, or they were wrong, or they were only partly right, or they hadn't thought
    about it that way? Is there truly so much fear of atheists that we need to be
    attacked, publicly ridiculed, threatened, and even denied employment for our
    non-beliefs (all this has happened to me, and more)? I mean, why the fear? Why
    the attack? I've defined what disturbs me about religion, and my motives for
    being here. I've been honest, and at least looked where I've been directed by
    theists.

    Perhaps that's why 'utopian' experiments never work; some people just can't
    bring themselves to act in a better way.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Tabitha  - encouragement brother
    I am again amazed at God's love 4 us. It is few that can understand That God
    would love an atheist so much He would allow such a tragedy as 9/11 to get u 2
    Him. Please do not take the burden of those deaths upon yourself in some way
    but realize that God loves u beyond all human comprehension. So glad I will
    meet u in heaven some day, Andre
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - WHAT?
    I cannot believe what I just read here! GOD LOVES US SO MUCH THAT HE WOULD LET
    OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALSO BELIVE IN GOD KILL US SO WE MIGHT KNOW HOW MUCH HE LOVES
    US? I'm utterly aghast! I'm FLOORED! Even Ray Comfort can't find a rational
    justification for the suffering god causes (even though he quickly dismisses it,
    saying it must be good, somehow), but YOU...how do I even start?

    9-11 proved to me, and many other atheists, that religion is not just bothersome
    to us, but dangerous! Lethal, in fact! 9-11 showed me beyond any shadow of a
    doubt that religion must be opposed with all the ferocity of an invading army,
    because invading armies is what it inevitably leads to.

    Your god, if said deity exists,knew the killing was coming and allowed that
    killing to take place, even though he could have stopped it with no danger to
    himself. That makes him every bit as guilty as the guy flying the plane.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Start your research!
    The first person to translate the oldest known copies of scripture wrote a book
    that contended that the bible was a coded reference to mixing mushrooms for
    hallucenogenic experiences. The Vatican owns all his copyrights, and refuses to
    ever let anyone read his material.

    At the council of Nycaea, all references to jesus as a man were expunged from
    the bible, as well as any reference to rulers not being absolute, and divinely
    mandated. The council was headed by...oh, check for yourself!

    The KING JAMES VERSION refers to an actual person. C'mon! LOOK! Why would he
    put out a version of the bible, and mass-circulate it at great expense
    (interestingly, this was the first mass use of the printing press!)?



    No god required for any of this!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Anti your a cook! I think you are on too many hallucinogens yourself.

    Your post is nothing but a lie to start and comically bad at that!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Make your claim...
    ...but prove me wrong. I think it's your turn, G-man! Just saying that what
    I've said is a lie don't make it so. Look up the following terms using your own
    devices:



    1. jesus mushroom

    2. council of Nycaea

    3. King James



    Come back, then tell me how what I said was a lie. You can't disprove me just
    by asserting that I'm wrong. Oh, and cite references.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - Citations
    NO! Life is not fair, remember?



    Find your own references.



    ANd you are still a cook! Beleive the web, funny, funny man!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - I will not...
    ...do your research for you. Laziness on your part shows your inability or
    unwillingness to actually learn about the person you are "doing battle"
    with. This is a sure-fire way to defeat.

    And yes, I am a cook! I worked as a line-cook at an upscale restaraunt through
    my early college days. Best steak you ever had would be cooked by me.

    I've read everything you've sent to me to read. I've tried the actions you
    prescribed. Are you unwilling to engage them on equal terms? Or are you afraid
    of what you might find?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Start Your Research
    As to your first claim about the book of mushrooms, I am still researching.

    The Nicaean Council, I am assuming you are referring to the first in 325 did not
    expunge all references to Jesus as man, instead it confirmed the deity of Jesus
    as fully man and fully God. The Council was actually headed by Constantine, but
    he allowed the Bishops to make all decisions. The biggest reason for this
    Council was the threat of the Arians who were the ones denying the deity of
    Jesus. None of the 20 canons instituted during this Council spoke specifically
    of "ruler", your word, but leaders and members of the church. The
    canons discussed how to become a leader of the church (Catholic) and how lay
    members were to be allowed membership. It was an attempt to unite the Empire
    through one theological doctrine, instead of the many that had developed.

    Bibliography
    Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Council; Eusebius, The Li...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Good work, let's continue...
    So, what was the reason for Constantine's conversion to christianity, and what
    was the very first thing he did with that conversion?



    I'm not in agreement with the idea that the bishops made all the decisions.
    Constantine directly told them what he wanted, and let them work out the
    details. Specifically, he wanted the doctrines that specifically told people
    that a personal relationship with god needed no organized group expunged (gospel
    of Thomas, for example) along with any reference to mysticism, as practiced by
    the Arians.



    How then, did he go about enacting this change?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Continuing with Constantine, his conversion
    was purported to come about by a dream. The dream disturbed him so much he
    sought out a Christian to ask if the person saving him in his dream was Christ.
    The dream altered his life; some historians equate it to a Paul-like
    conversion.

    Because he was not raised in the Faith, he did not know what to do. So, what he
    did do was what he did best, he organized. He called the Church fathers
    together and learned from them. He also saw the disorganization of the
    "Church" at that time and sought, through the Nicaean Council, to
    organize the Church. A man's design on God's creation, yes it was flawed, but
    better, according to historians, than what had been occurring. Most of the
    records of the minutes from the Council of 325 were destroyed because of
    arguments and so forth, so the best we have is the verbal tradition that has
    been passed down. A tradition that in the time of Constantine was strong. The
    rest of m...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - The first...
    ...thing that Constantine did was to direct his soldiers to paint crosses on
    thier shields before going into battle. While that has no bearing on the
    overall truth of belief, I do find they symbolism rather poignent.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Raeosunshine59  - Research complete
    Antitheist1--

    I have looked into the council of Nycaea and you are mistaken about what
    happened at their first meeting. Arius and his followers believed that Jesus
    was merely a creation of God and some how not equal to God. The remaining
    council members believed otherwise and declared Jesus to be the begotten son of
    God, not made. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ as
    is sometimes claimed. Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had
    found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ
    is the one true God in Deity with the Father.
    The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - I did not...
    ...say that the council invented the officially held dogma of today. What they
    did was vote on it, with a dictator sitting at the head of the table. My main
    point here is that the vote could have easily gone the other way, especially if
    the Emperor of Rome had thought it was politically expedient. The contents of
    the bible were edited accordingly.

    And it did not have the desired unifying effect. Almost immediately the
    enforced control of people's beliefs lead to division and war, which has gone on
    pretty much unabated to this day. We've all seen churches go through splits,
    right? How often do we see amalgamations?

    But to continue, who was King James?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - ooo I Love this argument
    What passages about Jesus are you specifically referring to? I am curious and
    would like to read those myself.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Read...
    ...the entire gospel. Virtually everything jesus taught in it has been expunged
    from the teachings of christianity, because it is inconvenient, or tells people
    they shouldn't be rich. There's even a specific condemnation of preachers who
    wear flowing robes, have finery, and expect to be treated with esteem in thier
    communities. Furthermore, jesus DID NOT invalidate the old testament law, as
    christians seem to think, he made it more difficult than ever!

    What he DID NOT DO was add any knowledge that actually helped anyone. Coulda
    said something about slavery...nothing. Coulda told doctors about
    hand-washing...nothing. Coulda maybe given women some sort of equal
    rights...nope. Coulda expounded on the evils of borders, and maybe ended wars
    between nations...nope.



    But hey, he used miracle spit on a blind guy!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Nice mix of truth and lies. I do agree that these fineries worn by some to
    direct esteem and respect towrd self is biblically incorrect. I also agree that
    many putative sects of Christianity have omitted or plainly ignored certain
    aspects laid out in truth. You are right that Jesus did not invalidate the law
    He laid down. Your wrong about making it harder. He made it so simple even a
    child can understand. Jesus made ten comandments Two. This is a
    simplificatiomn not a complication. Jesus came to divide the world and He has
    been explicit about that and He has done exactlty that. Women were given equal
    rights. I really like the miracle spit. It demonstrates who he is. I am ever
    so glad you have seen truth in this action. But you have wholey rejected it.
    There is Your problem. Not that it'll make any difference.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - ...so...
    ...jesus didn't come to save mankind from their sin, but to create war and
    division? There was NOTHING said about giving women equal rights (I may be
    wrong here, but hey, where's your reference?) which is why there have been so
    many female church leaders over the centuries, eh? And jesus DID make it
    harder! Among criteria for going to heaven, if you actually read the book
    you're extolling, are having NO posessions, hating everyone you know, including
    yourself, and being, "more righteous of the pharasees and sadducees."
    Tough, that one.



    Got two cents to rub together? You aren't going to heaven. Love your mother?
    Pearly gates are shut to you. Got a hand that's causing you to sin? Eternal
    torture is your lot.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - Again and again
    Over and over the same wall. All those listed items are not true and I really
    don't care to try to correct you anti-theist. You are sealed. So nothing I say
    can sway you. I only offer truth to the ones reading so they will not follow
    you.

    Women are co-heirs with men. Both will be like angels. There is your equality.
    But you're gonna fight with some scripture that says women should not teach men.
    bla, bla. of course they should not. But you'll never get that. It is
    segration to you.

    Eternal torture is not the lot of those that know why Jesus came. And so that
    you'll now--PAY ATTENTION--Jesus came to break the power of Satan not humans.
    Humans are captives, Satan is the jailer. Jesus destroyed the power of the
    jailer. Wake up.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Well then...
    I'll be getting back to this one with each scripture written out in detail, so
    that you can see for yourself what was promised for the above mentioned crimes.

    And you really think that women shouldn't teach men? Again, are you serious?
    Yes, to me inequality IS segregation! And it is wrong! I've had many teachers
    that were women and, scripture be damned, they were excellent teachers.

    Methinks that you are now entering the realm of biggotry, G-man. Before, I
    thought you were just brain-washed. Now you tell me that my wife, who trains
    nurses of both sexes to work in her field of palliative home care, should not be
    allowed to do so. That is beyond the pale, G-man. You are endorsing sexism,
    and even you must admit that that is wrong. Re-think what you just promoted.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - War and Division...
    I said that jesus came to bring war. Here's the quote from YOUR so-called holy
    book, with citation.

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
    but a sword."

    Matt 10:34



    There is nothing about your religion that is peaceful, jesus said himself,
    according to the bible.

    Don't worry, G-man, I'm gunna keep educating you as to what this book that you
    seem never to have actually read really says.

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - Riches.
    Here we go on why it is that you, who have more than 80% of the world's
    population, are going to hell, regardless of what you believe:

    "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of
    a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matt
    19:24, KJV

    AND

    "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one
    thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt
    have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." Luke 18:22



    Got stuff? You have nothing in heaven. Do you believe what you say you believe
    enough to give all you have to the poor (logging on here proves you wouldn't
    give up your internet access)?

    I make the case that you don't believe what you preach enough to do a thing
    about it.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - Hate your mother.
    Your deity told you to! You are also destined to go to hell if you don't.



    "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
    children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
    disciple." Luke, 14:26, KJV

    "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he
    cannot be my disciple." Luke, 14:33, KJV

    Thus, if you love your family, you can't follow jesus. If you have anything
    with which to provide for them, you aren't christian.

    C'mon Glen! Tell the whole world about how much you hate your mother! jesus
    told you to! Would you disappoint him?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - Left hand shame.
    So, which body parts have caused you to sin in the past? Ever looked at a
    lovely lady and pictured her in the buff? Ever snuck a cookie? Ever uttered a
    bad word? It's all OK! Break out that machete, and let's get the sin-removal
    on!

    "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It
    is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go
    into hell." Matt 5:30, NIV

    Still got all those body-parts, Glen? If your bronze-age book is infallible,
    you gotta sin-ectomy coming, or you get to be tortured for all eternity.



    HOW MUCH DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU PREACH? HOW MUCH? You can't shrug
    this off because jesus changed the rules, can you? This was the man himself
    telling you! It was black and white. No provisos. Start chopping, if you
    believe.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s acceptedchosen  - Reponse to antitheist1
    Wow you have alot of anger. What is wrong with the world.... is because of mans
    sin. About the robes. What Jesus Christ is saying is that the pharisees and
    Saducees, the folks who were supposed to be teachers then, (the guys in the
    robes)were hippocrates just like alot of folks today that claim to be christian.
    The Pharisees would walk around in fancy robes as if they themselves were above
    everyone else when they should have been teaching God word and pointing others
    to Christ It was all about them and their pride at Their "greatness"
    their position And their head knowledge of Gods word. Its not about who or what
    people claim to be its about a relationship with Christ Jesus and humility and
    loving people as Christ loved us. You may have met some of theseHippocritical/
    Judgemental "christians" What I would reccomend is to ask Christ to
    open your eyes to the truth and read his word ask for his wisdom and he w...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Done that.
    Yes, I am angry. Perhaps I haven't anunciated my reasons quite clearly enough
    yet, so I'll go again.

    1. There is no proof of the existance of any deity.

    2. Without said proof, those people who believe in a deity still proclaim the
    existance of one. Questioning this can in many cases lead the questioner to a
    horrible end.

    3. Those believers are not content to just believe; they alter our laws, our
    education, our social structure, our very lives to the point that it actually
    becomes a crime not to follow thier beliefs. People are still being jailed and,
    in many cases, executed for this.

    4. Those beliefs are also used in justifying hate speech. Don't believe me?
    Here's a challenge; read one of Ray Comfort's articles on atheism out loud, and
    substitute the word 'atheist,' with, 'black man.' This should give you some
    measure of why I stand where I do.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Your reasons for anger
    are interesting. There is something else underlying this, but it seems
    personal, so I will not butt-in.



    Actually, in the US and abroad, it is the Christian Church that is being
    persecuted. Remember the Olympics. Chinese official jailed a Chinese Christian
    Pastor (known as Pastor Bike) for the duration of the Olympics. He was not heard
    from for almost 2 months after the Olympics.



    Missionaries in Southeast Asia were captured by radical Islamists. The female
    was bruatlized and the male killed, just for being Christian. Actually, this
    story is kind of repetitive when you look at Southeast Asia, China and parts of
    the Arabic world. Check out Voice of the Martyrs.



    Currently in the US, it is Christianity under attack. The President has stated
    that America is not a Christian nation regardless of what Washington, Jefferson,
    Franklin, Adam, Lincoln (the list continues, Madison,etc.) have said about the<...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Your anger 2... What about the Non-theists approac
    on Christian America. It is a crime in most of Africa, a majority of the
    Middle-East and Southeast Asia to practice Christianity. Believers in China,
    known to authorities are jailed immediately. What about that?



    As to #4: Doesn't Dawkins outright call Christians fools and idiots? What is
    the difference? What if you replace Dawkins' "Christian" with
    "black man" or "gay", would not the result be the same?



    For #1: What is the proof that God does not exist? If there is no proof for His
    existence, then there must be something empirical showing that He does not
    exist.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - #1-Just Me
    I often feel that it's kind of odd that theists want the atheists to disprove
    the existence of a deity, knowing full-well that disproof of a negative is
    impossible, scientifically (hey, I don't make the rules on this). So, as you
    are in law enforcement, may I suggest that you view this request as a judge in a
    court case might? You find a crime committed, and someone asserts that the
    purpetrator is a person for whom no evidence exists. The defense lawyer calls
    upon the prosecution to prove the non-existence of the alleged purpetrator.

    How far would this go in court? I'm pretty sure that the judge would demand
    that the defence produce evidence of existence, not the other way around.

    So, in this case, I think it's appropriate for me to ask your evidence for
    existence.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Good work...let's keep it going
    You found the flaw of the logical argument. It is hard to disprove a negative,
    impossible as you would say. Proof for this postulate, or say for evolution,
    must rely upon some philosophical logical arguments either inductively or
    deductively. There are 4 logical arguments for the proof of God's existence.
    Using your example, this would be circumstantial evidence, and be fully upheld
    and binding in court. There is also historical proof for Jesus and his claims,
    again enough proof to stand up at trial. You want to work some of this out?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Absolutely!
    Refreshing to debate someone with some real knowledge! I'm pretty sure I know
    what the 4 logical arguments are, but please reiterate for me.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Binding evidence...
    Are you sure they would hold such a thing up in court? I'm pretty sure the
    'invisible man' defense would be a lot more popular if it did. There needs to
    be at least some shred of evidence that the missing party existed.

    And I have no doubt that someone was the basis for the gospels, both cannonical
    and non, and that person, whomever it was, laid down some philosophical points
    that were excellent, and that I have no problem with saying should be followed.
    There are some points that I question, but overall a nice bit of philosophy.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - #4- Just Me
    I agree. Dawkins takes very harsh language in many cases, and I do not condone
    that. Insulting the people you are trying to educate is counterproductive in
    nearly all cases. I do ask you to take what he says in full context, though.
    In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins reprints some of the letters that he has
    recieved. They are nothing short of ghastly. Frightening, in fact. That
    Dawkins continues to publish books in the face of such literal death-threats is
    a show of the man's character. But don't take my word for it, read the book
    from the man himself. I'll gladly loan you my copy. You can judge for
    yourself. Have you read any of Dawkins' books? He has read the bible.

    Finally, just because something is not pleasant doesn't mean it isn't true.
    When we hear a negative about ourselves, the first thing we should ask is, 'are
    they right?'
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - #4 Dawkins
    I am familiar with Dawkins, but have not read his works, only excerpts (and not
    just from Christians trying to refute him). I agree, the letters and threats he
    has received are horrid. It is hard to be a Christian in America because of
    certain theology involved, we obey the government. Our government has
    established Free Speech (which I hope never goes away). Dawkins is free to
    think, write and say what he wants. If I don't believe or like what he says, I
    simply don't read it. I don't see where it is right to threaten him. However,
    I dare say, the owner of this website, Mr. Comfort, has also received threats
    for his published beliefs and was at one point subject to government
    persecution. The sword swings both ways. This argument leads down a road that
    both sides are correct and wrong. Correct that theists and non-theists have
    been the source of great atrocities and wrong in that being the source of a
    great atrocit...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Aha!
    Yes, the sword does indeed swing both ways. And if either side wishes to not be
    cut, then someone has to put down the sword. I've seen, over the past while,
    Atheists beginning to organize. This is both encouraging AND disconcerting to
    me. If organized, we might have the political clout needed to at least alter
    some of the more dubious religion-based laws (let's face it; there really needs
    to be some reworking here. If drafted, I as an atheist would have a much harder
    time claiming C.O. status than, say, a Quaker. "Conscientious" does not
    mean, "Religious"), but organization takes leadership, and it is far too
    easy for a leader to abuse power. Right now we atheists enjoy almost unheard of
    freedom of thought, though at the price of almost non-existant political
    representation.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Persecution
    Yes. There is a lot of religious persecution in the world, isn't there? The
    fact that it seems there is more and more persecution of Christians over the
    past 20 years or so should not negate the fact that before then it was the
    Christians doing the persecution (I'm sure I don't have to cite examples here,
    we're all familiar with them). In many cases, it still is.

    It's my observation that religions of all stripes (I see little difference in
    the various theisms) produce this kind of intolerence almost invariably. They
    must, because a religion must make it's members feel above everyone else, like
    they have some knowledge that noone else has. Looking down on the outgroup
    seems a natural consequence of this.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Perscution - you have
    certainly implied the reason in your answer. You see, #1 religion is different
    from relationship, and #2 man is in the mix, and that ain't good.

    Religion implies a set of rules and regulations that must be followed, unless
    you want to suffer certain consequence. Relationship is living up to a standard
    that you believe in because of that relationship. This is very elementary, but
    will suffice for now.

    Man being in the mix is not good because man is flawed. You obviously know this
    from previous posts. When a flawed man is in charge of a system, the system can
    become flawed and redesigned to the man. Christianity recognizes only 1 perfect
    man, Jesus. It is a relationship with Jesus, learning who He is, and what He
    did, that hopefully will cause a person to want to change. I have seen your
    other posts about what He has said and can and will address them, but suffice it
    to say, that man redesigning Jesus' ori...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Man's flaws...
    Yup. Even I ain't perfect. In fact, the imperfection is one of the reasons
    that I find to doubt Theism. While it is hard to imagine that Paris Hilton was
    put here by a perfect being for a flawless purpose, it's much easier to explain
    her existance in evolutionary terms; she's proven that her genes are quite
    well-suited to give her the liklihood of passing them on, regardless of any
    other factor. One could say the same of the genes and memes that create a
    rapist. It's not nice, but it makes sense (no, I do not condone either of these
    as examples to follow). While the above do nothing to aid humanity in general,
    they do aid themselves in getting copied and passed down, and that's all
    evolution requires.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - My Anger...
    ...by all means, I accepted your offer of a discussion, have been posting at
    this site for a while, and have answered any question anyone cared to ask. What
    would you like to know about my personal reasons? I'll answer honestly, within
    legal bounds (my profession does not allow me to disclose any information that
    could identify an individual I've worked with).
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Less Evolved  - Good One A1
    Interesting to see your reaction A1. Did you ever notice how seething, and
    forceful, people get when their argument is falling apart at the seems.
    Evolution had it's day, but even the evolutionists are falling through the
    "idea's" giant holes, and contemplating the validity of a creator...the
    more we know, the more the evidence points to creation. How'bout Antony
    Flew...the worlds greatest Athiest looking at the evidence and realizing there
    must be a God.



    Unfortunately, he didn't put the same time into studying God's word...we pray
    that in the end, He put his trust in the Lord Jesus.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Study...
    I'm pretty sure that I know the scriptures as well as anyone here. If you take
    the time to read past posts I've made, you'll understand why.

    I have no idea who Anthony Flew is, I'll have to check him out.

    Don't worry; I've sought, prayed, read, wept, immersed myself in religion. All
    that happened was very human in nature; everyone wanted money, everyone wanted
    control, everyone threatened violence in one form or another if I didn't follow
    them. god was silent.

    At that point, I was faced with a choice; work life out for myself, or give up
    entirely. I made my choice.

    I'm still here. god never was.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Obviously YOU didn't study!
    Here's how the bible says I can marry YOUR daughter!



    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and
    rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels
    of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce
    her as long as he lives."

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29



    And since jesus said that "not a jot nor a tiddle shall disappear from the
    law." that means that the above IS STILL IN EFFECT! C'mon, ladies! Endorse
    the bible! It shows god's love for you! You are worth 50 sheckels, according
    to your god.



    "But it's not valid now!" the christian says.



    Your god, the so-called perfect being, thought it was.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Jake
    That's from the OT. Its different now that we have the NT. There are things in
    the OT that are no longer practiced because; Christ died for us. Everything
    changed because, of what he did. You atheist never seem to understand that...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Understanding!
    "Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets.
    I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true." Matt 5:17 GWT



    You christians never seem to read that book of yours. Why is it that we
    atheists are the ones who always seem to have to educate you?

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s RAM  - Bird Man
    Brainwashing can be used as a war tactic, and if you are in a battle we should
    be aware of the enemy and all thier messsages.



    You really believe birds had teeth?

    How many years did they have teeth and where are they now?



    The chance of that being true is the same chance of you being able to fly and
    chirp.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Teeth.
    Yes. I KNOW birds had teeth. Not due to some guess work. Not based on a 2,000
    year-old text. Based on having seen them. With my own eyes. There are
    experiments happening NOW wherein dormant genes in chickens are activated. The
    chickens grow teeth, scales, and tails. Don't believe me! Check for yourself.
    Chickens possess reptile genes, and are, in fact, reptiles.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    You'll have to better than animal planet! Try a scientific journal article
    demonstraing the methods used PLease.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Science...
    The article at animal planet lists the researchers involved, and provides the
    links to the raw data. But what do you want with science? It relies on the
    assumption that data is valid, and you rely on the assumption that data is
    trumped by a bronze-age book written by desert nomads.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Poor poor antitheist. Back to name calling. and bantor? We are arguing over
    citations in another thread so what is up with the temper? Cite your sources.
    I went to your cited web page and it would not load, my 'puter is state of the
    art and linked with lightening speed. so none of that is the difficulty. I
    spent zero time trying to figure out why. So, since you can see your story and
    the citations list them. If not then take a tums and two asprin.

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - MY name calling?
    First, I told you how to load the page in question and get to the citations.
    Second, I stated NOTHING in the above post that was not FACT, so I'm pretty sure
    that name-calling wasn't it. Third, I pulled up the web-site with my 'puter,
    which is several years old with a simple google search, which yielded the study
    on the first link. Fourth, try reading. It's a massive aid in figuring people
    out.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s William  - Birds and teeth
    I have to correct you on that. Birds don't have teeth per se; that part of your
    statement is true. What they do have are small ridges where one might expect
    teeth to be. Just look at a platypus: They are born with 'teeth' until it falls
    out early in life and becomes a ridged edge on the bill. This is used to grind
    up food. So, although ducks nor platypi have 'teeth' teeth, they do have
    something to chew with.



    Also, in the fossil record, small reptiles were seen sprouting feathers then
    eventually wings. This implies that the early ancestors of the birds had teeth
    (since reptiles have teeth).



    I suppose you are correct in saying the ancestral birds didn't have teeth
    because they weren't really birds as we know them today. They are, however,
    ancestors to birds today who had teeth and eventually evolved because the teeth
    were unnecessary, dangerous, or another list of possibilities that I don't
    know.


    ...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Wierd factoid...
    According to the Drumheller museum, there seems to be convincing evidence that
    juvenile t-rex's had feathers, but lost them as adults. Things that make you
    go, 'Hmmmm.'
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Believe?
    No, I KNOW. Here, little unbeliever, is the PROOF, something which you
    religious people have none of to support your invisible sky man.



    Copy and paste this link to view chicken teeth for yourself.



    http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060220/c hicken.html



    Now just how do you explain THAT without evolution?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - oops
    Sorry Oh hateful one. Your site does not work. I copied and pasted so no
    mistakes would happen.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - This site
    ...put a space in the word 'chicken.' Remove the space, and the link works.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    hey man you gotta love what the 'puter can do to your posts. adding a space.
    that's nice of the 'puter.

    I gotta go looky.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    Talpid2 is a recessive trait that is lethal. That means they die. But the
    article says some live as long as 18 days. They don't make molars they make
    nascent teeth. (Nascent: begining to exist or develop.) So he gave them a viral
    infection that started the formation then was reabsorbed back into the beak.
    What I can get from SCientific American. THis is a lay persons scientific
    jounal. It usually only covers the surface. Looking at the photos of the
    embryo's it looks to me like there are a lot more structural things going on.
    The infected one looks badly deformed compared to the wt version. BUT, the point
    is there are genes in the critter that make what appears to be teeth.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Thank you.
    Now, how do you explain the presence of a gene like that without evolution?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    I explain the emergence of "theeth" by telling everyone that this guy
    genetically engeneered and virus that MADE the critter produce teeth. Talpid2
    is responsible for this abberation and it kills the embryo before it is even
    viable. Evolution requires viable. I don't see this as an evolutionary
    experiment at all. Bias is in full effect here. Many in the developmental
    field will inject stuff then focus on the one section they are interested in
    while ignoring the rest. Very common. Look at the photos in the article. Only
    the head was shown. WHat about the rest of the embryo?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Good point!
    I first learned about the study in a documentary, and they did show the full
    embryo...but beside the point. Good refutation, so I'll have to up the Anti
    (get it?).



    http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/



    Here's the MSU long-term evolution study site, headed by Richard Lenski. Have
    some fun refuting this one...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Eh...?
    Nothing to say? I know that you can appreciate the work being done by Dr.
    Lenski, and the sheer brilliance in eliminating all possible means of evolution
    other than evolution. I'm waiting to hear how you figure it's invalid; it
    oughta be pretty good.

    Do keep in mind that I do have enough know-how to appreciate the science here as
    well. I prefer to keep things in layman's terms for those other readers here
    who might want to understand...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s LogicalBeliever  - Evidence of God
    The world and all its creations revolve around 'Cause' and 'Purpose'. What is
    the difference between Cause and Purpose? Cause is determination of future
    events by the past. Purpose is determination of future events by a vision of the
    future. You can't have a purpose unless you visualize what you want to do.
    Therefore, purpose requires a mind, an intelligent designer. (examples: a)
    Precise distance of Moon to earth; b)Plants producing oxygen; c)How the human
    eye works, which by the way we can only can explain what it does but not how it
    does it. Has man ever created anything greater than himself? No. Neither has
    God.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - It's called science!
    A) Moon; Of COURSE it's at a fixed distance and speed! If it weren't, it would
    have crashed into earth, or been flung away. There were very likely other moons
    to which this happened. We're lucky to have one left!

    B) Plants producing oxygen. Hmm. Tough one. Wouldn't have anything to do with
    plants being CARBON BASED, would it? Extract carbon from CO2, and you have left
    over oxygen, which is a high-energy toxin, which we animals just happen to know
    how to utilize.

    C) Eyes; We know EXACTLY how they work! A protein has two stable forms, one of
    which is manifested only when hit by a photon of light. Now, which designer was
    it that came up with the clever idea of stickin all the wiring IN FRONT OF THE
    PHOTORECEPTORS? Bad design!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - You still haven't answered to this one...
    So I thought I'd put it right back up here; at the top.



    And I quote, on the topic of threats:



    "Anyone that rebells against God is



    His enemy!" and, "The everlasting tortue is just." and, "you'd

    rather be burned unquencably, soured sulfer smelled to the point of vomiting

    unquencably, and be seared with hate unquencably than to listen to these
    putative ignorant fools try to save you from it? (again, all errors were

    cut-and-pasted directly from your posts)"



    Then, in the above post, you asserted that there were, "Still no threats.



    And so again, having presented my case, I put forth the motion that YOU, GLEN,

    ARE A LIAR!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - It is very Dark where you are
    Are you really whinning over somethng that you say does not exist?

    Kind silly of you. And sad.

    And presented with a man holding a gun on you and demanding money or he will
    kill you. You will stand, shake your fist and tell him all these triffling
    things you say here? Or will you give him your money. Really pal you are way
    out there.

    Warning someone about empending calamity is not threatening them with said
    tradgedy. Not very smart of you pal. Or do you just not know the difference!

    I still stand IN PRAYER against you and the forces of darkness you bring. THis
    is a staement of position not a threat. diametrically opposing position.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Man widda gat!
    No, you're the man with the gun demanding money. Pretending that the danger is
    presented by the gun powder, which you have no control over does not negate the
    fact that the dangerous party consists of the religious people.



    Must suck to have science prove belief wrong. I'm thinking that a few hundred
    years ago, you would have been the one showing torture devices to Gallileo.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen
    You are so far gone. My goodness. The one that would be using and is in fact
    standing in the using position now is you. You are the one that wants to
    eliminate all religions. You are the one speaking hate. Come on pal you are
    speaking with the authority of the wind.

    Science does not prove belief wrong! You gotta have belief to even use science!
    Show me an elecrton. You cannot do that! One can only believe and trust that
    the science behind the math is real. That is done over and over agian in
    experimental processes.

    And I still stand against you and the forces of darkness you bring. I won't kill
    anyone that refuses to belive in God.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Faith...
    ...does not prove science wrong. You claim it does. You claim that if I don't
    accept the crud you're selling, eternal torture is a justifiable punishment.
    You force this worthless drivel on children, setting them up for a lifetime of
    shame and guilt that is, according to Dr. J. Togo, is every bit as harmful as
    childhood sexual abuse, and YOU ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS RIGHT! And even more
    frighteningly, you would actually defend those beliefs to the death, despite
    blindingly obvious, in-your-face proof that it's all a bunch of made-up hooey!



    But where I really draw the line is my children. Your 'education' and
    'intelligent design' have no place in thier education beside actual science.
    And mark my words, I stand between you and kids. They don't need to be
    traumatized by fiction presented as fact.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - I stand against you!
    Anti-theist,

    I stand against you and all the angels of darkness you bring with you! I am
    asking Jesus to send His angels to defend this site and people, even to send
    Mikael himself if it is His will. This angel is powerful enough to handle all
    those in your corner. God commissions Michael as He see fit. So, I go to the
    throne to request the best.

    To the rest who have stood against Anti-theist...Pray with me for the same. I
    have seen many try to speak to Anti. Pray with me in this regard.

    Anti-thiest, prayers are not designed to hurt you. They never are. You feel as
    though they are. I call God and HIs angels to fight the powers that are not
    flesh. They are the target. Make no mistake. You are not the target.

    Brothers open up in prayer angainst the dominion of those binding antithieist in
    slavery! AMEN!!!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
    You tell me that the prayers offered in the "I stand against you!" post
    are not against me? What? So, you're now bringing in the archangel of war?
    GREAT! Bring in mars, and herakles, and that guy they just made a video game
    about too!



    They're all fiction. And you still have nothing. Pray as hard as you like,
    you're doing little more than wasting your time. But hey, in order to know
    something from a religious standpoint, you actually need to disregard whatever's
    in front of you so you can keep your fiction.



    Great stand, man. Wish you luck with it!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Dude...
    I still ain't a demon.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s the fowler  - bravo
    with all due respect ma'am, you are comiting a great evil trying to force your
    friends' childrens' minds into your way of thinking, however i must congratulate
    your daughter on her enlightenment, i can only hope she has the mental strength
    to resist your impending attempts to brainwash her.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Hey, the Fowler!
    Have you been noticing, like I have, how quickly all these religious people run
    away at the first sight of facts?

    Fact: the site 'Athiest Central' was set up in an effort by Ray Comfort to bring
    atheists into contact with christians.

    Fact: They sell 'Online Biblical Evangelism' classes for $150 (why not free,
    Ray? I've offered online banjo lessons for free, on this site!)

    Fact: Birds possess the genes to make them reptiles. Those genes can, and have,
    been activated by scientists to show that chickens once possessed teeth, scales,
    and long tails.

    Fact: No evidence exists for god.



    I'm expecting the christians to run in terror here (OH NO! A FACT! WHATEVER
    SHALL WE DO?), and at most post a comment or two on how I'm going to be tortured
    in a non-existant hell.



    Still waiting for a REAL response to REAL evidence here!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s roger drake  - there is no God???
    Well, God says he who refuses to believe in the existence of Himself is a fool!
    God also says in His inspired inerrant Word, that, He has revealed himself to
    every man! You have received a revelation of God. All your attempts to deny it
    are also foolish. One example: did you listen to the discussion on logic? no
    of course not. Well the syllogism goes something like this. Logic, physics and
    all science principles were present before man came onto the earth. (2) Science
    and logic came from an intelligent mind (outside time and space) (3) God is the
    only entity. we know of, that is outside time and space. Therefore God exists.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Ontology...
    The first assumption can be proven. The others have no proof whatsoever. We
    don't know god at all! What we know is that some bronze-age desert tribesman
    wrote a text that was heavily reliant on the Egyption monotheistic
    sun-worshiping religion. Therefore, your argument has only a one-in-three basis
    in fact. That's the logical argument known as 'slippery slope.'
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Oh yeah...
    ...And god didn't say anything at all. The FACT you are looking for (note;
    facts must be backed by EVIDENCE) is that a 2000 year-old textbook that was
    deliberately altered for political purposes several times states that whomever
    doesn't believe in god is a fool.



    I counter by saying that whoever believes whatever they read is missing the fact
    that writers tell stories.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Really?
    "I counter by saying that whoever believes whatever they read is missing the
    fact
    that writers tell stories."

    Does this include what you have written? Just asking, because the logic seems
    to be circular here.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - Absolutely!
    Don't take my word for it! At all! Go out there and see it for yourself! If
    you want to know where I got my information from, I'll be happy to tell you, but
    you have to look YOURSELF. If you just believed whatever I said, then I'd have
    myself a little mini-cult here, wouldn't I? And that goes against everything I
    stand for.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Oh yeah....
    What is the historiography for your statement: "The FACT you are looking for
    (note;
    facts must be backed by EVIDENCE) is that a 2000 year-old textbook that was
    deliberately altered for political purposes several times states that whomever
    doesn't believe in god is a fool."?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Facts
    FACT: There is no evidence on the non-existence of God.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Well, in that case...
    ...you should also believe in wotan, zeus, krishna, brahma, shiva, vishnu, and
    Rainbow-Brite (tm).



    FACT: There is no evidence for the existance of god.



    FACT: The god of the bible is a genocidal, sex-obsessed, child-killer.



    FACT: If jesus is the same, omnipotent being, then he's just as guilty.



    FACT: Even if said yahweh did exist, and was proven to exist, I would not
    follow such an ogre, and I would have to question the sanity of anyone who did.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Well in that Case:
    Antitheist1,

    I for one am glad you are here. I have read several of your posts and I agree,
    true Christians should not be intimidated by you or your responses. I have also
    read some of the negativity directed at you by people saying they are Christian.
    This is very unfair and frankly, un-Christian. Your conversations with Char
    have been the most insightful and she is promoting the true spirit of
    Christianity by not name calling and having an adult debate. I would like the
    same. A dialogue between you and me. I would like to suggest some ground
    rules:

    1. Ground arguments in fact, so far as possible.

    2. No name calling, there is no need for it.

    3. Respect each others opinions. This would include a modicum of respect for
    the Deity of my belief and I won't call Darwin a "Monkey's Uncle".

    4. Base arguments in logic.

    5. I would ask that other Christians get involved in OUR conversation ONLY if I
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Well in that Case Pt 2
    am incorrect on a theological or historical point, and would ask the same from
    any of your friends/fellow-believers.

    These are my basic terms. If you accept, you have my word, I will not judge you
    for your beliefs, and I will do my best (as good as anyone can on the internet)
    to keep others from attacking you personally. Personal attacks have no
    belonging in logical debate.



    Do you accept?



    If so:



    "FACT: There is no evidence for the existence of God"



    I rebut with "There is no evidence for the non-existence of God" -
    please prove your fact that God does not exist.



    "FACT: The god of the bible is a genocidal, sex-obsessed,
    child-killer."



    I rebut with this is a non-sequitur based completely on your first FACT. If God
    does not exist, then how can He be these things?



    "FACT: If jesus is the same, omnipotent being, then he's just as...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Well, in that case Pt 3
    FACT: If jesus is the same, omnipotent being, then he's just as guilty."



    I rebut with simply this is not a fact, but a conditional (if-then statement),
    and another non-sequitur. This FACT does not follow the argument of your first
    FACT. Here you actually argue that God does exist, and He existed in the person
    of Jesus Christ.



    I won't address your last FACT since it truly is nothing but personal
    belief/opinion.



    I am not being sarcastic or mean-spirited...I really would like to dialogue with
    you...you are passionate about this as much as I am...I will provide you the
    same amount of personal history as you have provided in your previous posts upon
    request....



    Respectfully,

    Just Me.

    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - Agreed. And thank you.
    Before I begin the debate aforementioned, I will agree to all of your ground
    rules, save for the third. From my point of view, those you ask my respect for
    are causing harm that is measurable, therefore I cannot offer my respect along
    with an honest opinion. The best I can do there is offer not to use specific
    names (other than in quotes from other sources) and to refrain from the rather
    harsher methods I take with those that have attacked me.

    Finally, I also offer to conduct the debate both here and via proper email
    (which I have no problem with you publishing in any forum, provided that it is
    published in full, and that my real name not be used for safety.)



    If you can accept this, then I'll begin my rebuttal.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antithiest1  - But I do...
    ...welcome the challenge presented here. I really do hope that you can accept
    my terms, which are offered in the same spirit of understanding you have
    displayed.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Just Me  - Absolutely
    Antithiest,

    I do agree and accept. Of course your information will be protected. To be
    honest, you probably already know where I stand in beliefs...so, I will also
    tell you that I am employed in local Law Enforcement, so I protect my identity
    as well. I have dealt with some nasty people in person AND on the Internet (one
    of which is scheduled to be released from his state mandated temporary housing
    soon), so I am careful about what I put out there.



    I agree to your modification of terms, so long as you can at least quote the
    source of the negative wording, that's all I ask.



    As to the email, I suggest we set up accounts at Yahoo or something like that
    because you and I both know that publishing our real accounts will lead to
    "Christians" sending negative things to you and "Atheists"
    sending negative things to me. This at least also helps to protect anonymity
    and email accounts. Does ...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Then let's dive in.
    You are invited to use the e-mail address ceevro@gmail.com which is where I
    ordinarily send spam to whenever I sign up for something that may generate a lot
    of it (no insult intended here, so please don't take it that way). Just include
    my cognomen 'Antitheist1' in the subject, and I'll be sure to forward it to my
    real e-mail account, and go from there.



    As to the public side in here...well here I go...
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Rebuttal...
    The first assumes that the onus of proving the existence of a deity lies with
    the one who doesn't believe one is there. I don't really follow the logic of
    that, BUT I'm willing to show the evidence I've seen for the non-existence of a
    deity.

    1. Over the course of history, there have been many miracles documented. As we
    get smarter, and new discoveries are made and become common-place, we begin to
    see that trickery has been used by shamens of various stripes for thousands of
    years. So I ask you, on miracles; what miracle in the bible cannot be explained
    by a combination of science and slight-of-hand? What miracle couldn't be
    reduced to science and slight-of-hand via Occam's razor?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Rebuttal cont1...
    Now, as to the next two, you relied on the first to enable a non-answer for the
    second and third. Evasion is the tack I see being taken here.

    In the bible, the Old Testament Deity ordered and personally committed what
    would have been considered atrocities, even in that time. How do you reconcile
    this with the assumption of goodness, mercy, and love, especially considering
    that those atrocities were often conducted against innocents (infants,
    non-combatants, the elderly, and even animals)?

    As to the last, how can a person who is said to be the same Deity not be guilty
    of what was done previously?

    And finally, if said Deity had the knowledge and power to change the rules, or
    the actions, in advance, why do we get the blame for them?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Scrawny- Truly?
    I would like to know your sources! Just exactly when was atheism used as an
    excuse to kill people (don't try Pol Pot, Tiennamen, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
    Hitler was "A good Catholic" -Rudolph Hess, and the rest were killing in
    the name of Communism and personality cults (religion, used to claim a despot is
    god).

    No seriously! What history are you talking about?
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s scrawny  - Believe it or not - the death toll still stands
    Yes, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler - you know them.
    Hitler claimed to be anything depending on his audience. He certainly was not a
    "good catholic" even though he went to church to appease the catholic
    populous at the time. His writings in Mein Kampf and the Nuremberg prosecutors
    Jackson and Donovan documented the fanatical anti-Christianity/anti-theism of
    the Nazis fueled by a pro-evolutionary leader. Or would you believe Churchill
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Believe it!
    Yup. All those guys were evil. Note, however, that Hitler himself declared
    that he was catholic (whether or not it was real, it was most CERTAINLY used to
    sway those people under him who were catholic). Now, as to the others; it's
    called Communism. And Personality cultism. Religion has not been eliminated in
    those places, rather it has been changed to worship of leaders (can we say Kim
    Jong Ill?). This is STILL religion in every sense, and people kill to promote
    it, and die rather than change previous religious beliefs.



    Keep trying!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Borrowed from another poster...
    Thanks for this gem, Jim!



    Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of

    the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for
    the

    work of the Lord.."



    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Glen  - CHAR
    Hey Char see what I mean? Anti-theist is relentless in hating God. Nothing you
    say will sway him! Take a better look at the back and forth in the posts.
    Speaking to him does only 3 things. 1) does not help you, 2) does not help him,
    and 3) does not help everyone else reading these posts. Satan comes to kill,
    steal and destroy. Anti is owned by him so the goals are the same. Anti is come
    among the sheep to scatter them and this is his tact. When you engage him things
    get mean and the rest of the lerkurs and posters are affected by it. It is best
    to ignor him. All he wants to do is endless argue. No one to argue with he'll
    leave. I think we both would be better off.
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s Antitheist1  - Oh ye of little brains!
    Glen, and I mean this in the nicest possible way; you sir, are a moron. Have I
    not stated ad nauseum that I have no desire to kill? That my desire is to see
    the killing stop? That I'm not demonic in any sense, and don't believe in
    demons to begin with? I'm here to speak sense!

    Go and tell a dendrochronologist that the world is less than 6000 years old.
    Get some rings, and COUNT! USE YOUR HEAD!!!

    Oh, and should you lack the brains to actually READ WHAT I WROTE BEFORE TELLING
    ME ABOUT IT, I suggest that it be YOU who would be better off leaving.

    I don't hate god; he does not exist. I hate how idiots kill because of the
    fiction. Ignore me, and I'll still fill your website with reality enough to
    shut up the continuous drivel coming out of fundamentalist morons like you!
    Reply
  • |Y-m-d H:i:s scrawny  - Killing
    Despite the fact that there has been killings in the name of "God" in
    the past - when you look at Atheism you have an even bleaker history. Atheism
    has more blood shed in the past 100 years than the history of the church
    masquerading as "Christ-followers" ever has. The problem is, is that
    Atheism is hard pressed to come up with an accusation against such atrocities
    (what is good? What is evil?) whereas Jesus openly spoke against violence, He
    was against religious bigotry and was compassionate to sinners... including
    yourself.
    Reply