# Christoper Hitchens Dead at 62



## Thanatos (Dec 16, 2011)

Now he knows how great God is. Thoughts and prayers sent to his family. 

Eternity is a long time my friends...are you sure you want to risk your eternal soul on what little knowledge our minds can comprehend in this universe?


----------



## pnome (Dec 16, 2011)




----------



## TheBishop (Dec 16, 2011)

Life is short and to the best of our knowledge we only get one of them, do you want to waste part of it chasing some man-made fairytale that has no basis in logic?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 16, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Life is short and to the best of our knowledge we only get one of them, do you want to waste part of it chasing some man-made fairytale that has no basis in logic?



No I don't.


----------



## vowell462 (Dec 16, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Life is short and to the best of our knowledge we only get one of them, do you want to waste part of it chasing some man-made fairytale that has no basis in logic?



My thoughts perzackly.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No I don't.



Then why do you?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 16, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Then why do you?





I almost posted that this was going to be your response.

I don't.


----------



## JFS (Dec 16, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> are you sure you want to risk your eternal soul



Nope, that's why I keep mine safe under the mattress.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 16, 2011)

I hate to see anyone leave this world without the Lord.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I hate to see anyone leave this world without the Lord.



I hate to see someone living their life, the only one they get, shackled by superstition and fear.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 16, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I hate to see someone living their life, the only one they get, shackled by superstition and fear.



Are you making an acquisition?  Or just more typical fly-by, trite ?


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 16, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I hate to see anyone leave this world without the Lord.



I've never seen anybody leave with the lord have you?


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I almost posted that this was going to be your response.
> 
> I don't.



Don't what?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 16, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Then why do you?





stringmusic said:


> I almost posted that this was going to be your response.
> 
> I don't.





TheBishop said:


> Don't what?



I was answering your question.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 16, 2011)

O.K. String, you win.  I should have probably worded it a little differently.  It was a hasty statement, what I should have said was:

Life is short and to the best of our knowledge we only get one of them. Do you want to waste part of it chasing some man-made fairytale that has no basis in rationality and has to be  completely rationalized to make any sense?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 16, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> O.K. String, you win.  I should have probably worded it a little differently.  It was a hasty statement, what I should have said was:


Wha'd I win?



> Life is short and to the best of our knowledge we only get one of them.


To the best of your knowledge we don't.


I'll answer your question in two parts.


> Do you want to waste part of it chasing some man-made fairytale


No




> that has no basis in rationality and has to be  completely rationalized to make any sense?


Is there something that you can think of that doesn't have to be rationalized to make sense? No matter how little rationalization goes into the thought process.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Are you making an acquisition?  Or just more typical fly-by, trite ?



If you meant accusation then, no.  If you meant observation then, yes.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

So if some of y'all believe we're wasting our time on a fairytale whatch'all been doin'?

Wasting your life on your fairytales of catchin' the biggest fish in the ocean, or killing a 50 point buck, bigger than bigfoot himself?
How about killin' squirrels for the thrill of the kill, or groundhogs....do y'all really eat that?  Yeah yeah, I know they're starving and you're thinning them out, how's about feeding them instead, that's what I do. Or how about wasting your time watching football, full of child preditors?  I think all of that is a waste of time.....yet do you wanna hear that all the time? Well we don't condemn you constantly because you do that and me, personally, I don't agree with killing animals....where's that gonna get you? Does it make you a champion or a hero, or what? why do you do it?...maybe because you like it???? Well I like loving Jesus....is that ok with you? 

I can let you have your fairytales if you let me have my so called fairytales....do you think you could do that? Or were you just born predjudice and can't help because your peeps spent their time teaching you that?


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Wha'd I win?*Well you've won eternal life, so you'll be fishin' and huntin' for a long long long long time.*
> 
> 
> To the best of your knowledge we don't.*To the best of my knowledge we do.*
> ...



I'd like some rationalization out of all the fishermen I know of how they ALL are gonna win first prize on the biggest fish.  Oh how I listened to stories of my late husband of how the biggest buck ever, got away and he's gotta go back next week and get it.  That ain't no fairytale???? Please spare me.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

I didn't know Hitch but I hope he is resting in the arms of Jesus tonight, along with the rest of his family who are left behind....Lord give them your peace!!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I hate to see someone living their life, the only one they get, shackled by superstition and fear.



Would you say I'm fearful?

I tell ya one thing, I'm not shackled to the urge to shoot something, nor am I shackled to the fact that you've gotta let your camos get so filthy they can stand up in the corner by themselves, so's you can trick up a defenseless animal. Nor shackled to the idea that I need to kill a bigger buck than my grandpappy. 

Hey maybe I've found my calling after all....


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I didn't know Hitch but I hope he is resting in the arms of Jesus tonight, along with the rest of his family who are left behind....Lord give them your peace!!!



According to your holy book he is now in a lake of fire for eternity and deserves it.  Of all the superstitions one could adopt on zero evidence what a shameful and revolting one to believe such horrid things about others who don't share your belief. Spare us the peace giving lord nonsense. It's an evil set of doctrines and Hitchens rightly identified it as such.


Thank you Hitch for your words of wisdom. You'll be remembered and missed.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> .
> Thank you Hitch for your words of wisdom. You'll be remembered and missed.



Well my bad, I thought he was a member of this forum. He won't be missed for long, will he? Too bad he can't talk to ya now, though.

Only conversation worth having, huh? wow, is that what you talk about when you're hunting and fishing or whatever you do with you pals, if not, according to that, you're wasting your worthiness.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Now he knows how great God is. Thoughts and prayers sent to his family.
> 
> Eternity is a long time my friends...are you sure you want to risk your eternal soul on what little knowledge our minds can comprehend in this universe?



Says the gentleman who takes that risk with all other religions but his own...


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Says the gentleman who takes that risk with all other religions but his own...



Well let's see, if he isn't in the lake of fire, he could be reincarnated as uncle albert the rat. or he could be with his 17 virgins after he did a suicide bombing that kills a lot of people, or he could just be elevated to a higher level or went to a lower level of consciousness or he could just be dead, and that's it?

We have a choice of other religious beliefs, me personally I like the promises that Jesus gives us. If I'm wrong well, so be it, same as you being right, eh? so be it.  I'm living my life in the hope of Jesus Christ and I enjoy that as much as someone would enjoy being the biggest fisherman of all time. Same thing.  So don't spoil my "fantasy" and I won't spoil yours....


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2011)

Just because someone deludes themselves into believing the teachings of a 2,000 year old cult doesn't mean everyone else is equally as deluded. But I guess you shouldn't be expected to see that if you're on the inside looking out. Same as those who flew jetliners into skyscrapers thinking they were about to be in paradise.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Dec 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Just because someone deludes themselves into believing the teachings of a 2,000 year old cult doesn't mean everyone else is equally as deluded. But I guess you shouldn't be expected to see that if you're on the inside looking out. Same as those who flew jetliners into skyscrapers thinking they were about to be in paradise.



You know, you're on the inside of something looking out too. An atheist's beliefs can be just as close minded and shortsighted as any religion or denomination.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2011)

Nice tribute


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> So if some of y'all believe we're wasting our time on a fairytale whatch'all been doin'?
> 
> Wasting your life on your fairytales of catchin' the biggest fish in the ocean, or killing a 50 point buck, bigger than bigfoot himself?
> How about killin' squirrels for the thrill of the kill, or groundhogs....do y'all really eat that?  Yeah yeah, I know they're starving and you're thinning them out, how's about feeding them instead, that's what I do. Or how about wasting your time watching football, full of child preditors?  I think all of that is a waste of time.....yet do you wanna hear that all the time? Well we don't condemn you constantly because you do that and me, personally, I don't agree with killing animals....where's that gonna get you? Does it make you a champion or a hero, or what? why do you do it?...maybe because you like it???? Well I like loving Jesus....is that ok with you?
> ...



Nobody is telling you that you have to hunt or you will spend eternity in a lake of fire.

Besides,I like to give my food a sporting chance.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Just because someone deludes themselves into believing the teachings of a 2,000 year old cult doesn't mean everyone else is equally as deluded. But I guess you shouldn't be expected to see that if you're on the inside looking out. Same as those who flew jetliners into skyscrapers thinking they were about to be in paradise.



That's an intelligent comparison.  I wouldn't fly into any skyscrapers to get 45 virgins, would you? Well you might...I dunno. 

What other cult do you know that has lasted  2000 yrs? Where did the greek gods go? 
Buddhism, Islam, too have lasted a long time, who are you to say? 
Well at least if you are a fisherman, you relate to Christ in some way.

What have you achieved in your delusions? of killing something that is bigger than any other sportsman ever, in the history of the world.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Nobody is telling you that you have to hunt or you will spend eternity in a lake of fire.
> 
> Besides,I like to give my food a sporting chance.



Huh? You don't strive for some kind of trophy or do you just hunt for food? You kill nothing that you don't eat? You never brag or listen to braggers, or never try to even out do your ownself.....if you do none of the above, you are one of few who don't. Including Christian hunters, they too are competitive or at least enjoy what they do. Why can't you just let others do what they enjoy doing even if you don't agree with it?...that's my point.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Huh? You don't strive for some kind of trophy or do you just hunt for food? You kill nothing that you don't eat?



I eat 99% of my kills. Groundhogs are not on my menu (although I have eaten them)but they get shot because they are eating crops(our food) and damage equipment.

If the animal is a trophy, that is just icing on the cake.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Huh? You don't strive for some kind of trophy or do you just hunt for food? You kill nothing that you don't eat? You never brag or listen to braggers, or never try to even out do your ownself.....if you do none of the above, you are one of few who don't. Including Christian hunters, they too are competitive or at least enjoy what they do. Why can't you just let others do what they enjoy doing even if you don't agree with it?...that's my point.



Anyone can do whatever they want. Anyone can discuss it too. Maybe your in the wrong place if you don't like to see dead animals and don't like to discuss religion.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Anyone can do whatever they want. Anyone can discuss it too. Maybe your in the wrong place if you don't like to see dead animals and don't like to discuss religion.



Well maybe I am.

Anyone can discuss it except for me, eh? I'm in the wrong place...alrighty then. I have to agree to be in the right place? eh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I eat 99% of my kills. Groundhogs are not on my menu (although I have eaten them)but they get shot because they are eating crops(our food) and damage equipment.*Don't leave your crops alone to get a trophy then.*
> 
> If the animal is a trophy, that is just icing on the cake.



I have a small garden every year, I plant and put up fences, etc, so the rabbits won't eat or kill it, I don't kill them, I just tend my garden.

icing on the cake? alrighty then my peace with Christ is icing on my cake...so don't put me down for that. And I appreciate you letting me do what I want to do mighty 'white' of ya....saying it and actually believing that you do, is two totally different things.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Well maybe I am.
> 
> Anyone can discuss it except for me, eh? I'm in the wrong place...alrighty then. I have to agree to be in the right place? eh?



Your on an outdoor site and in an atheist, apologetic, and agnostic forum.

What exactly do you THINK is going to be discussed?????

No one is coming to your house and forcing you to participate. Choosing to frequent this forum and listen to all sides or choosing not to stay is TOTALLY your call.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Your on an outdoor site and in an atheist, apologetic, and agnostic forum.*You're kiddin'....lol....is this the only place you post or are you free to post anywhere?*
> 
> What exactly do you THINK is going to be discussed?????*Of course I know what is going to be discussed.....do you ever venture somewhere else? I think you do.*
> 
> No one is coming to your house and forcing you to participate. Choosing to frequent this forum and listen to all sides or choosing not to stay is TOTALLY your call.


*Huh, coming to my house? did I say anyone was forcing me? I chose for my ownself to participate, I thought you said that was okay with you? So it is or it isn't ok? *

I appreciate your vision on my purpose here.....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I have a small garden every year, I plant and put up fences, etc, so the rabbits won't eat or kill it, I don't kill them, I just tend my garden.
> 
> icing on the cake? alrighty then my peace with Christ is icing on my cake...so don't put me down for that. And I appreciate you letting me do what I want to do mighty 'white' of ya....saying it and actually believing that you do, is two totally different things.




With that garden and those veggies you have all the ingredients for an awesome stew. Maybe your overlooking the signs God is giving you.

Are you a vegetarian?

Again, It is not up to me to "let" anyone "do" or "not do". Go for what you know. Just be realistic of what forum your on and the topics that are discussed daily on that forum.
I'm lost on the mighty 'white' comment. What do you mean?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> *Huh, coming to my house? did I say anyone was forcing me? I chose for my ownself to participate, I thought you said that was okay with you? So it is or it isn't ok? *
> 
> I appreciate your vision on my purpose here.....




It is perfectly,absolutely, 100% A-OK for you to be anywhere you want. My permission is not needed. But don't be shocked if your on an outdoor site with hunters that kill animals and in an A/A/A forum with people that do not believe like you do.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is perfectly,absolutely, 100% A-OK for you to be anywhere you want. My permission is not needed. But don't be shocked if your on an outdoor site with hunters that kill animals and in an A/A/A forum with people that do not believe like you do.



Well thank you so much, all I said was don't dog me out for believing as I do and I won't dog you out for believing differently than I do when it comes to animals.
I'm not an idiot, I was married to a hunter, fisherman,vietnam vet that died in a hunting accident....don't think I can't relate. I'm just using hunting as an example of people doing what they want to do while they  dog out others for doing what they want to do. 

I can make the best bambi chili on earth, believe it or not.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> With that garden and those veggies you have all the ingredients for an awesome stew. Maybe your overlooking the signs God is giving you.
> 
> Are you a vegetarian?
> 
> ...



Well I have the ingredients for an awesome stew as long as I can afford it. I don't live with a hunter any more, and I don't live where I know any. I am not a vegan, I have teeth that can chew meat, ya know? I eat meat I just don't want to think of how it's gotten. Maybe because I'm a girl and it grosses me out, I mean blood grosses me out. I love deer, pheasant, duck etc....but I myself wouldn't kill to eat it...doesn't mean if someone else kills it, that I won't cook it or eat it.  It used to gross me out when my grandma used to tell me that she would ring a chickens neck and it would get away and run around with it's head dangling all over, don't mean I didn't love her southern fried chicken.

Mighty white, is hard to explain. It sort of means, that you're mighty white ie skin heads, who don't like blacks, jews, etc etc...that white is above all. Prejudice towards anything, Christians, Jews or whatever.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

mr bullet,
to be honest with you, I thought this guy was a member of the forum, and I just came to give my condolences to him and his family.

I normally don't come here, but not only was I bored, I'm boring....lol.

Thanks for hangin' wif me!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Well thank you so much, all I said was don't dog me out for believing as I do and I won't dog you out for believing differently than I do when it comes to animals.
> I'm not an idiot, I was married to a hunter, fisherman,vietnam vet that died in a hunting accident....don't think I can't relate. I'm just using hunting as an example of people doing what they want to do while they  dog out others for doing what they want to do.
> 
> I can make the best bambi chili on earth, believe it or not.





I think you are missing the point.
I am not on a PETA site sharing my hunting pictures.
I am not on likemindedchristians.kom telling them they are wrong. 
I am NOT in the Christianity and Judaism section countering anyone's beliefs.

I am in the appropriate place to discuss EXACTLY what your are asking us NOT to discuss. 

I'd be darn happy to discuss why or why not hunters should kill animals, but lets take that up into the hunting section of the site. I don't think your thoughts will be so well received there. Do you honestly think that you would not be dogged out in there for your beliefs on hunting??


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Do you honestly think that you would not be dogged out in there for your beliefs on hunting??



Of course I do, and I wouldn't do that. Because everyone doesn't believe as I do and I can respect that.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Well I have the ingredients for an awesome stew as long as I can afford it. I don't live with a hunter any more, and I don't live where I know any. I am not a vegan, I have teeth that can chew meat, ya know? I eat meat I just don't want to think of how it's gotten. Maybe because I'm a girl and it grosses me out, I mean blood grosses me out. I love deer, pheasant, duck etc....but I myself wouldn't kill to eat it...doesn't mean if someone else kills it, that I won't cook it or eat it.  It used to gross me out when my grandma used to tell me that she would ring a chickens neck and it would get away and run around with it's head dangling all over, don't mean I didn't love her southern fried chicken.
> 
> Mighty white, is hard to explain. It sort of means, that you're mighty white ie skin heads, who don't like blacks, jews, etc etc...that white is above all. Prejudice towards anything, Christians, Jews or whatever.



Well I know store bought meat doesn't get on the shelves in any less gross fashion than what hunters accomplish. When I kill an animal I know exactly where that animal has been since I pulled the trigger to the time it comes out of the crockpot. Yes I do all my own butchering.

Don't see where the 'mighty white' comment fits in our conversation. I'm not prejudice.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Of course I do, and I wouldn't do that. Because everyone doesn't believe as I do and I can respect that.



Exactly!
So is it more likely than not to have people beliefs questioned and discussed in this forum or in the Christianity forum?
The whole point of this forum is for those discussions. Point counter point, belief, alternate belief. This IS the place to air out and ask questions.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> mr bullet,
> to be honest with you, I thought this guy was a member of the forum, and I just came to give my condolences to him and his family.
> 
> I normally don't come here, but not only was I bored, I'm boring....lol.
> ...




No problem Ms. Mtn!
Your everything but boring. I'd hang with you anytime.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> No problem Ms. Mtn!
> Your everything but boring. I'd hang with you anytime.



Thanks, I enjoyed it!!

Peace be yours in whatever you believe! 

Happy Holidays to you and yours!


:candle:


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Exactly!
> So is it more likely than not to have people beliefs questioned and discussed in this forum or in the Christianity forum?
> The whole point of this forum is for those discussions. Point counter point, belief, alternate belief. This IS the place to air out and ask questions.



I agree!

It's just this......:swords:
and this......


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nice tribute



That is awesome.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Thanks, I enjoyed it!!
> 
> Peace be yours in whatever you believe!
> 
> ...



Back Atcha!
I'm still politically incorrect and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.:wreath:


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Back Atcha!
> I'm still politically incorrect and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.:wreath:



Thanks!!

Christmas is what it is, just like halloween..I still dress up...I love dressing up to be something/somebody else. I went as Prince once....lol...and won the contest out of about 400 peeps.....yay me!!!!  500 smackaroos.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> That's an intelligent comparison.  I wouldn't fly into any skyscrapers to get 45 virgins, would you? Well you might...I dunno.



It's hard for me to imagine being that screwed up in the head. I guess if I was I might do what they did but if I was that whacked out hopefully someone would do me a favor and put me down before I hurt others.

Would you kill your child if God instructed you to?




mtnwoman said:


> What other cult do you know that has lasted  2000 yrs?



Every surviving religion that predates christianity. The others you asked about died out just as the Abrahamic faiths eventually will.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 17, 2011)

The greatest irony of all is you have faith that God does not exist, yet it is inconceivable to have faith that he does exist.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> The greatest irony of all is you have faith that God does not exist, yet it is inconceivable to have faith that he does exist.



The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.



End of story.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> The greatest irony of all is you have faith that God does not exist, yet it is inconceivable to have faith that he does exist.



It's not a matter of faith. The bible makes enough false claims that it discredits itself. I'm not above being persuaded that there is a god. I'm open to the possibility just as I'm open to the possibility that there are leprechauns. I just see no evidence for it so consider it highly unlikely.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.





Six million dollar ham said:


> End of story.



And there it is.

Challenge accepted.  Submit your evidence that God does not exist.  

I submit to you all of creation as evidence there is a creator. 

If your evidence 'far outweighs' the entire of creation I will gladly agree with you.  If not, you will be exposed as liars and unworthy of comment once and for all.


----------



## Gaducker (Dec 17, 2011)

You dont see evidence because you dont run with the right minded peeps and you are not lookin for it,  I see it everyday.

      I am not lookin for  leprechauns and I dont know one person who is except for that boy and girl on the tv....

One thing I do know for a fact is I am not the least bit curious about the atheist, agnostic, and apologetics faith and studies but on more than one occasion people who have claimed to be atheist have asked questions that lead me to believe that they know theres something better out there for them.

I too saw where someone had passed and was coming on in to check it out and offer condolences.  May the lord help his family in there time of need.   And just remember we are all =@+


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 17, 2011)

String this is the definition of rationalization that I was using. 

ra·tion·al·izeâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆræÊƒÉ™nlËŒaÉªz, ËˆræÊƒnlËŒaÉªz/  Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz]  Show IPA verb, -ized, -iz·ing.  
verb (used with object) 
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes. 


I realize there are others, but this and this one only,  is the one I was using.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> And there it is.
> 
> Challenge accepted.  Submit your evidence that the fairy godmother does not exist.
> 
> ...



We are eagerly awaiting your evidence. Bring it forth or be exposed as a liar unworthy of comment once and for all.

Instead of playing this silly game why don't you explain what sort of evidence it would take to convince you that some god you don't presently believe in really existed and then explain what evidence you see that demonstrates your god is real and not any others. "Just look at the trees" doesn't cut it.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

Gaducker said:


> You dont see evidence because you dont run with the right minded peeps and you are not lookin for it,  I see it everyday.



You see what you want to see. I suppose there is some truth that you find what you seek. People who look for UFO's and aliens tend to find them too. Same with bigfoot and ghosts. Only trouble is they can never prove to others they are doing any more than fooling themselves. It's the same with god.



Gaducker said:


> I am not lookin for  leprechauns and I dont know one person who is except for that boy and girl on the tv....



Neither am I. But if someone claims to have found one they better have some pretty convincing evidence to back up that claim.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's hard for me to imagine being that screwed up in the head. I guess if I was I might do what they did but if I was that whacked out hopefully someone would do me a favor and put me down before I hurt others.*Yeah me, too.*
> 
> Would you kill your child if God instructed you to?*He won't though.
> I, at one time, well actually for a long time like 30yrs ran far far away from God after I was saved. Because I was afraid He'd ask me to do something like that to prove my love for Him, like He did Abraham. I'd already lost her daddy and I don't know I just thought God was cruel at that time. I still haven't gotten over Wade's death, some 35yrs later, and still have never seen any good reason that, that happened. My daughter has had  some rough times because she didn't have a daddy, even her husband today wouldn't act like he does, if she had her daddy, I can guarantee you that.
> ...



Whew, sorry so long. But killing my child because God ask me to, was one reason I ran far far away....funny you ask me that question.

:candle:


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Neither am I. But if someone claims to have found one they better have some pretty convincing evidence to back up that claim.



I don't think there is a person who can convince/prove to anyone that God exists or for that matter that God doesn't exist. I think it would take something more powerful than us to prove He exists. 

I can look at creation and see it, some can't. I can look at birth and see it, some can't. I know we have grinders to chew meat, I don't believe even just that one thing poofed into existance.  

I guess if I'm wrong and there is no God, I will at least been happy in this life, thinking I would see my husband again....and that hope alone keeps me sane.  Well somewhat sane....


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Instead of playing this silly game why don't you explain what sort of evidence it would take to convince you that some god you don't presently believe in really existed and then explain what evidence you see that demonstrates your god is real and not any others.



Yawn. 

You (the royal 'you' more specifically $6 and BH claimed a preponderance of the evidence supports the position that God does not exist.  We are all waiting for the evidence.  Or are your (again, in the royal sense) claims simply the expulsion of more hot air?

Like my daddy used to say, 'put up or shut up'.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> And there it is.
> 
> Challenge accepted.  Submit your evidence that God does not exist.
> 
> ...



Take a step back and actually listen to yourself. You want proof of something that does not exist. You submit creation as evidence of a creator. OKAY...there IS a creator, now PROVE to me WHO it is!!! Prove that the creator is the God you worship and not one of the hundreds of others people worship or prove the "creator" is not something else that is TOTALLY made up in my mind. 
I'll hold you as accountable as you do me. I say The Mighty Lemon Zest created creation. I submit creation as HIS work. Prove to me he does not exist and is not responsible and we can go further. Or admit that my "proof" is as absurd as your "proof" and neither are "PROOF" of anything except in our own minds.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Yawn.
> 
> You (the royal 'you' more specifically $6 and BH claimed a preponderance of the evidence supports the position that God does not exist.  We are all waiting for the evidence.  Or are your (again, in the royal sense) claims simply the expulsion of more hot air?
> 
> Like my daddy used to say, 'put up or shut up'.



Your evidence(actually lack of) is the equivalent of Al Gore saying he created the Internet. No one knows for sure who did, so give or take credit for it and the more you say it, the more you will believe it. 

Anyone can substitute ANY made up being or entity and use whatever our eyes see as the "evidence" for that thing existing. The only problem with that line of thought is that it really is not proof of anything. You say it is the God of the Bible, I say it is The Mighty Lemon Zest. We are either equally right or equally absurd because neither one of us can prove the others made up being does not exist.

Going further, in addition to our two examples, there are hundreds of others more worldwide that use the same argument as you do for their version of a creator. Again we all are equally right or all are equally absurd.

If all of them are not equally right then none of them are right at all and that is how I conclude there is no ONE creator. If none of the others exist then mine does not exist and yours does not exist so what you call God does not exist.


----------



## dominantpredator (Dec 17, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I hate to see someone living their life, the only one they get, shackled by superstition and fear.



You definetly dont know nearly as much about faith in the creator as you think. Where or should I say who led you to believe anyone is shackled? You make it sound like prison.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nice tribute



Why are they talking to him?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 17, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why are they talking to him?



Why talk to a dead person?  How odd to see a Christian asking such a question.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Yawn.
> 
> You (the royal 'you' more specifically $6 and BH claimed a preponderance of the evidence supports the position that God does not exist.  We are all waiting for the evidence.  Or are your (again, in the royal sense) claims simply the expulsion of more hot air?
> 
> Like my daddy used to say, 'put up or shut up'.



Yeah sorry it doesn't work that way. You're claiming a god. The burden of proof is on you. I would no more attempt to prove to you that god doesn't exist than I would that leprechauns don't exist or Zeus doesn't exist. The default position for both of us is lack of belief in those things for which there is no evidence. "Creation" is no more proof of the god you claim than it is proof of Zeus.

So what else have you got? Whatever it is just ask yourself, would this same evidence convince me to believe in some other god? If not, then don't expect us to accept it as evidence of yours.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.





bullethead said:


> Take a step back and actually listen to yourself.



Listen to yourself:  your claim was that you have evidence that God does not exist.  Your claim was affirmed by $6.  So make good on your claim.  It is as simple as that.

We are all waiting to see if you are a man who can be taken at his word.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Whew, sorry so long. But killing my child because God ask me to, was one reason I ran far far away....funny you ask me that question.
> 
> :candle:



I appreciate the story but my question remains unanswered. "He won't though" is not an answer to the question of what would you do if he did. He in fact already has commanded that very thing according to your holy book and your religion is founded on the idea that he himself did it with his own child on your behalf. The god you worship is one that requires blood sacrifice in order to forgive transgressions. The proposition that an ultimate blood sacrifice has been paid doesn't change that. And... we still have christians to this day thinking god is telling them to harm their kids and faithfully carrying out that commandment just as their holy book praises Abraham for his willingness to do the same.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 17, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why are they talking to him?



Because they either lack certainty in their position or lack the courage of their conviction.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Listen to yourself:  your claim was that you have evidence that God does not exist.  Your claim was affirmed by $6.  So make good on your claim.  It is as simple as that.
> 
> We are all waiting to see if you are a man who can be taken at his word.



Your lack of evidence is precisely the evidence I need to make my claim.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Listen to yourself:  your claim was that you have evidence that God does not exist.  Your claim was affirmed by $6.  So make good on your claim.  It is as simple as that.
> 
> We are all waiting to see if you are a man who can be taken at his word.



Maybe you need to read what you quoted more slowly because he didn't say what you are claiming he said. He said the evidence for one proposition outweighs the other.


You claim an invisible god. I can't disprove that claim and wouldn't waste time trying. What I can do though is ask for evidence that supports your claim or look at the credibility of corresponding claims you make. If you say that this god answers prayers that is a claim that can be evaluated. The evidence is that claim isn't true. If you say this god created the earth and everything in it less than 10,000 years ago and the physical evidence is that the earth is much older we have to take that claim with a high degree of skepticism. The bottom line is the claims made by your religion don't square with reality but they DO SQUARE WITH REALITY AS UNDERSTOOD BY ANCIENT MEN. That points to a human source of claims rather than a divine source. So considering your religion destroys its own credibility and considering you can bring forth no evidence to support your proposition other than "look at the trees" the reasonable conclusion is that you are more than likely wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 17, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I don't think there is a person who can convince/prove to anyone that God exists or for that matter that God doesn't exist. I think it would take something more powerful than us to prove He exists.



My question would be "then why believe it?" but you inadvertently answered with this. 




mtnwoman said:


> I guess if I'm wrong and there is no God, I will at least been happy in this life, thinking I would see my husband again....and that hope alone keeps me sane.  Well somewhat sane....



I can appreciate the comfort that thought gives you. I would conclude from this that _if_ the truth was that there is no god and _if_ that truth could be proven to you beyond any doubt, that you would prefer not to know. I'm just not cut out that way.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Your lack of evidence is precisely the evidence I need to make my claim.



Yawn.  Still awaiting your evidence.  Tick-tick.  About to drop drop the  on your wild-apple-claim.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Yawn.  Still awaiting your evidence.  Tick-tick.  About to drop drop the  on your wild-apple-claim.



I see a lot of typing about nothing on your end. Still not a single shred of supportable evidence to back your claim. Anytime you want to make your case, instead of dodging our repeated requests to do so, please go right ahead.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe you need to read what you quoted more slowly because he didn't say what you are claiming he said. He said the evidence for one proposition outweighs the other.



As usual Atlas, you are spot on!


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I see a lot of typing about nothing on your end. Still not a single shred of supportable evidence to back your claim. Anytime you want to make your case, instead of dodging our repeated requests to do so, please go right ahead.



You made the claim.  You find the evidence. Your attempts to shift responsibility are noted and ignored.  Still waiting for you to put your $ where your pie hole is.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> You made the claim.  You find the evidence. Your attempts to shift responsibility are noted and ignored.  Still waiting for you to put your $ where your pie hole is.



pssst, the evidence is that there is NO evidence.I don't know how many times you have to hear the same thing. I cannot help that you are incapable of accepting that FACT. We all have been waiting for you to prove that wrong and STILL you cannot provide a single shred to back YOUR claims.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

Because a negative cannot be proven does not make it true.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> You made the claim.  You find the evidence. Your attempts to shift responsibility are noted and ignored.  Still waiting for you to put your $ where your pie hole is.



Not my writings but here are some points for you to ignore instead of counter.

You Can't Prove That God Does Not Exist
by Jerry Brown and Jon Nelson

This is correct. It is also irrelevant for it does nothing to prove that God DOES exist, and proof is the responsibility of whoever makes the claim. So, who is making the claim here? The burden (or onus) of proof is on the person who asserts a positive claim. The theist, by claiming that God exists, must supply the evidence for that claim. Atheists are not claiming or asserting anything, and thus have only the burden of rebuttal. All logical arguments are based on an understanding of these burdens. Obviously, it is impossible to examine every nook and cranny in the universe, or to examine every subatomic particle to find "God", however one chooses to describe him/her/it. To carry the theist¹s demand to its logical conclusion, the atheist could demand that they disprove the existence of Zeus, Brahma, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other mythological gods and beings that sprang from the fertile imagination of humankind.

Existence is identification.

To prove that something exists, you must describe the object in question. This means detailing its physical attributes; it does NOT mean describing the actions of that object. In the case of God, theists must describe what God IS, not what they think He DOES. Many of the more philosophically-minded believers try to sidestep this issue by describing facts of reality that they feel could only have come about by divine fiat: The "creation" of the universe, for example. This argument presumes that the universe was created, which obviously implies a creator, rather than being a formation from natural causes.

This and other theological arguments have been refuted time and time again; the interested reader is advised to consult the references at the end of this leaflet for more detailed examinations of these arguments. What is worthy of note here is the simple fact that many theologians continue to spew forth these philosophical dinosaurs as if they were the latest theological findings.But most theists are not content with an impersonal creator God; they want a deity that they can have a personal relationship with. And that is where "revealed" religion comes in. The God of the "revealed" religion of Christianity is said to see all, know all, and make it all (in six days) entirely for human benefit. He is said to possess unlimited power and, according to the Bible, commands us to do certain things and behave in certain ways which by some strange coincidence are always beneficial to the ruling class. The evidence supporting this concept is primarily hearsay, contained in various "holy" writings originating so far back in antiquity that they cannot possibly be verified (especially since most of this evidence involves supernatural phenomena witnessed by illiterate, fearful peasant folk who saw supernatural forces at work everywhere), and that must be "interpreted" by a select few for the rest of us to accept "on faith". And right there is a strong indication that something is wrong.

That which exists needs no faith or coercion to be believed. The fact of the Sun¹s existence needs no interpretation; you don¹t need faith to know it¹s out there. If this God exists, has the abilities he is claimed to have, and cares for the beings he has created, the theist is left on the horns of a dilemma, for he or she faces questions that make a mockery of the concept of an "all-good" God: Why did he create a world of so much suffering? The Christian answer that this is due to the "sins" of humankind do not explain the ruthless predatory nature of carnivorous animals. Couldn¹t he have left us some simple instructions on how to improve the quality of our lives on Earth rather than downplaying our earthly existence and extolling the virtues of the "next life?"

Why don¹t we have a reliable source of information that answers our questions about nature? The Bible doesn¹t even come close; for one thing it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. Why disease? Why chronic pain, making lives miserable and serving no useful purpose? Why did this "creator", who created everything, create an Adolph Hitler? Where was this loving God when millions of innocent people were brutally tortured and killed under a leader who claimed to be doing "God's will"; a leader who, incidentally, was never excommunicated from his church? What happened to the countless prayers uttered heavenward from Auschwitz, Dachau, and the other concentration camps? Theistic answers to these and other questions are not answers at all, only rationalizations.

By contrast, the atheist answer is simple and non-contradictory: There is no one there to answer these prayers. It is up to us, as humans, to prevent these grand human tragedies. It is up to us to ease the suffering here on Earth. We must recognize our responsibilities, and cease shifting them heavenward .This supposedly all-powerful God does not control nature to prevent floods, droughts, and earthquakes. If he made all the beauty and joy, he also made all the ugliness and sorrow, all the viruses and disease, and all the degeneracy and hatred.

Why? How intelligent is this God? He doesn¹t seem to score any better than random chance and repeats the same errors over and over again (witness the countless floods and earthquakes worldwide). The standard theistic responses to these questions are well-known but they are, of necessity only evasions because true and honest answers tend to disprove the existence of their God, and are thus self-defeating for the believer.So, while we can¹t prove with absolute certainty that God does not exist, the balance of the evidence is so strongly on that side as to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And from all that¹s known, the probability (for our lives must be based on probabilities, not absolutes) is that we are an insignificant part of a continually evolving universe of unknown origin and destiny, of such incredible vastness that we are barely beginning to understand it. To attribute its origin and operation to something with human-like qualities, and assuming that this "something" would have the slightest interest in one mere speck of dust among billions and billions would seem to be a form of egoism bordering on insanity.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> My question would be "then why believe it?" but you inadvertently answered with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess you can look at it that way. But actually I was saying that He caused me to believe by revealing Himself to me and get this, it was in a dream/nightmare sleep walking episode. That's a whole other story. And if you don't believe in the supernatural then you wouldn't believe what I'd tell you in trying to prove it to you. So it's like seeing a 30 point, 400lb buck and it got away and you were by yourself and you didn't have a witness to back you up. So you couldn't prove it to anyone, yet you knew yourself. I just know myself. I'm either a liar or delusional or telling the truth.

And if I didn't truly believe and know that I know that I know, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to tell someone else about Jesus, I get nothing for that, except that I'd hate to see someone perish that I cared for.

I could tell you why I think God let my husband get killed, there again you'd have to believe in a higher power and a hightower that could see the future before you'd believe it.
And it took me a very long long time to see why.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Existence is identification.
> 
> To prove that something exists, you must describe the object in question. This means detailing its physical attributes; it does NOT mean describing the actions of that object.



Then could you explain what oxygen looks like, and no need to describe the actions of it, just tell me what it's physical attributes are.

Oh and gravity, that, too. What are gravity's physical attributes, and not descibing the actions of it.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 17, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Then could you explain what oxygen looks like, and no need to describe the actions of it, just tell me what it's physical attributes are.
> 
> Oh and gravity, that, too. What are gravity's physical attributes, and not descibing the actions of it.



Physical properties of Oxygen:
Oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen is; water contains approximately 1 molecule of O2 for every 2 molecules of N2, compared to an atmospheric ratio of approximately 1:4. The solubility of oxygen in water is temperature-dependent, and about twice as much (14.6 mg·Lâˆ’1) dissolves at 0 °C than at 20 °C (7.6 mg·Lâˆ’1).[26][27] At 25 °C and 1 standard atmosphere (101.3 kPa) of air, freshwater contains about 6.04 milliliters (mL) of oxygen per liter, whereas seawater contains about 4.95 mL per liter.[28] At 5 °C the solubility increases to 9.0 mL (50% more than at 25 °C) per liter for water and 7.2 mL (45% more) per liter for sea water.

Oxygen condenses at 90.20 K (âˆ’182.95 °C, âˆ’297.31 °F), and freezes at 54.36 K (âˆ’218.79 °C, âˆ’361.82 °F).[29] Both liquid and solid O2 are clear substances with a light sky-blue color caused by absorption in the red (in contrast with the blue color of the sky, which is due to Rayleigh scattering of blue light). High-purity liquid O2 is usually obtained by the fractional distillation of liquefied air.[30] Liquid oxygen may also be produced by condensation out of air, using liquid nitrogen as a coolant. It is a highly reactive substance and must be segregated from combustible materials.[31]

Gravity is a force that can be measured.

 Newton's "law" of gravity is a mathematical description of the way bodies are observed to attract one another, based on many scientific experiments and observations. The gravitational equation says that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between their centers of mass. Mathematically speaking,

F=Gm1m2 / r2,

where G is called the Gravitational Constant. It has a value of 6.6726 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.

The effect of gravity extends from each object out into space in all directions, and for an infinite distance. However, the strength of the gravitational force reduces quickly with distance. Humans are never aware of the Sun's gravity pulling them, because the pull is so small at the distance between the Earth and Sun. Yet, it is the Sun's gravity that keeps the Earth in its orbit! Neither are we aware of the pull of lunar gravity on our bodies, but the Moon's gravity is responsible for the ocean tides on Earth.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> To prove that something exists, you must describe the object in question. This means detailing its physical attributes; it does NOT mean describing the actions of that object. In the case of God, theists must describe what God IS, not what they think He DOES.



Hey back up there....lol...I ask you to prove oxygen and gravity based on this statement exists in a way that can be physically seen. As your post states. Prove to me physically that they exist. I of course know they do, and according to science you can describe the actions of the object to prove it exists like you did in your long scientific post.
But you/he is saying here that you have to prove it's physical attributes and not the actions of the object, which you just did.
I could do the same with Christ, writing scripture to explain it, but physically I can't do it. 
So I'm asking you to prove it physically what oxygen looks like, not what the actions/reactions of it is or does. So going by your post that I quoted before, I don't want to hear all the things that oxygen DOES to prove it is true, I want a physical showing of what it looks like. If you can't see it, can you prove it, just like God I don't see Him physically but I could post an extremely long posting proving what He does, that proves Him. That is not my question.

You can't prove to me what oxygen looks like, just like I can't prove what God 'looks like', doesn't mean they don't exist just because we can't 'see' physical attributes of oxygen any more than we can prove physical attributes of Christ/God, yet I believe both exist. I just want you to show me the physical attributes of oxygen....nothing you have posted proves to me physically that oxygen exists....I just believe without seeing it.

I cannot see the air I breathe, can you?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 18, 2011)

mtnwoman I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. You may not believe me but I too once shared your beliefs based on personal experience so I understand.


----------



## Asath (Dec 18, 2011)

“Eternity is a long time my friends...are you sure you want to risk your eternal soul on what little knowledge our minds can comprehend in this universe?”

You came here, to the atheist forum, to tell US that?  Consider us enlightened by Christian dogma.  Did it get factored into the thinking how little knowledge your own minds can comprehend in this universe, and how little of it you actually display? Or will you tell us again that you are the only folks who understand all of it?

“He won't be missed for long, will he? Too bad he can't talk to ya now, though.”  Now, in context, that was just mean spirited.  Do you suppose that YOU will be missed for long?  Does your Jesus talk to you now?  Do you have anything other than the promise of the people you pay each Sunday that this will ever be so?  Think for a moment.

“An atheist's beliefs can be just as close minded and shortsighted as any religion or denomination.”   Well, not really.  We have a fundamental disconnect here – religions and denominations tend to assert the impossible as the basis of a thing that must simply be ‘believed.’  That is all they have to fall back on. Aside a few ‘holy’ books written by similar, ancient believers.  Atheists do not believe at all, so it is difficult to be closed minded about something when you actively seek evidence of that thing and find that there is actually none.  You see, we have no beliefs, except in what can be demonstrated to be true.  Seeking the truth is hardly subject to an accusation of ‘belief.’   So there is no such thing as an ‘atheist’s beliefs,’ since that would be rather antithetical.

“Why can't you just let others do what they enjoy doing even if you don't agree with it?...that's my point.”  (Buzzer goes off.)  Excuse me?  When’s the last time a non-believer showed up at your door, and tried to convert you to their way of thinking?  When is the last time you heard a non-believer state aloud that it was their ‘God-Given Mission’ to see to it that they ‘Saved’ everyone who did not think as they did?  Why is it that ‘Believers’ cannot allow anyone other than themselves to do what they enjoy?   

“Mighty white, is hard to explain.”  No it isn’t.  It reveals an inbred prejudice, by the phrase alone, that is indefensible.

“ . . . to be honest with you, I thought this guy was a member of the forum, and I just came to give my condolences to him and his family.”  Really?  I won’t be so charitable as the others – if you have no idea who Hitchens was, then you honestly have no place in this forum.  Having a set of opinions is one thing, but here we tend to expect that folks have informed opinions, and most of our squabbles are over such odd things as the exact dating of existing artifacts and the like.  Point is, emotional connections are a few forums above.  Down here we are not all that interested in what folks ‘believe,’ we’re interested in what they can prove to be true.  Your thoughts are your own, but way down here you will be expected to prove them.

“Like my daddy used to say, 'put up or shut up'.”   Exactly.  Trot out your God, and put him or Her or It front and center.  

Got God?  Show us.  We’ll wait.

In the meantime, the only proof  the rest of us need that your God can’t possibly exist is that you ‘believers’ continue to describe this God, and extol the virtues of this God, and continue to tell us what this God said, and wants, and needs, and demands (of us) – but all of you seem to disagree on these points.  How can that be?  

Oops.  Did God fail to make himself clear?  All we seem to know for sure is that God needs money.  How can that be?

That doesn’t seem very ‘God-like’ to the rest of us. 

Get your acts together, quit killing each other, and us, over your own concept of this ‘God’ of yours, and reach some sort of believers consensus, and then we might, but probably won’t, take a single one of you seriously.  Until then, your support base will continue to erode.  Y’all have already proven that your God does not exist, by breaking into so many competing factions that your agenda is clearly not belief-based, it is money-based and control-based.  All of you want to govern, from only your own bully-pulpit.  We already learned that part.

(bullethead – post #84 – excellent.)

“nothing you have posted proves to me physically that oxygen exists....I just believe without seeing it. I cannot see the air I breathe, can you?”  

 Yup.  It is immediately measurable.  You just saw it, as you inhaled it, exhaled it, and made that post while doing both.  If oxygen, and all the other components of the air you breath did not exist, you would be dead.  Period.  This is not belief based.  This is education based.  The taxpayers, in theory, paid to teach you such simplistic things in about the Eighth Grade.  Your failure to learn them is a tragedy, but not one that continues to question the existence of air, while comparing that ignorance to the assertion of the existence of Peter Pan.  I’m pretty sure that it would take another twelve years of school to teach what school failed to teach, and I’m also pretty sure that we are not here to appease that failure.  If you are still questioning air, because it is invisible to you, while breathing it, then you might not be teachable.  We’ll not await your understanding of somewhat more complex questions, like ‘how do they make ice cream when I can’t see cold?’ 

This started out as a discussion of Eternity, as a concept, the ‘soul’ as a concept, and how those things relate to our admittedly limited knowledge of the Universe.  It became, as usual, a discussion about the failures of the educational system. Where is the OP when we need it the most?


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.





bullethead said:


> Not my writings but here are some points for you to ignore instead of counter.
> 
> You Can't Prove That God Does Not Exist
> by Jerry Brown and Jon Nelson



So what you are saying is that you made a claim you can not back up.  Were you being purposefully deceitful at the time or did you unintentionally paint yourself into a corner?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 18, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Hey back up there....lol...I ask you to prove oxygen and gravity based on this statement exists in a way that can be physically seen. As your post states. Prove to me physically that they exist. I of course know they do, and according to science you can describe the actions of the object to prove it exists like you did in your long scientific post.
> But you/he is saying here that you have to prove it's physical attributes and not the actions of the object, which you just did.
> I could do the same with Christ, writing scripture to explain it, but physically I can't do it.
> So I'm asking you to prove it physically what oxygen looks like, not what the actions/reactions of it is or does. So going by your post that I quoted before, I don't want to hear all the things that oxygen DOES to prove it is true, I want a physical showing of what it looks like. If you can't see it, can you prove it, just like God I don't see Him physically but I could post an extremely long posting proving what He does, that proves Him. That is not my question.
> ...



Oxygen is an element.
Here is a picture.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...b=12shtafab&sigi=111snnpjr&.crumb=FDNDfShrtuK


----------



## bullethead (Dec 18, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> So what you are saying is that you made a claim you can not back up.  Were you being purposefully deceitful at the time or did you unintentionally paint yourself into a corner?



I made the claim, backed the claim and can do nothing more to open your blind eyes to the facts. I doesn't matter to me how long you sit in your corner with your fingers in your ears, eyes squeezed shut and yelling LA-LA-LA-LA while refusing to ignore the evidence. It is quite clear to everyone that you cannot defend your statements. All you have done is turn your head the opposite way when someone shows you what you asked for. 
I'll ask you one last time to show us what you got. I have been waiting 20 years for proof and now I have the guy that claims creation is the result of a creator and he is going to tell me WHO the creator is and give me proof. You'll make us all look like fools with the info you have, all you have to do is share it.

OR

Totally avoid providing any proof while looking left when someone is pointing you to the right and then claiming you can't see what they are pointing at.

Epic Victory or Epic Fail, the ball is in your court.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.





bullethead said:


> pssst, the evidence is that there is NO evidence.





bullethead said:


> Because a negative cannot be proven does not make it true.



The silence concerning your inability to support your original claim is deafening.

I'll give you one more chance.  What can I say?  It's Christmastime and I have an extra measure of grace.  Go Wiki and Google some stuff to support your original claim that you have evidence to prove God doesn't exist.  Or your second post that your evidence is the absence of evidence. Or just stick with your third post that asserts you can't prove your original claim.  Just pick one and stick with that.  Tick-tock.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 18, 2011)

Epic fail


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 18, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Epic fail



Yep. He'd rather continue punching away at the straw man than confront the question we all know he can't answer.


----------



## Asath (Dec 18, 2011)

We’re dealing with rudimentary logic here – one cannot possibly provide ‘evidence’ that something does not exist.  The evidence is the simple lack of that thing.  Unless or until someone can provide clear evidence of that thing, it does not, for all practical matters, exist, and belaboring the point is an exercise in verbal gymnastics that prove only manipulation of rhetoric.  The process is very clear here --  The person who puts forward the contention of the existence of something has the whole responsibility for proving that they know what they’re talking about.  This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.  And if that thing is something that does exist, demonstrating that it does ought to be the first weapon in the arsenal of the assertion.  Saying, instead, “Prove that it doesn’t,” is the ultimate cop-out, and demonstrates immediately that the assertion has no teeth.

Demanding that someone ‘prove’ that the voices in someone else’s head are merely evidence of mental illness is the singular defense of the mentally ill.  We do not have to prove that someone does not actually have an all-powerful and omnipotent invisible friend who resides somewhere above the clouds.  They have to prove that they do, if that is the assertion they are making.  All we have to do is try not to burst out laughing every time they make such an assertion, and keep building mental hospitals as fast as we can  . . .


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

Asath said:


> We’re dealing with rudimentary logic here – one cannot possibly provide ‘evidence’ that something does not exist.


Tell that to Bullethead, he is the one that made the claim that the evidence for there not being a God outweighs the evidence for God.




> The person who puts forward the contention of the existence of something has the whole responsibility for proving that they know what they’re talking about.  This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.  And if that thing is something that does exist, demonstrating that it does ought to be the first weapon in the arsenal of the assertion.  Saying, instead, “Prove that it doesn’t,” is the ultimate cop-out, and demonstrates immediately that the assertion has no teeth.


That's where you're wrong, I don't _have_ to prove anything.



> Demanding that someone ‘prove’ that the voices in someone else’s head are merely evidence of mental illness is the singular defense of the mentally ill.  We do not have to prove that someone does not actually have an all-powerful and omnipotent invisible friend who resides somewhere above the clouds.  *They have to prove *that they do, if that is the assertion they are making.  All we have to do is try not to burst out laughing every time they make such an assertion, and keep building mental hospitals as fast as we can  . . .


See above.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Why talk to a dead person?  How odd to see a Christian asking such a question.



Odd? That a Christian would ask why a bunch of atheists would be talking to a dead guy that they think can't hear them? Why is that odd?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Odd? That a Christian would ask why a bunch of atheist would be talking to a dead guy that they think can't hear them? Why is that odd?



No different from a christian that believes animals don't have souls sitting next to the grave of a loved pet and talking to them.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No different from a christian that believes animals don't have souls sitting next to the grave of a loved pet and talking to them.



I would imagine it would be more for the person than the pet, because it would be obvious that pet could not hear.

Did you think all the people in that video felt so terrible that Mr. Hitchens died they needed to talk to him and tell him how great they thought he was to emotionally make it through his death?

or did they all just get caught believing in an afterlife where Hitchens could hear them, or at least wanting there to be an afterlife?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I would imagine it would be more for the person than the pet, because it would be obvious that pet could not hear.



I imagine you are right.




stringmusic said:


> Did you think all the people in that video felt so terrible that Mr. Hitchens died they needed to talk to him and tell him how great they thought he was to emotionally make it through his death?
> 
> or did they all just get caught believing in an afterlife where Hitchens could hear them, or at least wanting there to be an afterlife?



I can't speak for those people but I would say the latter explanation is very unlikely.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Tell that to Bullethead, he is the one that made the claim that the evidence for there not being a God outweighs the evidence for God.



It is interesting to me that not one of them has manned up and admitted that BH made a bad claim.   I guess it is easier and more gratifying to sit back and launch grenades than it is to adhere to the principles of logic they espouse.  And they call Christians hypocritical.  Hah!


----------



## JFS (Dec 19, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> It is interesting to me that not one of them has manned up and admitted that BH made a bad claim.



The existence of the world as we know it does nothing to establish whether there is a god.   Saying matter always existed is no less extraordinary than saying god always existed.  We know the universe exists and can stop there.  If you want to introduce an additional fact - the existence of god- you should be able to demonstrate the truth of your claim.  Show us god.  If you can't, then you are lumped in with all the other people who have made unverifiable supernatural claims.   So it's back to AH's point about leprechauns.  You can't prove a negative, that they don't exist, but given the lack of evidence for leprechauns (or god, the tooth fairy, Santa, Bigfoot, etc) a reasonable person can reserve the theoretical possibility they do exist but make an operational assumption they don't.  

And in that way I think BH was right.  Your claim that existence proves god is the creator is not evidence, and whenever evidence is offered is it's always garbage.  Seeing Jesus' image in your Walmart receipt doesn't cut it.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 19, 2011)

I believe the physical evidence is equal. NONE, zero, zip, nada, zilch.  As many has said (and what some broken records cannot comprehend) is that you cannot disprove a non-exsistence. 

Logically, though, the story is quite different.   Using basic deductive reasoning skills if you cannot show something to exsist it must not exsist.  No evidence for exsistence _is_ actually evidence for non-exsistence.  

If I claim something to exsist, its exsistence does not establish itself in my claim, but in the evidence I give forth.  If I cannot produce anything but my claim, or any kind evidence that is verifiable, that is actually more evidence against its validity. Does that make it invalid? No I don't believe it does, but the burden of validity does lie upon my shoulders.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Tell that to Bullethead, he is the one that made the claim that the evidence for there not being a God outweighs the evidence for God.



For the umpteenth time, my evidence that there is no god (and more specifically that the God of the Bible did not create creation) is that there is NO evidence that he/she/it did!

We are in court to prove each of our cases and I call "The Creator" to the witness stand.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................still waiting ............................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> It is interesting to me that not one of them has manned up and admitted that BH made a bad claim.   I guess it is easier and more gratifying to sit back and launch grenades than it is to adhere to the principles of logic they espouse.  And they call Christians hypocritical.  Hah!



There is no bad claim. There absolutely is no evidence that a God exists or a God created anything. The lack of that evidence IS the evidence needed to make the claim I did and I stand by it.
I will recant it if you can provide us with any evidence that a God exists. It has to be something totally exclusive to the God in which you believe. You can't look out the window at a mountain and say "there you go....".

In fact I DO believe God, a God, many Gods exist, but NOWHERE else except in an individuals mind. You can think or believe anything you want, but if you want me to also believe it, then I am going to need some hard core proof and you have not even so much a tried to make a stand for yourself, your God, and all the followers that believe the same as you do. Pathetic.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

Here's some evidence
1. The absence of the required atmosphere. 

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 19, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.



And back to your original claim, so you can't hide.  Where is the evidence of which you speak?

I can see it now:

Judge:  Prosecution, state your evidence.

Prosecutor:  My evidence is that there is no evidence that the Defenant is innocent.  Therefore he is clearly guilty.  Fry him.

Judge:  (rolls eyes)


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> And back to your original claim, so you can't hide.  Where is the evidence of which you speak?
> 
> I can see it now:
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I believe the physical evidence is equal. NONE, zero, zip, nada, zilch.  As many has said (and what some broken records cannot comprehend) is that you cannot disprove a non-exsistence.
> 
> Logically, though, the story is quite different.   Using basic deductive reasoning skills if you cannot show something to exsist it must not exsist.  No evidence for exsistence _is_ actually evidence for non-exsistence.  If I claim something to exsist, its exsistence does not establish itself in my claim, but in the evidence I give forth.  If I cannot produce anything but my claim, or any kind evidence that is verifiable, that is actually more evidence against its validity. Does that make it invalid? No I don't believe it does, but the burden of validity does lie upon my shoulders.



...but there is evidence, you just don't like it because you don't want to believe in God.

Like I have said before, God could appear to you right now where ever you're at and talk with you, and 10 mins later you would chalk it up to a bad burrito at lunch.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> ...but there is evidence, you just don't like it because you don't want to believe in God.




There's as much evidence to support the claim that Allah exists?



stringmusic said:


> Like I have said before, God could appear to you right now where ever you're at and talk with you, and 10 mins later you would chalk it up to a bad burrito at lunch.



If Allah got all up in your face would you renounce your god?


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 19, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The evidence of one far outweighs the lack of evidence of the other.



For once, we agree!


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> ...but there is evidence, you just don't like it because you don't want to believe in God.




 Please string I know your smater than that.  Want and like have absolutely nothing to do with it. 
I want evidence and would like nothing more to believe in a paradise filled afterlife. Unfotunately there is no evidence that suggests that is a possibility. All I have ever seen is the hopes and whims of people that have quit looking for the truth.  



> Like I have said before, God could appear to you right now where ever you're at and talk with you, and 10 mins later you would chalk it up to a bad burrito at lunch.



If it was the god claimed in the bible that would be an impossibility. I would know him, instantly, and have little choice but to be humbled. But if he did and I had no proof and told someone they most certainly would chalk up to one of those burritos.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> There's as much evidence to support the claim that Allah exists?


We are talking of an objective God.





> If Allah got all up in your face would you renounce your god?




No, I wouldn't, the God of the bible would still be the object of my worship.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 19, 2011)

Asath said:


> You came here, to the atheist forum, to tell US that?  Consider us enlightened by Christian dogma.  Did it get factored into the thinking how little knowledge your own minds can comprehend in this universe, and how little of it you actually display? Or will you tell us again that you are the only folks who understand all of it......................
> This started out as a discussion of Eternity, as a concept, the ‘soul’ as a concept, and how those things relate to our admittedly limited knowledge of the Universe.  It became, as usual, a discussion about the failures of the educational system. Where is the OP when we need it the most?



Working, play my new video game, and hunting....lol

Your first paragraph makes my point. You and I know less than 1% of the available knowledge in the universe. You must put your FAITH in many different aspects through out life.  FAITH is a confidence or trust in something or someone that is not known. We use faith everyday because we are simple minded carbon based life forms. 

The coolest thing of all is that we were made this way...limited physically and mentally. Then, we were placed in a certain part of our galaxy at a specific time to allow us to see WHERE and WHEN we are in the history of our universe. There is not one piece of evidence that gives us the eureka! moment of "proving" God's existence. It is all the variables (there are LOTS of them) that have come together to allow us to set here and exchange thoughts on this subject. Truly awesome and humbling.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> We are talking of an objective God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And there it is ladies and gentlemen.  If the truth was breathing roasted mutton breath right into his face, String would cling to his Bible.  

That's all I can say about that.....


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Please string I know your smater than that.


smarter than what?



> Want and like have absolutely nothing to do with it.


Then why even right this sentence...


> I *want* evidence and would *like *nothing more to believe in a paradise filled afterlife.





> Unfotunately there is no evidence that suggests that is a possibility. All I have ever seen is the hopes and whims of people that have quit looking for the truth.


And now we are just back to what you will accept and what I will accept as evidence, basically it's what we* want *to believe to be true.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 19, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> And there it is ladies and gentlemen.  If the truth was breathing roasted mutton breath right into his face, String would cling to his Bible.
> 
> That's all I can say about that.....



If Allah revealed himself to me, would that make God of the bible not real?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> And back to your original claim, so you can't hide.  Where is the evidence of which you speak?
> 
> I can see it now:
> 
> ...



Judge looks to defendant and there is no defendant sitting in the courtroom. He does not exist.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Here's some evidence
> 1. The absence of the required atmosphere.
> 
> Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.



Show me WHERE GOD is the answer!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> And back to your original claim, so you can't hide.  Where is the evidence of which you speak?



My evidence is god, a god, all gods are a no show. 

VC I am actually pulling for you. I really want you to prove me wrong. I have been on that quest for 20+ years and I finally thought you were the guy that could do it. It is just that you cannot do it and your only defense for yourself is to totally ignore the one thing that will settle all of this.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> And now we are just back to what you will accept and what I will accept as evidence, basically it's what we* want *to believe to be true.



No, it is about what is evidence and what is not evidence.  If it proof then I could not dispute it if I tried.  Evidence speaks for itself, its exsistence is manifested out of what it _is_, not what we want it to be.  If you have to want it to be true, for it to be true, it is most likely not true. Evidence is self proclamatory.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If Allah revealed himself to me, would that make God of the bible not real?



In a mythological sense, they're the same guy, but if Allah came down and said to you "You've got to put that Bible down and pick up a Koran.  That's how I REALLY wanted you humans to live."  would you do it?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Here's some evidence
> 1. The absence of the required atmosphere.
> 
> Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.



What was the oxygen content in the water/oceans at that time? Was it suitable for life? Did life live there until it was suitable to live outside the oceans? Could the Sun reach the deepest depths to destroy life?


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 19, 2011)

Wow!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 19, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Working, play my new video game, and hunting....lol
> 
> Your first paragraph makes my point. You and I know less than 1% of the available knowledge in the universe. You must put your FAITH in many different aspects through out life.  FAITH is a confidence or trust in something or someone that is not known. We use faith everyday because we are simple minded carbon based life forms.



It's not a matter of faith to say "I don't know" nor is it a matter of faith to point out when someone not only fails to show any evidence for their claims but the fact that correlating claims prove to be false.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's not a matter of faith to say "I don't know" nor is it a matter of faith to point out when someone not only fails to show any evidence for their claims but the fact that correlating claims prove to be false.



What is a matter of faith is humbling yourself before God, and trusting in his ABSOLUTE power over this universe, including your soul even though you can not perceive him in a bodily form through the gift of sight.

The evidence you y'all seek is right there every day. Through your perception of a Godless world your stained magnifying glass is made more and more subjective. 

You can not argue with science that we are living on a perfect planet, a perfect distance away from the sun, in the perfect part of the Milky Way at a perfect time in the history of our universe....common sense I tell you. (This is way over simplifying all the variables too!) We truly are a privileged planet.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 19, 2011)

If Hitchens is burning in a lake of fire for eternity it's out of love.

I wonder if this guy sets his kids on fire as an alternative to making them go somewhere they don't want to be, out of love of course. This is one _sick_ religion.


----------



## Asath (Dec 19, 2011)

Here I go again . . . 

 “I don't have to prove anything.”  No, you do not.  Nor, if I may observe do folks HAVE to assert something that is utterly impossible and that has not a single shred of evidence to support it,  and not only bandy it about as a fact but demand that such an assertion be believed and respected.  They don’t HAVE to do any such thing either.  But they do it anyway.  Odd, huh?  

All we ask, if they continue to insist, and feel they have a right to insert this sort of delusion into otherwise reasonable discussions, is that they bring something to the table other than their own insistence.  If they are right, demonstrating that ought to be a simple matter.  One simply puts one’s proof of the position on the table and walks away.  The truth speaks for itself.

“. . . Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere . . .  (et al.)”  Really?  Who makes this stuff up?  And who relies on it to back up their own rather lame positions?  That entire post was invented out of whole cloth by someone who clearly failed the Eighth Grade.  Not a word of it is true—“Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.”  This statement is unsupportable scientifically, and reveals the understanding of the subject matter that we expect of children.  This is why education is free, and why so few bother to take advantage of that is the only real mystery to most of us.  Is it really that simple, that it can be distilled into one paragraph?  Not really.  And even if it were that simple, does it say, in bright red flashing letters – “ERGO BE A BAPTIST”?  Inventing lies that sound technically convincing will hardly ever work in support of other lies. Not a word of that post is supportable scientifically.

“My evidence is that there is no evidence that the Defenant is innocent. Therefore he is clearly guilty.”  Where does thinking like this come from?  Innocence, you might have been taught, IS the presumption.  This is completely backwards, but is the sort of thinking we’ve come to expect. Until there is a preponderance of evidence to indicate guilt, the Defendant walks.  So, in this context, “My evidence is that there IS no evidence,” forces the accuser into a position of producing something to substantiate their accusation.  If they cannot, then their own claim is meritless.  And here lies the basis of bullethead’s argument – if one wants to come into a discussion with a presumption of GOD as the basis of that argument, then one ought to be prepared to demonstrate that such a thing exists.  Lacking that, the assertion itself is not to be taken seriously.  The tendency to argue and conclude from assumption (one of the classic logical fallacies) is why we had to finally force folks like you to quit burning ‘witches.’

“The coolest thing of all is that we were made this way...limited physically and mentally. Then, we were placed in a certain part of our galaxy at a specific time to allow us to see WHERE and WHEN we are in the history of our universe.”  Once again, the argument is made in reverse, starting from an assumption (a conclusion) and working backwards.  We were MADE and then PLACED?  I’ll be fascinated by the evidence that a word of that can be shown to be true.  Also, the history of Christian theology refutes even the thought of a compromise.

“If Allah revealed himself to me, would that make God of the bible not real?”  If I may say, again, since it was already pointed out just above, Islam is one of the other few monotheistic religions available, since there are only three.  Of the three, they share one common trait – they all arose out of the same idea of the same God – the God of Abraham.  They didn’t invent three different gods to worry over.  They all took the same fictional Old Testament, and branched off into their own takes on that self-same set of children’s stories.  The ‘Prophet Mohammed,’ who was also illiterate, and is the entire basis of Islam, claims to have actually met Jesus when he was mysteriously beamed up into Heaven.  Do any of you folks actually learn anything about the crap you claim to believe?  You might not like the truth here, but the God of Christianity, and the God of Islam, and the God of Judaism is the SAME GOD.  Only idiots who failed to bother learning anything at all about what they claim to so passionately believe could have possibly missed that.

So if you want to keep on arguing your imagined ‘truth’ of your own God, then keep in mind that you are also arguing the truth of theirs.  Same God.

Odd, huh?  But true, and easily demonstrated.


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's not a matter of faith to say "I don't know" nor is it a matter of faith to point out when someone not only fails to show any evidence for their claims but the fact that correlating claims prove to be false.



Dude you should have just married him


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What was the oxygen content in the water/oceans at that time? Was it suitable for life? Did life live there until it was suitable to live outside the oceans? Could the Sun reach the deepest depths to destroy life?





bullethead said:


> As usual Atlas, you are spot on!





Asath said:


> Here I go again . . .
> 
> “I don't have to prove anything.”  No, you do not.  Nor, if I may observe do folks HAVE to assert something that is utterly impossible and that has not a single shred of evidence to support it,  and not only bandy it about as a fact but demand that such an assertion be believed and respected.  They don’t HAVE to do any such thing either.  But they do it anyway.  Odd, huh?
> 
> ...



Yankees....Go figure!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 20, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Please string I know your smater than that.  Want and like have absolutely nothing to do with it.
> I want evidence and would like nothing more to believe in a paradise filled afterlife. Unfotunately there is no evidence that suggests that is a possibility. All I have ever seen is the hopes and whims of people that have quit looking for the truth.
> 
> 
> ...



Calls himself the bishop?


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> In a mythological sense, they're the same guy, but if Allah came down and said to you "You've got to put that Bible down and pick up a Koran.  That's how I REALLY wanted you humans to live."  would you do it?



Hopelessly in love with a giant woman.:jump:


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> And there it is ladies and gentlemen.  If the truth was breathing roasted mutton breath right into his face, String would cling to his Bible.
> 
> That's all I can say about that.....



I'd be right there with ya String - clinging to my guns and my Bible.  I think we'd be in good company!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 20, 2011)

fish hawk said:


> Dude you should have just married him
> 
> Yankees....Go figure!!!
> 
> ...



I know who to call when the Christian Friars Club needs an Emcee for their next Roast.

I know, I know, I know,... say ANYTHING but the information needed to help prove a god exists.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 20, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I'd be right there with ya String - clinging to my guns and my Bible.  I think we'd be in good company!


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 20, 2011)

fish hawk said:


> Yankees....Go figure!!!





fish hawk said:


> Calls himself the bishop?





fish hawk said:


> Hopelessly in love with a giant woman.:jump:


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> In a mythological sense, they're the same guy, but if Allah came down and said to you "You've got to put that Bible down and pick up a Koran.  That's how I REALLY wanted you humans to live."  would you do it?



No


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What was the oxygen content in the water/oceans at that time?


7



> Was it suitable for life? Did life live there until it was suitable to live outside the oceans? Could the Sun reach the deepest depths to destroy life?



No,no and no respectively.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If Hitchens is burning in a lake of fire for eternity it's out of love.
> 
> I wonder if this guy sets his kids on fire as an alternative to making them go somewhere they don't want to be, out of love of course. This is one _sick_ religion.



First, I didn't watch the video.

Second, can you please stop finding comments from Christians on video's that suite your agenda and then making assertions about Christianity as a whole.

Thanks :cow:


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> First, I didn't watch the video.
> 
> Second, can you please stop finding comments from Christians on video's that suite your agenda and then making assertions about Christianity as a whole.
> 
> Thanks :cow:



No thanks. If a christian wants to go public and spew this sort of nonsense then they need to be heard, especially when we are talking about people who clearly already have an audience of other christians.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 20, 2011)

Why have proof when you can post smileys and emoticons to skirt the issues?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> 7
> 
> 
> 
> No,no and no respectively.



I'll just look out my window, see a cloud, and take your word for it.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Why have proof when you can post smileys and emoticons to skirt the issues?



This isn't a "smoking gun," by no means, but it may help a little:

You and I once discussed gravity.  I don't know what the topic was, but you said to hold a horseshoe over my head and let it go, then I would be able to "prove" gravity existed.

It is not that we can see gravity, touch, or feel it.  We understand and measure it by the effects it has on us and everything around us in the universe.  That is kind-of how a believer views the "evidence" for God.  We can't see, feel, or touch it, but we measure the evidence through the effects (existence, life) it has on the universe.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> This isn't a "smoking gun," by no means, but it may help a little:
> 
> You and I once discussed gravity.  I don't know what the topic was, but you said to hold a horseshoe over my head and let it go, then I would be able to "prove" gravity existed.
> 
> It is not that we can see gravity, touch, or feel it.  We understand and measure it by the effects it has on us and everything around us in the universe.  That is kind-of how a believer views the "evidence" for God.  We can't see, feel, or touch it, but we measure the evidence through the effects (existence, life) it has on the universe.



Gravity is a force of attraction exerted by celestial bodies and/or Mass.  Matter, Mass and Distance all play a role. It is not divine or anything like "evidence" of God. There is proof of gravity. It is a result of other things. it is not imagined in someones mind.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> This isn't a "smoking gun," by no means, but it may help a little:
> 
> You and I once discussed gravity.  I don't know what the topic was, but you said to hold a horseshoe over my head and let it go, then I would be able to "prove" gravity existed.
> 
> It is not that we can see gravity, touch, or feel it.  We understand and measure it by the effects it has on us and everything around us in the universe.  That is kind-of how a believer views the "evidence" for God.  We can't see, feel, or touch it, but we measure the evidence through the effects (existence, life) it has on the universe.



The difference is that the claims science makes about gravity are testable and falsifiable. We understand the correlation between mass and gravity and are able to make predictions based on that understanding and test those predictions. If someone says that gravity is really the work of invisible goblins pulling objects together that is a claim of a very different sort.

One man says "God created the world and everything in it." Another man says no, one of these other creator gods made the world and everything in it. How do you test those claims?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Gravity is a force of attraction exerted by celestial bodies and/or Mass.  Matter, Mass and Distance all play a role. It is not divine or anything like "evidence" of God. There is proof of gravity. It is a result of other things. it is not imagined in someones mind.



Isn't the "proof" of gravity the effects it has?  It is not proveable by itself.  There must be something being acted on in order for us to know it is there.  

Now, I could be imagining God, but I see a universe around me, and wonder what is the force driving existence, what is the spark giving life to inanimate matter?  What is the celestial power that conjured up this amazing planet....it had to be something, right?

We can downplay the relation all day by saying they are different, I was just trying to demonstrate how a believer would look at "evidence."  I never expected you to accept it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Why have proof when you can post smileys and emoticons to skirt the issues?



:cow:


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No thanks. If a christian wants to go public and spew this sort of nonsense then they need to be heard, especially when we are talking about people who clearly already have an audience of other christians.



The video dude made a perfectly reasonable argument.  Why would a loving God force someone, against their will, into His presence eternally?

The title of the video, although somewhat misleading, accomplishes the mission...  getting people to talk about it.

Don't worry Atlas, God isn't going to force you to spend eternity in His presence.  You have the free will to continue to reject Him.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Isn't the "proof" of gravity the effects it has?  It is not proveable by itself.  There must be something being acted on in order for us to know it is there.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> The video dude made a perfectly reasonable argument.  Why would a loving God force someone, against their will, into His presence eternally?
> 
> The title of the video, although somewhat misleading, accomplishes the mission...  getting people to talk about it.
> 
> Don't worry Atlas, God isn't going to force you to spend eternity in His presence.  You have the free will to continue to reject Him.



I'm about as concerned with that as you are about Aztec gods demanding you engage in human sacrifice. Just don't tell us that this absurd claim is rooted in love. Imagine someone has a child that doesn't want to go to school, or their room, or church. "Fine" the parent says. "I love you enough to respect your free will and not force anything on you." after which they proceed to douse the child in gasoline and light them on fire. This is love? How warped does a mind have to be to believe something so vile?


----------



## Four (Dec 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Here's some evidence
> 1. The absence of the required atmosphere.
> 
> Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.



I believe this is a variation of the Chewbacca Defense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QI4P0YqtM

I / We dont have a perfect understanding of an observation.

Q.E.D. God Exist


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The difference is that the claims science makes about gravity are testable and falsifiable. We understand the correlation between mass and gravity and are able to make predictions based on that understanding and test those predictions.



Of course, and I get that.  Like I said, the similarity is that the evidence is measured by the effects, not the source itself.



atlashunter said:


> If someone says that gravity is really the work of invisible goblins pulling objects together that is a claim of a very different sort.
> 
> One man says "God created the world and everything in it." Another man says no, one of these other creator gods made the world and everything in it. How do you test those claims?



You don't.  The point was not to put my God against theirs, only to help you understand how a believer would view evidence of God in contrast to what you are looking for.  Again, the point of the post was never to convert you or convince you, just kind-of explaining us a little.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Imagine someone has a child that doesn't want to go to school, or their room, or church. "Fine" the parent says. "I love you enough to respect your free will and not force anything on you." after which they proceed to douse the child in gasoline and light them on fire.



Ridiculous analogy.  Simply ridiculous.

He's your sign:  :cow:


----------



## Four (Dec 20, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Ridiculous analogy.  Simply ridiculous.
> 
> He's your sign:  :cow:



Seemed pretty spot on to me, what was inaccurate? I think it's mainly pointing out the false dichotomy.

Hitchens always said that even if heaven was real it isn't  a place he'd want to be, aka having a dictatorial like immortal father looking over you all the time, etc etc. The claim is that god said "ok, i love you so much i'll send you to burn for eternity! <3"


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Ridiculous analogy.  Simply ridiculous.
> 
> He's your sign:  :cow:



Not ridiculous, just incomplete. You then walk in the room and see the child writhing on the floor and screaming in agony. You look at the parent and yell "What are you doing!?". The parent calmly replies, "He didn't want to go to school so I gave him what he wanted because I love him so much.". You shrug your shoulders and respond "Sounds reasonable to me.".


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Of course, and I get that.  Like I said, the similarity is that the evidence is measured by the effects, not the source itself.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't.  The point was not to put my God against theirs, only to help you understand how a believer would view evidence of God in contrast to what you are looking for.  Again, the point of the post was never to convert you or convince you, just kind-of explaining us a little.



It's not a matter of not understanding what is being offered as evidence. Any evidence that would serve just as well as proof of opposing and contradictory hypotheses is not good evidence.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 20, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I'd be right there with ya String - clinging to my guns and my Bible.  I think we'd be in good company!





stringmusic said:


>



I can't believe how you both scoff and laugh.  Aren't you afraid of going to Jahannam?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's not a matter of not understanding what is being offered as evidence. Any evidence that would serve just as well as proof of opposing and contradictory hypotheses is not good evidence.



Perhaps I am not reading this correctly, could you clarify the second sentence?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps I am not reading this correctly, could you clarify the second sentence?



"Just look at the trees" is no more or less evidence of Yahweh than it is of Zeus, fairies, and leprechauns. That's not good evidence. It's really just a baseless assertion.

What would be an example of good evidence? People around the world praying to various gods for healing and the prayers offered to one god always being granted.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> "Just look at the trees" is no more or less evidence of Yahweh than it is of Zeus, fairies, and leprechauns. That's not good evidence. It's really just a baseless assertion..



I follow now.  Yes, the "evidence" only serves to validate (to us, not you [plural]) the existence of a prime mover, not a specific entity.  But, determining whether or not it is "good" evidence is subjective.



atlashunter said:


> What would be an example of good evidence? People around the world praying to various gods for healing and the prayers offered to one god always being granted.



That would be "good" in my opinion as well.  Again, that would be to determine which deity is the prime mover.  I am only talking about the existence of a prime mover, not a specific one.


----------



## Four (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Perhaps I am not reading this correctly, could you clarify the second sentence?



He means that if you propose a piece of evidence in support of conclusion A. But that piece of evidence would also support a seperate contradictory conclusion B, than it's not good evidence.


Above and beyond that, if a piece of evidence can be used to explain anything, it's worse than bad evidence, its not evidence at all.


----------



## VisionCasting (Dec 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I can't believe how you both scoff and laugh.  Aren't you afraid of going to Jahannam?



It's not my kind of place so I opted for Heaven.  Thanks.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I follow now.  Yes, the "evidence" only serves to validate (to us, not you [plural]) the existence of a prime mover, not a specific entity.  But, determining whether or not it is "good" evidence is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be "good" in my opinion as well.  Again, that would be to determine which deity is the prime mover.  I am only talking about the existence of a prime mover, not a specific one.



Well we have a pretty good idea how the natural world as we presently see it got to this state. What got the ball rolling is an unanswered question. We can imagine any great number of possibilities but if we are going to claim to know the answer we should be able to give good supporting reasoning for that claim. The mere fact of existence again could serve equally as proof of any number of different hypothesis.

Let's go back to gravity as an example. Suppose I were to tell you that the cause of gravity is invisible goblins pulling objects together. You ask for my evidence. I take out an apple and let it fall to the ground. "See? The goblins did it!" Well, maybe it really was goblins but have I demonstrated my claim to be true? No. Why? Because the same effect could have been attributed to a natural cause or to some other mystical cause. I would still have all my work ahead of me.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Let's go back to gravity as an example. Suppose I were to tell you that the cause of gravity is invisible goblins pulling objects together. You ask for my evidence. I take out an apple and let it fall to the ground. "See? The goblins did it!" Well, maybe it really was goblins but have I demonstrated my claim to be true? No. Why? Because the same effect could have been attributed to a natural cause or to some other mystical cause. I would still have all my work ahead of me.



Again, the example was to explain the way we see evidence of "a" prime mover, not "the" prime mover.  I get past that hurdle with said "evidence."  Looking at the trees proves that the tress got there, and then we can walk backwards in time......we have all been down this road countless times.  The "evidence" leads me to one conclusion and you to another. 

What you are talking about is the next step, the choice between FSM, ralph, the leprechans, and the Christian God.

Moving further down the line towards one God or the other gets murkier, and anything I got is pretty easily dismissed if one chooses to do so, I am very honest about that.  Nobody will ever provide you the smoking gun you are looking for.

You are very consistent in your insistence that the greater the claim the stronger the evidence should be.  I view faith as an exercise in faith, but such faith can be born of knowledge of claims or evidence.  For example, every time you jump you have faith your feet will return to Earth.  This is based on all the evidence you have witnessed throughout your life.  

It is whether or not a person believes the claims of one God or the other, and an examination of what evidence exists, which will determine who has faith and who does not.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm talking about both the next step (which god?) and the step before that (any god or mythical being at all?). Maybe there is a natural source of gravity rather than a mystical source. Maybe there is a natural prime mover of the universe, or maybe the universe itself is eternal and there is no prime mover. These are still open questions.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Again, the example was to explain the way we see evidence of "a" prime mover, not "the" prime mover.  I get past that hurdle with said "evidence."  Looking at the trees proves that the tress got there, and then we can walk backwards in time......we have all been down this road countless times.  The "evidence" leads me to one conclusion and you to another.
> 
> What you are talking about is the next step, the choice between FSM, ralph, the leprechans, and the Christian God.
> 
> ...




Holy cow...an honest answer.  Thanks JB I can always count on you to bring something substantial and honest to the conversation.


----------



## TheBishop (Dec 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'm talking about both the next step (which god?) and the step before that (any god or mythical being at all?). Maybe there is a natural source of gravity rather than a mystical source. Maybe there is a natural prime mover of the universe, or maybe the universe itself is eternal and there is no prime mover. These are still open questions.



Ones that we should always seek answers for, and not use some unverifiable cop-out, to plug in the holes.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 20, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Holy cow...an honest answer.  Thanks JB I can always count on you to bring something substantial and honest to the conversation.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 20, 2011)

Loved the debate with Craig.    Loved what Hitchens said when they asked him (before the debate) if he considered it a 'David vs Goliath' debate.   He responded, "No, I consider it two Goliaths"    Respectful.


----------



## RNC (Dec 21, 2011)

Alexander MacLaren said: “Rejected light is the parent of the densest darkness, and the man who, having the light, does not trust it, piles around himself thick clouds of obscurity and gloom.” Jesus described this self-imposed spiritual eclipse of heart and mind when He said, “If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt. 6:23).


----------



## Four (Dec 21, 2011)

_"She lusted after lover with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse."_ ezekiel 23:20


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 21, 2011)

Four said:


> _"She lusted after lover with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse."_ ezekiel 23:20



???? how does that fit the conversation?


----------



## Four (Dec 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> ???? how does that fit the conversation?



The guy above my post made a seemingly off topic post with a bible quote, and no explanation. So I did as well.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 21, 2011)

Four said:


> The guy above my post made a seemingly off topic post with a bible quote, and no explanation. So I did as well.



Ok.  Cool.  Guess I am a bit slow today.  I went back and read that chapter trying to figure out where all that was going....


----------



## Four (Dec 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  Cool.  Guess I am a bit slow today.  I went back and read that chapter trying to figure out where all that was going....



Yea, i read his post and thought "what is going on, is that just a random piece of scripture that's supposed to enlighten non believers or something?"

so i said ok i can play that game. I just picked a more-fun part 

Don't let me stop you from reading ezekiel


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 22, 2011)

Asath said:


> “The coolest thing of all is that we were made this way...limited physically and mentally. Then, we were placed in a certain part of our galaxy at a specific time to allow us to see WHERE and WHEN we are in the history of our universe.”  Once again, the argument is made in reverse, starting from an assumption (a conclusion) and working backwards.  We were MADE and then PLACED?  I’ll be fascinated by the evidence that a word of that can be shown to be true.  Also, the history of Christian theology refutes even the thought of a compromise.



The universe was created first and then we were placed in it. This is what I intended to get across. Gap theory. 

Btw, it is hard to respond to your post when your words are intermingled with other's post. Can you change colors or bold your response back? Just a thought.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Again, the example was to explain the way we see evidence of "a" prime mover, not "the" prime mover.  I get past that hurdle with said "evidence."  Looking at the trees proves that the tress got there, and then we can walk backwards in time......we have all been down this road countless times.  The "evidence" leads me to one conclusion and you to another.
> 
> What you are talking about is the next step, the choice between FSM, ralph, the leprechans, and the Christian God.
> 
> ...



Well put. I was at this point too. I believed and had faith, but only to be loyal to the Judeo Christian God. 

BUT! There is evidence from early christian and non christian scholars that could lead you to believe Christ is  the son of God. To name one example you can look at the behavior of the disciples. After Jesus died and rose again most of the disciples went out and spread the word of God and met gruesome and sometimes painful deaths. Let me ask you. Would you go out and preach about a religion and a man that you did not believe in if you knew that torture and death were going to be your fate? I can only think of one reason for this type of belief. 

Compared to other religions in the first century why was Jesus so weak? In the Greco Roman era leaders and Gods were suppose to be strong warriors. In that time if you tried to tell someone you were trying to convert that your savior was crucified they would be turned off immediately. If you were crucified that meant you were a thief. Also, the first reports of Jesus resurrection came from women. Women at that time were the least respected in society. They could not even testify in court. If this was made up why not put men as the first to view Christ after death to make the story more believable. Another weakness is Jesus asking God if there was any other way to complete his mission other than crucifixion. Then, when taking his last breaths he asked God why he was forsaken??? 

Why in the world would first century Christians "create" such an unappealing savior viewed from the perspective of a first century citizen????? That is a terrible way to start up a new religion...yet after his death Christianity spread like fire in all sects of society wither they were gentiles, Jews, etc. Why? Come on guys...it is right there for you. If you don't believe me I beg you to do the research yourself.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

It's not faith when you assume that you'll fall when you jump. You have experience, and knowledge of how the world works. There is presidence for it.

Faith is believe in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Well put. I was at this point too. I believed and had faith, but only to be loyal to the Judeo Christian God.
> 
> BUT! There is evidence from early christian and non christian scholars that could lead you to believe Christ is  the son of God. To name one example you can look at the behavior of the disciples. After Jesus died and rose again most of the disciples went out and spread the word of God and met gruesome and sometimes painful deaths. Let me ask you. Would you go out and preach about a religion and a man that you did not believe in if you knew that torture and death were going to be your fate? I can only think of one reason for this type of belief.
> 
> ...



Judas Iscariot: According to the Bible, either committed suicide by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or fell down and exploded (Acts 1:18). Not considered a martyr.

John: Not said to have been martyred. Reportedly died of old age.

James, son of Zebedee: Killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). The Bible gives no further information about his death, including whether it was willing. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius quoted an earlier, lost work by Clement of Alexandria which allegedly claims that James' calm demeanor at trial sufficiently impressed one of his accusers to convert him (source).

Simon Peter: Crucifixion, as implied by Jesus in John 21:18-19. Tradition usually holds that this occurred in Rome, as mentioned by second-century sources such as Tertullian and the apocryphal Acts of Peter. The Acts of Peter also claims that Peter accepted crucifixion willingly, making him one of the few apostles for which the claim of willing martyrdom is at all plausible. Eusebius dismissed this book as spurious and heretical (source).

Andrew: Reportedly martyred by crucifixion on an X-shaped cross ("St. Andrew's cross"). According to legend, he taught a gathered crowd while on the cross and refused their offer to take him down. This information comes from the apocryphal, probably second-century Acts of Andrew. Eusebius dismissed this book as spurious and heretical (source).

Philip: According to the apocryphal and probably fourth-century Acts of Philip, died after being hung upside-down with iron hooks through his ankles by the proconsul of Hierapolis. According to this book, before dying Philip cursed his enemies, causing seven thousand people to be suddenly swallowed up by an abyss. In return, Jesus appeared and rebuked Philip for "returning evil for evil", and told him that he would be admitted to Heaven, but only after being tortured outside its gates for forty days as punishment. Like Andrew, Philip allegedly refused a crowd's offer of rescue. The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia calls this work "purely legendary and a tissue of fables" (source).

Bartholomew: According to the third-century schismatic bishop Hippolytus, he was crucified in Armenia (source). A different tradition claims he was beheaded in India on the orders of King Astreges, who belonged to a demon-worshipping cult (source). Some traditions add that he was flayed alive before, or instead of, suffering either of these two fates. The New Advent encyclopedia says the manner of his death is "uncertain" (source), and adds that other than his name, "Nothing further is known of him".

Thomas: Tradition holds that he was sent to India to preach, where he was killed by being stabbed with a spear. This claim is made by local Indian Christians and an apocryphal gospel called the Acts of Thomas, which Eusebius dismissed as spurious and heretical (source). The New Advent encyclopedia says that "Little is recorded" of Thomas' life, and that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" for the tradition of his death in India. It also notes that the Acts of Thomas presents Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus, which is not accepted by Christians today or in the past and seems to be a Christian/Gnostic-themed variation of a pagan salvation cult that followed twin gods called the Dioscuri.

Matthew: Conflicting traditions. Catholic.org says, "Nothing definite is known about his later life", and it is even "uncertain whether he died a natural death or received the crown of martyrdom". The Christian History Institute says, "We have nothing but legend about Matthew's death." Even among those who do believe he was martyred, there is no evidence as to where. Another source says there is conflicting information about whether he was martyred in Egypt or in Persia. The manner of his death is unknown, and some churches even say he died a natural death (source).

James, son of Alphaeus: Conflicting traditions. There are several people named "James" in the New Testament and early Christian history, and it is uncertain which, if any, should be identified with this apostle. He is often identified with the "James the Less" mentioned in Mark 15:40 as the son of Mary and Clopas, which is fairly uncontroversial. However, the Catholic church also identifies him with James, the brother of Jesus, which is not widely accepted by Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. If this identification is correct, the Jewish historian Josephus says that James was stoned by the Pharisees. This is seconded by Hippolytus. However, other sources (example) say that James son of Alphaeus was martyred by crucifixion in Egypt.

Jude/Lebbaeus Thaddaeus: Conflicting traditions. It is often said that he went with Simon to preach in Armenia, though New Advent says this legend is a late development not mentioned by contemporary historians of that region. The Catholic Patron Saints Index says he was clubbed to death; however, the apocryphal Acts of Thaddeus says he died naturally. Still another account says he was crucified (source). No reliable written sources seem to exist to corroborate any of this.

Simon the Zealot: Conflicting traditions. According to Catholic.org, Western traditions hold that he was martyred in Persia with Jude, usually by crucifixion, while Eastern tradition says he died naturally in Edessa. Other sources, according to New Advent, variously give his place of death as Samaria (Israel), or Iberia (Spain), or Colchis (Georgia), or even Britain. Some sources dispute the crucifixion account and claim he was instead sawn in half.

Matthias: According to the 14th-century historian Nicephorus, died by crucifixion in Colchis, in the modern nation of Georgia. Alternatively, the 17th-century historian Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont says that he was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem. According to the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia, "all... information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory" (source). Many apocryphal sources confuse Matthias and Matthew.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> It's not faith when you assume that you'll fall when you jump.


 
I believe I meant faith, as in, trust. 




Four said:


> You have experience, and knowledge of how the world works. There is presidence for it..



Correct.  We know all about gravity.  Again, it is only because it effects objects.  We do not measure it alone.  We cannot see, feel, hear, smell, etc gravity alone.  

This is how I view the "evidence" for God.  I cannot see, feel, hear, smell, etc God.  But, I look at the "effects" within the universe, and conclude something is there.  I have "faith" based on my knowledge, education, and experience that stuff just doesn't make itself from nothing. There is something beyond the natural that kick-started the whole thing.....an OC.




Four said:


> Faith is believe in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence.



Then we have the problem of disproving a negative.  We cannot prove God does not exist.  I have faith that he does, but it is not because you can't prove he doesn't.  It is a conclusion based on observations as demonstrated above.  These observations are indirect in nature, in that, they are of the effects within the universe that, for me at least, can only conclude something beyond the natural (I like the term supernatural, but it gets hammered in this forum).


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Thanatos, I agree with your statement here:



Thanatos said:


> There is evidence from early christian and non christian scholars that could lead you to believe Christ is the son of God. To name one example you can look at the behavior of the disciples. After Jesus died and rose again most of the disciples went out and spread the word of God and met gruesome and sometimes painful deaths. Let me ask you. Would you go out and preach about a religion and a man that you did not believe in if you knew that torture and death were going to be your fate? I can only think of one reason for this type of belief.



But, the reason I said this:



JB0704 said:


> Moving further down the line towards one God or the other gets murkier, and anything I got is pretty easily dismissed if one chooses to do so, I am very honest about that.




Is because of this:



bullethead said:


> Judas Iscariot: According to the Bible, either committed suicide by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or fell down and exploded (Acts 1:18). Not considered a martyr.
> 
> John: Not said to have been martyred. Reportedly died of old age.
> 
> James, son of Zebedee: Killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). The Bible gives no further information about his death, including whether it was willing. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius quoted an earlier, lost work by Clement of Alexandria which allegedly claims that James' calm demeanor at trial sufficiently impressed one of his accusers to convert him (source)............



Like I said, folks who want to dismiss my "evidence" for Jesus, can do so at will if they choose.  That's why I stick with debating the existence of God, not individual religions.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I believe I meant faith, as in, trust.



But there is a distinction. I might trust my wife because I've found her trustworthy, she has a history of being trustworthy etc



JB0704 said:


> Correct.  We know all about gravity.  Again, it is only because it effects objects.  We do not measure it alone.  We cannot see, feel, hear, smell, etc gravity alone.



We can only measure ANYTHING by it's effects. I only see you because the effect your existence has on the surrounding light.  Measuring ANYTHING is measuring it's effect.



JB0704 said:


> This is how I view the "evidence" for God.  I cannot see, feel, hear, smell, etc God.  But, I look at the "effects" within the universe, and conclude something is there.



That's not a completely unreasonable view. There are certainly explanations for things we don't understand, we just don't know it yet. It's not reasonable however, to assume the "something" is a deity, let alone the judao-christian one. 



JB0704 said:


> I have "faith" based on my knowledge, education, and experience that stuff just doesn't make itself from nothing.



We run into the infinite regress problem here. I think (correct me if i'm wrong) if we go back far enough, something either has had to always exist, or have been created from nothing. These two attributes can be given just as easily to the universe as a whole, or your deity that you choose to explain it with. That means it's not very good evidence for a god, because if the universe cannot be made from nothing, neither can god.



JB0704 said:


> There is something beyond the natural that kick-started the whole thing.....an OC.



I think we have a problem of definitions here. If something in the beginning had kick-started the universe, it would be natural by definition, regardless of what you call it.



JB0704 said:


> Then we have the problem of disproving a negative.  We cannot prove God does not exist.  I have faith that he does, but it is not because you can't prove he doesn't.  It is a conclusion based on observations as demonstrated above.  These observations are indirect in nature, in that, they are of the effects within the universe that, for me at least, can only conclude something beyond the natural (I like the term supernatural, but it gets hammered in this forum).



You can disprove a negative, depending on the circumstances. If i told you I had an object that was a square circle, you would know that such object did not exist, as the definition is contradictory and paradoxical, so it can only exist as a concept, not as an object in existence. this proof works very well for most mainstream definitions of god.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four, I think we are having semantic issues as far as faith and supernatural are concerned, it could be my fault, not sure. 

But, you are correct about the infinite regress issue.  It is the reason why I believe in God.  I have explained this before on this forum, not sure if you participated then, but, either matter is infinite, or the original cause of matter is infinite.  To me, the entire concept of infinite is outside what we know to be natural.  We see things with beginning and end.

Christians like to say "look at the trees, etc" for proof there is a God.  Though misguided, this example demonstrates this concept perfectly.  The tree came from a seed, which came from a tree, etc.  Without dirt, there could be no tree, then no seed.   Without dead trees (generalizing, of course), there can be no dirt.  We have an endless cycle.  

Now, walk back in time.  This planet which had the material to make the dirt, trees, seeds, Lady Gaga, etc, came from somewhere else...a big bang?  But, where did the God particle that exploded come from?  Gravity is not a creative force, it is a force which acts on things because of things, such as the sun spinning and holding the Earth in place, or Atlas landing every time he jumps.

Nothing we know of has the ability to "self-create."  If it did, then, well, it would be "god-like."  And there you have it.  Though this is not the conclusion you will draw from the evidence I just gave you, it is the conclusion I draw from the evidence.  I believe the existence of a "prime mover" is a much more "natural" explanation than inanimate matter being self-creative or infinite.

How you judge the "evidence," good or bad, is up to you.  This is how I judge it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> We can only measure ANYTHING by it's effects. I only see you because the effect your existence has on the surrounding light.  Measuring ANYTHING is measuring it's effect.


Then we can measure God.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Four, I think we are having semantic issues as far as faith and supernatural are concerned, it could be my fault, not sure.
> 
> But, you are correct about the infinite regress issue.  It is the reason why I believe in God.  I have explained this before on this forum, not sure if you participated then, but, either matter is infinite, or the original cause of matter is infinite.  To me, the entire concept of infinite is outside what we know to be natural.  We see things with beginning and end.
> 
> ...



So you recognize the infinite regress problem, and since something would have had to either always exist, or self create at some point, you use a concept called god to explain our lack of understanding?

I would say also that if there was a prime mover, it wouldn't be supernatural, it would have to be the most natural thing in existence.



JB0704 said:


> Nothing we know of has the ability to "self-create."  If it did, then, well, it would be "god-like."



This is the statement i have the biggest problem with. Just because we found something that seemed impossible before, doesn't make it god like, all it means is that we have to adjust our understanding. 

god-like doesnt even have much meaning, because we dont have a good reference point for god.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Then we can measure God.



I use gravity as an example because it is an invisible force.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I use gravity as an example because it is an invisible force.



A visual measurement is just as valid as a measurement of force.

it's the same. there is no difference between measuring something and measuring something's effects. We can only measure something by it's effects.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> I would say also that if there was a prime mover, it wouldn't be supernatural, it would have to be the most natural thing in existence..



Ok.  We just have varying ways of rationalizing the concept.



Four said:


> This is the statement i have the biggest problem with. Just because we found something that seemed impossible before, doesn't make it god like, all it means is that we have to adjust our understanding.


 
Ok.  I am sure you are comfortable with that.  To me, I have difficulty accepting that inanimate matter created itself, and then everything else with a little help from gravity. When that is proven to be a possibility, outside of Stephen Hawkings theorizing, I might adjust my thinking.  Until then, I am quite confident in the logic of a prime mover's existence.




Four said:


> god-like doesnt even have much meaning, because we dont have a good reference point for god.



"god-like" acording to traditional understanding of the word.  The ability to create, infinite, etc.  For me, anyway, "god-like" sums it up.  But, if you prefer the use of "Flying spaghetti monster-like" I can do that to for the sake of conversation.  At least we could get on the same page.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> A visual measurement is just as valid as a measurement of force.
> 
> it's the same. there is no difference between measuring something and measuring something's effects. We can only measure something by it's effects.



I am 6' 2" tall.  You can put a tape on me to prove it.  

Gravity is measured by the force it exerts on an object, such as the speed a cat falls when thrown from a plane.  We are not measuring the gravity itself, we are rationalizing its existence by the fact that the cat fell.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  I am sure you are comfortable with that.  To me, I have difficulty accepting that inanimate matter created itself, and then everything else with a little help from gravity. When that is proven to be a possibility, outside of Stephen Hawkings theorizing, I might adjust my thinking.  Until then, I am quite confident in the logic of a prime mover's existence.



It's just the classic god of the gaps. I'm o.k with not having an answer for something, and I see god as a non-answer anyway. It's the same non-answer that many people have had throughout history when faced with the seemingly impossible (Rain, lightning, Earthquakes, etc)The gaps are just getting smaller and more complex, that's all. My only problem with this philosophy is that hamstrings a desire to ask questions and find answers.

I'd also like to note, that there is also the possibility of the universe always existing. It might be just as confusing as something from nothing though.



JB0704 said:


> "god-like" acording to traditional understanding of the word.  The ability to create, infinite, etc.  For me, anyway, "god-like" sums it up.  But, if you prefer the use of "Flying spaghetti monster-like" I can do that to for the sake of conversation.  At least we could get on the same page.



I don't prefer to label it with any ambiguous concept. I'd maybe call it interesting, remarkable, exciting.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I am 6' 2" tall.  You can put a tape on me to prove it.
> 
> Gravity is measured by the force it exerts on an object, such as the speed a cat falls when thrown from a plane.  We are not measuring the gravity itself, we are rationalizing its existence by the fact that the cat fell.



Yes, and you're just measuring the visual relationship between yourself and a tape measurement. It just seems more direct because a visual measurement seems easier / more real.

Gravity is force two pieces of matter exert on each-other, so measuring force is measuring gravity.

you are matter, so measuring how matter interacts with it's environment (visual or otherwise) is measuring you (matter)

edit: gravity is measured by the force exerted between matter because gravity IS the force exerted between matter.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> edit: gravity is measured by the force exerted between matter because gravity IS the force exerted between matter.



Exactly.  It is observable by the effects.

I observe the existence of God by the effects on matter as well.  "God of the gaps," not really.  As explaned before, we know the qualities of matter and that it is not self-creative.  The idea of the universe being infinite, to me, is the only logical alternative to the existence of a "prime-mover."  Again, that would give matter all the qualities typically associated with God. Infinite, creative.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Exactly.  It is observable by the effects.



I'm just trying to point out that we observe EVERYTHING by the effects. Even measuring yourself with a measuring tape you're observing the effect of light bouncing off the measuring tape back into your eyes, it just seems like a direct measurement because its so natural to you.

That being said gravity is a poor example, because gravity is an effect of matter as well, just like size, color, etc.



JB0704 said:


> I observe the existence of God by the effects on matter as well.  "God of the gaps," not really.  As explaned before, we know the qualities of matter and that it is not self-creative.  The idea of the universe being infinite, to me, is the only logical alternative to the existence of a "prime-mover."  Again, that would give matter all the qualities typically associated with God. Infinite, creative.



The known qualities of matter are not self-creative. Just like a hundred years ago we didn't know that you could split matter in half and form a large amount of energy. Even farther back we didn't know that matter had an attribute that we now call gravity.

We don't know all that much comparatively about the origin of the universe, or at least not as much as we would like to. However, using a catch-all concept like god isn't helpful in the search for truth. The "prime mover" might be just an atom that we finally have found that self-replicates, without consciousness, etc. Would that be god? I guess in some definitions . . but at this points using a word like god is not useful scientifically. Or like you said, it might be that matter is infinitely old.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> That being said gravity is a poor example, because gravity is an effect of matter as well, just like size, color, etc..



It is invisible.  But undeniably involved in our universe.  We would not know it was there without observations of visible things.

I am not invisible.  I am a fat country boy.  Folks typically know when I am there (but occasionally I try to fool a deer into thinking I don't exist).

Does that make a little more sense in reference to the concept I am discussing?





Four said:


> The known qualities of matter are not self-creative..



What we have is all we got.  I also believe we should continue to search for answers, and science is a wonderful tool.  However, I am pretty certain the only answers to the OC will be philosophical in nature.  For instance, let's say we find an atom such as you described.  The next question would be "where did it come from?"  We will just go in circles.

That being the case, I go back to my original assertion, that I observe the evidence and come to a conclusion.  We all do.  I know the agnostic response is to say "we don't know so we have no conclusion."  That's cool too, but it is still the place you are at from where you began to ask questions.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> It is invisible.  But undeniably involved in our universe.  We would not know it was there without observations of visible things.
> 
> I am not invisible.  I am a fat country boy.  Folks typically know when I am there (but occasionally I try to fool a deer into thinking I don't exist).
> 
> Does that make a little more sense in reference to the concept I am discussing?



This isn't that big of a deal, so im prepared to let it go after one last shot.

Sound, sight, smell, touch, etc are all measurements, they're just easy measurements because we've evolved organs to perceive them (in certain spectrum, etc) 

All im trying to say, is it's a bit fallacious to say that "we only know about gravity because we can measure it's effect" 

1. Because gravity is in itself an effect of matter. 

2. All measurements are measurements of effect.  Even visual measurements, we just so happen to be using a natural instrument.



JB0704 said:


> What we have is all we got.  I also believe we should continue to search for answers, and science is a wonderful tool.  However, I am pretty certain the only answers to the OC will be philosophical in nature.  For instance, let's say we find an atom such as you described.  The next question would be "where did it come from?"  We will just go in circles.



The same is said of your concept of god "were did it come from" etc God is not a good answer, or an answer at all. It just adds complexity without value. We could just as easily say that the atom always existed as we can that a god always existed.



JB0704 said:


> That being the case, I go back to my original assertion, that I observe the evidence and come to a conclusion.  We all do.  I know the agnostic response is to say "we don't know so we have no conclusion."  That's cool too, but it is still the place you are at from where you began to ask questions.



You actually sound more like an agnostic theist.

http://i.imgur.com/WITlo.jpg


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Four said:


> This isn't that big of a deal, so im prepared to let it go after one last shot.



Thats cool.  I follow what you are saying.  But, give the reference a bit more credibility than you might for the reasons we have both stated.



Four said:


> The same is said of your concept of god "were did it come from" etc God is not a good answer, or an answer at all. It just adds complexity without value. We could just as easily say that the atom always existed as we can that a god always existed.



The value of the God assumption is an explanation of origins which makes more sense, as currently percieved, than the non-existence of God according to me.  I think its a good answer, but don't mind that you don't.  I enjoy the debate.



Four said:


> You actually sound more like an agnostic theist.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/WITlo.jpg



I am intellectually honest enough to admit that I might be wrong, but don't believe I am....if that makes any sense.


----------



## Four (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I am intellectually honest enough to admit that I might be wrong, but don't believe I am....if that makes any sense.



Yea, that's why i said agnostic theist.

It's like, i assume i wont get hit by a car, but i look both ways anyhow. . . .

you're just acknowledging the fact that you cant know for sure that's all.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Judas Iscariot: According to the Bible, either committed suicide by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or fell down and exploded (Acts 1:18). Not considered a martyr.
> 
> John: Not said to have been martyred. Reportedly died of old age.
> 
> ...



Internet is fun. I can do that too.

St. Andrew

Andrew was admitted to the closest familiarity with Our Lord during His public life; he was present at the Last Supper; beheld the risen Lord; witnessed the Ascension of Jesus; shared in the graces and gifts of the first Pentecost, and helped, amid threats and persecution, to establish the Church in Palestine.

He appointed St. Stachys as its first bishop of Byzantium. It is generally agreed that he was crucified by order of the Roman Governor and that he was bound, not nailed, to the cross, in order to prolong his sufferings.

St. Bartholomew

King Astreges was infuriated when the Greek people informed him that Bartholomew had converted his pagan brother. The king rent the purple in which he was clothed, and ordered the holy Apostle Bartholomew to be beaten with rods; and after having been thus scourged, to be beheaded.

St. James the Greater

James was the brother of John the author of the fourth Gospel. Both told Jesus they were willing to drink the chalice that He drinks of, and to be baptized with the baptism of His sufferings. Jesus assured them that they will share His sufferings (Mark 5:38-39).

James was martyred fourteen years after Christ’s prophecy in A.D. 44. On the occasion of the Passover, Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, perpetrated cruelties upon the Church, whose rapid growth incensed the Jews. The zealous temper of James and his leading part in the Jewish Christian communities probably led Agrippa to choose him as the first victim. "He killed James, the brother of John, with the sword."

St. James the Lesser

Tradition has always recognized him as the author of the Epistle that bears his name. He was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and was at the Council of Jerusalem about the year 50. The historians Eusebius and Hegesippus relayed that St. James was martyred for the faith by the Jews in the spring of the year 62 A.D., although they greatly esteemed him and had given him the surname of "James the Just."

St. John the Evangelist

The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. He had lived there until the reign of Trajan. He was then banished to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.).

Historical tradition reports many beautiful traits of the last years of St. John’s life. He refused to remain under the same roof with the heretic Cerinthus. His touching anxiety about a youth who had become a robber was noted. He is said to have constantly repeated the words, "Little children, love one another". He was unable to walk in his advanced age, so the faithful carried him to their meetings for the breaking of the Bread. St. John took Mary into his home, where she lived out her days on earth. He is reported to have died of natural causes about 100 A.D.

St. Jude

St. Jude, known as Thaddaeus, was a brother of St. James the Less, and a relative of Our Savior. He is said to have suffered martyrdom in Armenia, which was then subject to Persia.

St. Matthias

Matthias was one of the seventy disciples of Jesus. He was with Jesus from His baptism by John the Baptist until His Ascension into heaven. It is related in Acts that in the days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate. Two disciples, Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were selected. Lots were drawn and Matthias was selected and became associated with the eleven Apostles.

Historical tradition holds that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded.

St. Matthew

When summoned by Jesus, Matthew arose immediately and followed Him. Matthew then prepared a feast for Jesus in his home, where tax-gatherers and sinners sat at table with Christ and His disciples. The Pharisees protested that these people were unfit. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees with the consoling words: "I came not to call the just, but sinners".

St. Matthew suffered martyrdom. There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew's martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him. It is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded.

St. Peter

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the Apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the Apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the Resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

After His Resurrection, Jesus prophesied that Peter would follow him to the cross “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19). We possess a tradition — attested to by Tertullian at the end of the second century and by Origen that he suffered crucifixion. Origen wrote: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he had desired to suffer".

St. Philip

Philip may have been a disciple of John the Baptist and is mentioned as one of the Apostles in the lists of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and in Acts. He was called by Jesus Himself and brought Nathanael to Christ. Philip was present at the miracle of the loaves and fishes, when he engaged in a brief dialogue with the Lord, and was the Apostle approached by the Hellenistic Jews from Bethsaida to introduce them to Jesus. Just before the Passion, Jesus answered Philip's query to show them the Father.

In his letter to St. Victor, written about 189-98 A.D., bishop Polycrates of Ephesus mentions among the "great lights", whom the Lord will seek on the "last day", "Philip, one of the Twelve Apostles, who is buried in Hieropolis with his two daughters, who grew old as virgins", and a third daughter, who "led a life in the Holy Ghost and rests in Ephesus." The nature of Philip’s death is unknown.

St. Simon

In the New Testament he is sometimes called Simon the Zealot because of the zeal he showed for the Mosaic Law, which he practiced before Jesus called him to be an Apostle.

The Abyssinians relate that he suffered crucifixion as the Bishop of Jerusalem, after he had preached the Gospel in Samaria.

St. Thomas

He journeyed to the city of King Misdai (Syriac Mazdai), where he converted Tertia the wife of Misdai and Vazan his son. After this he was condemned to death, led out of city to a hill, and pierced through with spears by four soldiers. He was buried in the tomb of the ancient kings but his remains were afterwards removed to the West.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I am intellectually honest enough to admit that I might be wrong, but don't believe I am....if that makes any sense.



So you don't have faith in the Judeo Christian God? Everyone questions their faith sometimes, but if you believe you might be wrong then that is not faith. 

Your standing on a thin piece of ice and it's breaking all around  you...your sinking. Four is right. You are an agnostic theist.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Like I said, folks who want to dismiss my "evidence" for Jesus, can do so at will if they choose.  That's why I stick with debating the existence of God, not individual religions.



I am in your same boat. It is much easier to show someone their is a God than it is to show them it is the Judeo Christian God. At the same time you cant possibly hope to talk to people about your faith in a God you yourself don't believe in.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I am in your same boat. It is much easier to show someone their is a God than it is to show them it is the Judeo Christian God. At the same time you cant possibly hope to talk to people about your faith in a God you yourself don't believe in.



Not what I said at all.  Please read my quote again.  I do not believe I am wrong.  Which, by default, means that I _believe_ I am right.  I admit it is a _possibility_ that I might be wrong.  In the absence of a smoking gun, I think that is an honest statement.  It's not doubt.  

be·lieve  
1.accept something as true: to accept that something is true or real

***·si·bil·i·ty
1.A thing that may happen or be the case.

I believe, but admit the possibility....in an effort to be honest.  Let's please not question the strength of each other's faith.  I assure you, I am quite certain my belief is correct....the opposite of doubt.

doubt/dout/Noun: A feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Internet is fun. I can do that too.
> 
> St. Andrew
> 
> ...




Mine included sources.... CHURCH sources. But hey, I can fully understand why you would dismiss them.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2011)

But I like it! Lets continue!!

1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).

"Beheaded by Nero?" No, not really. This legend was dreamed up by the mid-2nd century pope Anicetus (156-166) when he became locked in a conflict with the venerable Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp had tried to win the argument (over the dating of Easter) by insisting that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus staked a claim to Peter, and Peter, "Prince of the Apostles", trumps John.

2nd century texts known as the "Clementines" had made Peter the "first Bishop of Rome" and 3rd century invention gave him a 25-year pontificate â€“ which made it a tad tricky for him to have died at the hands of Nero but, hey, this is "tradition."

3rd century Church Father Origen dreamed up a colourful flourish: Peter, feeling himself unworthy to be crucified the same way as his Lord, chose option 'B' â€“ crucifixion upside down!



2. James, son of Zebedee (James the Greater?)

    Acts 12.1,2 says simply:

        "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword."


Later legend adds the truly extraordinary nonsense that the Roman officer guarding James converted on the spot and elected to be beheaded beside him! Even later fabrication has James traipsing around northern Spain before he dashes back to Judaea for martyrdom.



3. John, son of Zebedee.

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to take care of Mary, lead the church in Ephesus, write the Book of Revelation and write his own gospel. He even survives being boiled in oil and is given a natural death!

Actually, John bar Zebedee disappears from the yarn in Acts at the same time his brother James is more dramatically removed from the story. The last reference to John is also verse 12.2. From Acts 12.12 onward we are dealing with another John "whose surname was Mark" â€“ a lightweight character who nonetheless is credited with authorship of the first gospel.

The impending demotion of the thunder brothers is actually prefigured in Mark's gospel (and is embellished in Matthew, where Mrs Zebedee does the talking). The boys ask for front seats in the hereafter. JC is having none of it:

        "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

        "Jesus said unto them ... to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John." â€“ Mark 10:35-41.


Thus while the earthly career of Jesus features prominently brothers James and John, "the sons of thunder" (Mark 3.7), the story of the early church features a new James, "the brother of Jesus", and a new John, a sidekick to Paul and Barnabas (see below). We know little about either, although the death of James bar ****eus (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9) provides a basis for the colourful martyrdom of brother James beloved of Christian apologists.



4. Andrew, brother of Peter.

Pious invention gives Andrew a wonderful career covering everywhere from Scythia to Greece, from Asia Minor to Thrace. This guy, it seems, took option 'C' on the crucifixion menu: on an x-shaped cross. Apparently this allowed him to continue preaching for 2 days.



5. Philip.

Fable places this guy in Phrygia, Carthage and Asia Minor. The fairy tale has a proconsul crucifying him for converting his wife. Perhaps the love feast got a bit out of hand.

Somewhat confusingly, there are actually two Philips. The original apostle disappears from the tale after witnessing Jesus rise to Heaven from the Mount of Olives. Philip and the rest of the gang return to the upper room in Acts 1.13. But in Acts 6.5 a second Philip is chosen as one of the seven given responsibility for feeding widows



6. Bartholomew (Nathanael)

What a traveller â€“ India, Persia, Armenia, Ethiopia and southern Arabia! Miraculously he managed to get himself crucified (flayed alive and beheaded!) in both India and Armenia. Pretty impressive stuff. Even when dead his bits got about: a church in Rome claimed most of his corpse but 11th century Canterbury did a roaring trade with his arm! His emblem is the flaying knife. Cool.



7. Matthew (Levi son of Alphaeus)

This guy has to be kept alive long enough to write his gospel â€“ at least 20 years after the supposed death of Christ. Credited with 15 years in Jerusalem, then missions to Persia and Ethiopia and, of course, martyrdom in both places. According to Medieval iconography he worn spectacles, the better to count his tax money.

If Matthew, aka Levi, is a son of Alphaeus (Mark 2.14) then presumably he is also the brother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3.18)? And yet we are told the lesser James is a son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin and wife of Cleophas (John 19.25). In which case, the evangelist Matthew is a cousin of Jesus himself! However, Acts 1.13 tells us that the lesser James has a brother called Judas (aka Jude) whereas Mark (15.40) and Matthew's "own gospel" (27.56) both say that James has a brother named Joses. So we now have a regular band of brothers: James, Joses, Judas â€“ plus Matthew/Levi ... which comes mightily close to the supposed four brothers of Jesus himself!

        "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

        â€“ Matthew 13.55.



8. Thomas Didymus (the Twin) aka Judas Thomas or Jude Thomas

Another grand traveller, seen everywhere from Parthia to Kerala in south India. 4th century invention, appropriately enough, gives this 'twin' two martyrdoms, one in Persia and one in India. He even gets a burial in Syria to boot! Yet another resting place, Mylapore, was claimed by the Portuguese in 16th century. Most famous for his "doubt", Thomas inspired a whole raft of pious flimflam: the Acts of Thomas (he built a palace for an Indian king, would you believe), the Apocalypse of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Infant Gospel of Thomas.

Now, have you still got any doubts ...?



9. James son of Alphaeus (James the Less â€“ or is James the Just?)

The myth-makers really go to town for this guy. Thrown down over 100 feet from the pinnacle of the Temple by "scribes and Pharisees", he actually survived only to be stoned, have his brains dashed out with a fullerâ€™s club and have his body "sawn asunder" â€“ all this at the age of 90!

Of course, if we don't conflate James the Less with James the brother of Jesus (an identification made by Jerome and later Catholics) all this mayhem belongs with the righteous James and the fate of the lesser James is unknown.

Perhaps it's the being sawn in half which causes the confusion?



10. Jude/Thaddeus /Lebbaeus /Daddaeus

Either a serious clubbing or crucifixion for this mixed up guy in the city of Edessa or Persia. Apparently his fan-club suffered because his name sounded too much like Judas.

Jude the apostle is often conflated with Jude the brother of Jesus and also with Jude the writer of the epistle of Jude (pay attention, there will be a test). Yet Jude (the letter writer) identifies himself as the brother of James and as a servant of Jesus, not his brother (Jude 1.1). He also speaks of the apostles in the past tense, not as if he was one of them (verse 17), so he cannot be identified as one of "the twelve" either.



11. Simon the Canaanite/ the Zealot.

Invention came late for this guy. When it did, it was a beauty â€“ crucifixion in Persia and also crucifixion thousands of miles away in Britain. He also managed to preach in Africa. Quite an act to follow.



12. Matthias.

Fantasy sends this guy to Syria, Cappadocia, the shores of the Caspian and the "City of Cannibals" (Acts of Andrew and Matthias). Death by burning. Also death in Jerusalem by stoning â€“ and beheading. Really just makes up the numbers, sometimes merging with Matthew and sometimes swapped out to let Paul into "the twelve."



13. Judas, son (or is that brother?) of James.

Nothing yet. Feeling inspired?



14. Levi, son of Alphæus.

Refer to his alter ego Matthew.



Mark (John Mark).

Though neither Clement of Alexandria (?153-215), nor Origen of Alexandria (182-251) seem to have noticed, Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263-339) relays the news that the apostle Mark had been "first bishop" of Alexandria and had suffered martyrdom in the "eighth year of Nero." This would have been 61 AD â€“ rendering the apostle dead before the death of Peter whose memoirs Mark supposedly wrote up as the Gospel of Mark. "Dragged to death", or maybe not. His bones â€“ well, someone's bones â€“ turned up in 9th century Venice.



Luke.

"Hanged on an olive tree." Or, "lived to the age of 84 and died unmarried." Body parts claimed by both Padua and Constantinople.



Paul.

"Beheaded by Nero." No, not really, but legend tells us he shared the same fate as Peter, even dying on the same day. Pious romances scribbled between the 2nd and 4th centuries â€“ Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Martyrdom of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thecla â€“ provide all the fabulous nonsense you could ever wish for.


Multiple deaths â€“ a biblical motif for making sure the bad guys get it REALLY bad
The 4 very different deaths for King Saul.
1 Samuel (31:4) says that Saul "Took a sword, and fell upon it".
2 Samuel (1:2-10) says Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
Later in 2 Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
But then in 1 Chronicles (10:13-14) we learn that Saul was slain by God!

Judas Iscariot.
Ah, this nasty looking character looks like a Judas





The multiple deaths of Judas Iscariot â€“

If the Jewish authorities, with their own agents, really had wanted to arrest a Jesus, supposedly a guru drawing vast crowds, they certainly would not have needed to hire an inside informer to identify the charismatic leader. Nor is it creditable that 'big money' would have been paid for (of all things) a kiss of the doomed messiah (Mark 14.44). The theological symbolism is as apparent as the history is bogus.

The mythic "Judas" was a Gentile/Hellenistic creation of the early 2nd century, an eponymous focus for the anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism of the early Church. "Iscariot" appears to have been taken from the name of a rebel group called Sicarii, Jewish assassins who used sicae (small daggers), who were largely exterminated shortly before the first Jewish war.

Ignatius, writing his epistles about 115, made no mention of a Judas Iscariot, but then, nor did he mention any 'disciples' (Paul and Peter are called 'apostles', that is, missionaries â€“ like himself).

But with a theologically necessary betrayal by 'a Jew/the Jews' the divine saviour passes, body and soul, into the possession of the Gentiles.

In their disposal of Judas, the hapless traitor of the Lord â€“ how could he help it, he had been entered by Satan?! (Luke 22.3) â€“ the Christian scribblers get quite carried away. Papias in the 130s got the ball rolling.





Judas â€“ the Fall Guy

Early 2nd century:

"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

Papias, "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord"  Book II.
2 fairytales which made the biblical final edition:



Matthew 27:5

"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."




Acts 1:18

"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
4th century embellishment:





"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world ... For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen ... when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame.

After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."


Papias,"Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord" as quoted in Apollinaris of Laodicea, Christian priest and storyteller.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Not what I said at all.  Please read my quote again.  I do not believe I am wrong.  Which, by default, means that I _believe_ I am right.  I admit it is a _possibility_ that I might be wrong.  In the absence of a smoking gun, I think that is an honest statement.  It's not doubt.
> 
> be·lieve
> 1.accept something as true: to accept that something is true or real
> ...



I'm not questioning your faith. You are. Reread your definition of possibility. 

Im not trying to get down on you man. I was in the EXACT same position as you were several years ago. If you search my name in these forums you can see all the post ive written.


----------



## Thanatos (Dec 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But I like it! Lets continue!!
> 
> 1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).
> 
> ...



When i get more time to dig into this I will rebut.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But I like it! Lets continue!!
> 
> 1. Peter (aka Simon, Cephas).
> 
> ...




You really should place a footnote giving credit for your cut and pastes.   You owe it to the author.    Your cut and paste was from the "Jesusneverexisted" site, I'm assuming?   lol    

Please tell me you're not of the "Jesus never existed" persuasion?   lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 23, 2011)

I'll be honest.....I only scanned through that lengthy paste, but I guarantee you half or more of it is EASILY refutted as conjecture.     The "4th century embellishment" stands out off the top of my head....as if Acts was a 4th century document!   lol    At the very least, the author has to be saying the the 4th century copy differs from an earlier manuscript????    Guarantee you he can't prove that one!   lol


----------



## bullethead (Dec 23, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> You really should place a footnote giving credit for your cut and pastes.   You owe it to the author.    Your cut and paste was from the "Jesusneverexisted" site, I'm assuming?   lol
> 
> Please tell me you're not of the "Jesus never existed" persuasion?   lol



Nope I'm not a fan of any site specifically. But if it makes sense, it makes sense and I'll use it.

I doubt you'll find that info on a Pro-religious site so I gotta look elsewhere.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

stringmusic said:


>



x2...fish hawk's jokes


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 23, 2011)

Y'all are makin' my head spin, round and round...

I'm goin' catfishin' believe it or not...

I'm danglin' a play fishin'pole with huge plastic hook on it, in front of my cats, thinkin' 'bout y'all. 

Merry Christmas Everyone!!


----------



## Asath (Dec 24, 2011)

( private word to bullethead, so the rest of you just turn your heads and pretend not to see this one -- Trying to argue with christians is no different than trying to argue with drunks, emotional basket-cases, or children.  They are immune to facts, and have an entire arsenal of odd rationalizations at their disposal.  Rule #1, of course, is not to allow yourself to be dragged down into playground logic.  The whole, "My God can beat up your God, and I have a Holy Book to prove it," thing is just so much nonsense, and they know that.  Few of them have even bothered to read the whole Book they rely upon, and if they had they would have tossed the thing over the back fence.  Their Book can't be defended in any rational terms from start to finish, and they know that too.  So all they have to fall back on is the, "You just have to have Faith," thing.

  Hey, that position has worked for them so well that they have duped the populace into making their clerics filthy rich without a single one of those clerics needing to demonstrate a single thing as true -- so pay attention -- religion is the most successful business model in history -- you don't even need to have a product to get folks to give you money.  You need only prey on superstition and ignorance.  If a corporation tried this, they'd find themselves in jail, rather than laying about in Cathedrals, wielding odd political power, and pretending to have knowledge that they simply do not have.  C'mon now -- you have to love the hubris of the thing, and it is not the fault of the 'religious leaders' that folks are so stupid -- they merely recognize that fact, and live very, very comfortable lives without having to produce a single product of their 'work.'  

I know, I know -- we spend endless billions on 'education,' but you can see immediately who is opposing and thwarting that at every turn -- the religions. Truth is the mortal enemy of belief, and has always been.  Islam marches forwards, as a religion, as does Christianity, by oppression and exploitation of ignorance. The history of religion has always been, and still is, a history born and bred in bloodshed.  That tells you all you need to know.  Ask a christian why the most central sacred icon of their worship, installed in every chuch, is the image of an execution, and their 'god on earth' writhing in agony, while being executed by men.  

Be prepared, upon asking that question, to a rewind to the very beginning of this post.  That sort of says it all . . . )


----------



## bullethead (Dec 24, 2011)

Cyber Hi-Five!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 24, 2011)

Asath said:


> ( private word to bullethead, so the rest of you just turn your heads and pretend not to see this one -- Trying to argue with christians is no different than trying to argue with drunks, emotional basket-cases, or children.  They are immune to facts, and have an entire arsenal of odd rationalizations at their disposal.  Rule #1, of course, is not to allow yourself to be dragged down into playground logic.  The whole, "My God can beat up your God, and I have a Holy Book to prove it," thing is just so much nonsense, and they know that.  Few of them have even bothered to read the whole Book they rely upon, and if they had they would have tossed the thing over the back fence.  Their Book can't be defended in any rational terms from start to finish, and they know that too.  So all they have to fall back on is the, "You just have to have Faith," thing.
> 
> Hey, that position has worked for them so well that they have duped the populace into making their clerics filthy rich without a single one of those clerics needing to demonstrate a single thing as true -- so pay attention -- religion is the most successful business model in history -- you don't even need to have a product to get folks to give you money.  You need only prey on superstition and ignorance.  If a corporation tried this, they'd find themselves in jail, rather than laying about in Cathedrals, wielding odd political power, and pretending to have knowledge that they simply do not have.  C'mon now -- you have to love the hubris of the thing, and it is not the fault of the 'religious leaders' that folks are so stupid -- they merely recognize that fact, and live very, very comfortable lives without having to produce a single product of their 'work.'
> 
> ...



Let me also add that when no religion is involved I enjoy their company. Actually I enjoy them even when religion is involved, but it is the wedge that separates us where as we are very similar in other aspects. I'd buy everyone I "know" on here a dinner if we ever had the chance to meet in person. I think they are fine examples of human beings and except for religion I do not think they act or are as blindsided by anything else in everyday life. I see intelligent people scoff at similar religious stories (where only the names and places)have changed. I see the same intelligent people go through life without any blinders and are cautious of everything else around them BUT religion.
I was once part of the mix, in with that crowd and it was when I really read the Bible and started to ask questions that things started to change. The first question was the hardest to ask because up until that point I felt "guilty" for even thinking "my" religion could be any other way than perfect. The more I asked and deeper I pressed the less tolerant the religious hierarchy became. It got to a point where no one wanted to answer the questions any more because I think when it started to shake their faith OR at least get them thinking, it was easier for them not to think rather than make sense of the logic.


----------



## Asath (Dec 27, 2011)

From your lips to . . . no, wait, we can’t say that here, can we?  

Excellent research, sir, and well connected thinking.  My hat is off to you.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The more I asked and deeper I pressed the less tolerant the religious hierarchy became. It got to a point where no one wanted to answer the questions any more because I think when it started to shake their faith OR at least get them thinking, it was easier for them not to think rather than make sense of the logic.



I read this and had to laugh.  I was just thinking of all the stuff I've taught you on here in the last few months....viruses, genetics, who are and who are not apostles, etc.    Your research on "Jesusneverexisted" sites, too, brought a smile to my face.  

You've started the year off great, Bullet.   I'm sure 2012 will find us having many a great discussion and, perhaps, you will teach me something!  

BTW, your questions have not 'shaken my faith', only strengthened it.     Even in our 'evidence for design' discussion you showed that you would not consider anything evidence for design, and had an 'a priori' belief system when presented with evidence.   

"well connected thinking".   LMBO!    Maybe to the uninformed.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I read this and had to laugh.  I was just thinking of all the stuff I've taught you on here in the last few months....viruses, genetics, who are and who are not apostles, etc.    Your research on "Jesusneverexisted" sites, too, brought a smile to my face.
> 
> You've started the year off great, Bullet.   I'm sure 2012 will find us having many a great discussion and, perhaps, you will teach me something!
> 
> ...



Hope your elbow holds up in 2012. All that self back-patting will take it's toll.

Yep I'm learning from you, glad you think your teaching though....


----------

