Discussion: Does Yahweh really love us?

[Juan_Bottom]

I should have said "no one believes in it wholeheartedly" (Agnosticism). It's crazy to believe that no matter what, we will never have any reason to think one way more than the other. Even today we have reason to believe more in Atheism simply because there has never been any reason or information to suggest otherwise. Unless you believe in anecdotal evidence.

[Lionz]

Natty,

Maybe we would define the word proof differently.

What would motivate dozens of liars to write lies in order to back up lies of liars from hundreds of years earlier that they never met in order to promote a religion against lying in the first place, if you're saying that's occured? And what would motivate people to become willing martyrs to back up lies if you're saying that occured?

What are you claiming has been used to measure past C14 in the atmosphere? You posted a chart showing estimated ages of bristlecone pines as if it was a chart showing how much 14C to 12C has been in the atmosphere and did so without realizing what you were doing maybe.

Do you have a source referring to carbon dating that has been done which did not assume a ratio of 1 to 1 trillion? Where's a radiometric dating technique that's not based on an assumption of a starting point and a steady rate of decay? What does it matter if something is cross tested to us, if we can't name one? Maybe it's like there are things resting on eachother and it's kind of like an image of a guy lifting himself up off the ground by pulling his own hair up.

Speed of light might be a bit off topic, but what suggests to you that it is and has always been a constant?

No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant.6 Many simply assume that it is constant, and of course, changing old ways of thinking is sometimes difficult. Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii, at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, is also questioning some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero!7 Furthermore, he attributed the cosmic microwave background radiation and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light. Setterfield reached the same conclusion concerning redshifts by a different method. If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory will fall (with a big bang).

Other cosmologists are proposing an enormous decay in the speed of light.8 Several of their theoretical problems with the big bang theory are solved if light once traveled millions of times faster.9

Maybe really a misquote from missing one or more hyperlink or something and you should check here... http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ16.html

How about check out some slides starting here and clicking right arrows? Has light not actually been stopped before? http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0961.htm

Not valid sources even if they contain sources of their own? How about this? http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lightspeed-99a.html

I'm not sure anyone claims Noah went off hunting for animals across the earth maybe. Earth was smaller around and there was little to no ocean on it maybe, but animals might have been led to him either way.

You might be imagining a picture of thousands of animals including adult giraffes and elephants. Creatures bring forth variety and animals evolved before and after the flood maybe. How about consider dogs. How many chihuahuas and pit bulls existed 500 years ago? Koalas might be postflood? And why not bring baby animals or ones just past a baby stage? The ark was huge perhaps. Here are images showing remains of it that can help us understand how large it was whether we believe these show remains of it or not maybe...















What if there was actually little to no salt water on earth and there's saltwater variety of life that are adaptations from a freshwater variety of life? You ever read a story of someone who added salt to freshwater slowly over time and had fish adapt to it and then put fish back in freshwater later and them dying as a result or something like that?

You might be imagining a flood mostly from rainfall, but see an english version of Genesis 7:11? Water might have generally came from below. http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

I see no one claiming fossil fuel is proof of a young earth or a global flood maybe, but what would be wrong with someone believing in a young earth and a global flood and seeing them coming together to explain fossil fuel? And should we assume we know how much vegetation has been on earth and makes claims based on it regardless?

What is meant by the extra mass? Who knows what's inside the earth? What if it has a very thick shell that ends about half way down in solid diamond and it's about half solid and half gas inside? Who knows? We don't know what's inside the great pyramid maybe.

Do you hold that there is one single common physical ancestor of everyone in the whole universe whether inside or outside of earth's atmosphere? Maybe I was getting at that or something like that.

Could similar structures on various creatures not be used as both evidence for common ancestry or a common designer? So what if all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins? If you are going to write a story are you going to use a thousand different typing programs to do it? Can you say more concerning endogenous retoviral insertions? What if humans don't have a gene that no longer codes for a protein due to a mutation or an error and Yah wanted Adam to use the garden to get vitamin C? Embryology not kind of used as a rehash? Could similar structures on various creatures not be used as both evidence for common ancestry or a common designer? Ever compared paintings from different painters and noticed artists with unique styles? Chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes according to what? Want to discuss phylogenetic trees? There actually has been quite a bit of evolution that has occured perhaps, but there are several different trees as opposed to one giant tree maybe. What if there were several different kinds of creatures created and they were created to bring forth variety WITHIN kinds? What if zebras and horses share a common ancestor and yet zebras and whales don't?

I don't have proof Adam lived with DNA about 6,000 years ago that would now be mistaken for DNA of someone who descended from a 44,000 year old ancestor and am not even claiming that is the case by any means maybe, but how illogical would it be for us to use data based on an assumption that we are not descendants of Adam in order to try to prove that we are not, if that's what is being done?

Where is a Bible that says the earth is flat? Where's a single scientific error in all of the Tanakh? Does it not actually claim or suggest that earth was round and that there were mountains in the sea and that rain came from evaporated water and that the heavens were spreading out?

[natty dread]

Maybe we would define the word proof differently.

Bible does not count by any accepted definition.

Lionz, it's fine to believe in god, and it's fine to read parables of Jesus and think of them as metaphors to live by. I don't have a problem with that. However, it's not fine to use the bible as proof of anything. It's a book of stories and mythologies written by primitive men. We know so much more about the world than they did.

What would motivate dozens of liars to write lies in order to back up lies of liars from hundreds of years earlier that they never met in order to promote a religion against lying in the first place, if you're saying that's occured? And what would motivate people to become willing martyrs to back up lies if you're saying that occured?

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH same old talking points and strawman arguments.

Understand something: people have lots of superstitions. You are currently claiming a lot of things that are downright false. Does that make you a liar, and are you doing it because you like lying? Note that adding the word "maybe" here and there does not excuse you from the responsibility of standing behind your words.

But no, I don't think you are doing it because you are a liar. You do it because you don't know any better... you're misguided, and for some reason you're desperate to prove that the things you believe in are literally true. See, you start with the preconception that anything your bible says must by definition be true... and then you try to twist reality to support your claims. It doesn't work that way, but you're welcome to try.

Let me ask you a question: would it devastate your belief in god if you would not be able to believe that the creation story of the bible is literally true? Would it devastate your belief in god if you were not able to believe in a global flood?

What are you claiming has been used to measure past C14 in the atmosphere? You posted a chart showing estimated ages of bristlecone pines

It's a calibration chart for C14 dating. Nothing at all to do with pines. Look again:

Click image to enlarge.

See, we know it by comparing results of C14 dating of objects to other dating methods of same objects, or objects of known age.

That's why I say that if you want to prove radiocarbon dating false, you have to prove every other dating method to be false as well.

Sure, you can always throw in your "but it could be so that blah blah blah"... sure, and I can again say that we could live in the matrix for all we know. However, since you don't have any proof of flaws in the radiocarbon dating system, other than unscientific rants by some so-called "creation scientists", and I don't have proof that we live in the Matrix... let's just leave it there. I get tired of explaining the same things over and over.

Do you have a source referring to carbon dating that has been done which did not assume a ratio of 1 to 1 trillion? Where's a radiometric dating technique that's not based on an assumption of a starting point and a steady rate of decay? What does it matter if something is cross tested to us, if we can't name one? Maybe it's like there are things resting on eachother and it's kind of like an image of a guy lifting himself up off the ground by pulling his own hair up.

You're like a damn broken record. You are desperately trying to poke holes into a theory that is very well established with evidence.

You come up with all these convoluted constructs of things that have to happen in order for your claims to become feasible. The world doesn't have enough water for a global flood... No problem - the earth was smaller back then! Where did the extra mass come from? Umm... the earth is actually hollow! And then you go on childishly saying "you haven't been inside the earth so you can't prove it isn't hollow!" And you think you are being smart...

Science is not perfect. Science takes the evidence it observes and builds upon it to create theories. These theories are constantly tried to be proven false by scientist themselves. If they succeed, the theories are altered. Which makes them stronger.

Creation "scientists" do very poorly in this regard, because they fail to follow the scientific method. They start from the assumption that earth must be young, the bible must be literally true, and try to twist everything around that. But it never works. THAT is the reason why their work is not recognized my mainstream scientists, NOT some evil anti-christian conspiracy.

You are desperately trying to poke holes into anything that discredits your fundamentalist beliefs. I only hope you never get children to homeschool.

Speed of light might be a bit off topic, but what suggests to you that it is and has always been a constant?

Because there's no evidence that suggests otherwise and lots of evidence that suggest that it is.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/P ... tants.html

What is meant by the extra mass? Who knows what's inside the earth? What if it has a very thick shell that ends about half way down in solid diamond and it's about half solid and half gas inside? Who knows? We don't know what's inside the great pyramid maybe.

What if, what if... see, these convoluted crackpot "theories" are why no one on these forums or any others except your creationist sites takes you seriously.

The thing is, that what you describe simply isn't possible by any stretch of the imagination.

We know what is inside the earth. There's a lot of molten lava, which forms convections, which again move the tectonic plates and create the magnetic field on Earth. Which is a lot more convincing idea than that of magic fairies living inside the earth and doing all those things.

Stop with the "what if" stuff already, you sound like an 8-year old. "But what if the moon is actually made of cheese and we just think it's not because all the astronauts are lying... " sure, that might make sense if you don't know any better.

how illogical would it be for us to use data based on an assumption that we are not descendants of Adam in order to try to prove that we are not, if that's what is being done?

OH THE IRONY.

You are concerned with something being illogical, despite not recognizing the obvious logical fallacy of proving the negative?


Lionz, I have read several of your concoctions now, and I hereby give my verdict:
Your posts are absolute drivel and lack any semblance of rational thought.

[safariguy5]

Here's the way I see it:

My parents gave me a lot of leeway when I was growing up. They believed that I would "find religion when I was ready". Well, it took so long for that to happen that my little brother (8 years younger) finally decided he wanted to go to church so we went to church. Does this mean I believe in God? Not really.

Whether or not I believe in God is really irrelevant to how I live my life. Sure, God may be there, but he's not going to meddle in human affairs, much less my own. There's really no point in praying for anything. You go about your business, and events happen as you make choices. No amount of praying is going to get you that big raise or that A on the test if you don't study or work hard for it. And if you do succeed, it's not going to be your faith in God, it's going to be your own hard work. Therefore, since God has no effect on my life, I don't really ask him to do anything on my behalf nor do I believe that misfortune is his wrath or anything. Therefore, as the title asks, it's irrelevant whether or not He loves us, we set our own destiny in life.

In fact, as an engineering major, I have certain problems identifying myself as Christian. How can the intelligent design, creationists, abortion doctor murderers, and other extreme evangelicals claim to believe in the same God I do? Now, I understand extremism exists in any religion, but I strongly believe that you cannot use religion to argue matters of policy. Argue about abortion and science on ethical and concrete bases, not some religious doctrine. Until that happens, I will still identify myself as Pastafarian.

[Lionz]

Natty,

Is there a mythology that Nero blamed a fire as far away from Yerushalom as the Italian Penninsula on Christians by 66 CE? Where do we draw a line about what is fiction? What do you say happened in the first century?

How about we research Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:24-27 and Zechariah and more together and see if it does not seem as though Yahushua was referred to prophetically before the first century in specific detail? And then there are even ironically things in a non-Christian blasphemous thing called the Babylonian Talmud that unmeaningly suggests He truly is Messiah? How about go here and CTRL F search the next two thousand years is the Messianic era? http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_97.html

You suggest I have a narrow minded view and twist evidence to help appease it maybe, but have you ever been considered a Christian or a young earther? I grew up in public school and not by parents you would consider to be Bible forcing and church going type parents and had much more of a mainstream view in younger years? But rebel angels either exist or do not exist and I would guess the later?

What do you mean not be able to believe, if you say that? It would be weird to be forced to not believe in anything maybe.

Ahhh... I said one or more thing wrong concerning the chart maybe... I might have basically figured that BP stood for Bristlecone Pine, but it might refer to Before Present. Anyway... you used an image that can be found here maybe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbo ... alibration. Where is there a mention of testing how much 14C to 12C has been in the atmosphere in the past? And see a claim that the level of atmospheric 14C is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere? There are several methods that are pretty accurate dating things even over 4,000 years maybe, but there might be assumptions that do not hold up through the flood. There are sedimentary layers across the surface of the earth from it and is fossil fuel in the earth as a result of it and missing layer around the earth as a result of it and a greatly changed face of the earth as a result of it maybe. When is something calibrated with something else from over 4,500 years and even if results from two methods have been, are they not methods founded on an idea that there was not a global flood in the first place?

Could you not flood an earth even larger around than now with even less water if you smoothed mountains out, whether earth has expanded or not? Does it not seem as though Australia matches up with both South America and Africa in a puzzle like way regardless of whether I have jumped to a conclusion or not?





What does the ucr source or whatever do to suggest light has a constant speed? Has light not even been stopped before, if we are technical?

How deep have you heard of someone going inside the earth? There might be alot of magma in it, but who knows what is inside earth, exactly? Who even knows what's inside the great pyramid?

[shieldgenerator7]

Well, see you later. I hope you have fun. I'm sticking to my religion no matter what you say. God bless you you all.

[natty dread]

Well, see you later. I hope you have fun. I'm sticking my head in the sand no matter what you say. Dog bless you you all.

Bai bai.

Where do we draw a line about what is fiction?

If there's concrete evidence about something, it's fact. If there's no evidence whatsoever about something, then it's fiction until proven otherwise.

Evidence does not need to be limited to what you can see or touch. It can be extrapolated from other information, if you follow the scientific method.

What do you mean not be able to believe, if you say that? It would be weird to be forced to not believe in anything maybe.

Belief requires you to be able to convince yourself that the thing you believe in is true. You can't just arbitrarily decide to believe in something, can you? You need to have some sort of thought process behind it...

What if you could no longer convince yourself that the earth is young? What if you actually considered all the evidence against it, and found that you could no longer truly believe it?

Would this undermine your belief in God?

There are several methods that are pretty accurate dating things even over 4,000 years maybe, but there might be assumptions that do not hold up through the flood.

Sorry but it just doesn't work like that.

You start from the assumption that there was a flood, and look at everything as though the flood is already certain. Then you use your findings to validate your beliefs of a flood. Stop using circular reasoning!

are they not methods founded on an idea that there was not a global flood in the first place?

Yes, because the idea of a global flood is not just infeasible but totally impossible.

Could you not flood an earth even larger around than now with even less water if you smoothed mountains out, whether earth has expanded or not? Does it not seem as though Australia matches up with both South America and Africa in a puzzle like way regardless of whether I have jumped to a conclusion or not?

Is your claim that the mountains are the only thing that keeps the ocean from suddenly jumping over all the continents and drowning them?

Here you go again, coming up with these convoluted "what if" ideas, when they are totally irrelevant. Even if you could come up with a "what if" scenario that would be halfway feasible, there's still no evidence of a scenario like that ever to have happened!

Take your brain off autopilot before it's too late!

How deep have you heard of someone going inside the earth? There might be alot of magma in it, but who knows what is inside earth, exactly? Who even knows what's inside the great pyramid?

Sigh... there are more ways to gather evidence than by seeing with your own eyes. It's not technically feasible to travel inside the earth because of the immense pressure and heat, so other methods have been developed to figure out the contents of the inside of the Earth. Look it up from a scientifical source, or even Wikipedia.

[tkr4lf]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

[natty dread]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

Trolled by jesus?

[tkr4lf]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

Trolled by jesus?

Well duh....who else?

[Haggis_McMutton]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

Trolled by jesus?

Well duh....who else?

Actually, that would explain a lot ...

Is god trolling us?

[pimpdave]

Since we all make god in our image anyway, I'm sure a lot of people see him as trolling us.

Anti-socials probably see him as detached and uninvolved.

Neo-cons probably see him as being hyper-involved with a huge raging war-erection.

Tea Baggers are so consumed with violent rage, they see him as a judge waiting to rain down judgment, but not on the ones who joined a Tea Party Death Squad, because they were doing what they think is the right thing.

Progressives think of him as being like Jesus.

[2dimes]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

Trolled by jesus?

Well duh....who else?

Actually, that would explain a lot ...

Is god trolling us?

Sometimes he must be. Some pretty weird things have happened in my life even though I've rarely had medication and never taken non-perscription drugs.

[tkr4lf]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

Trolled by jesus?

Well duh....who else?

Actually, that would explain a lot ...

Is god trolling us?

Sometimes he must be. Some pretty weird things have happened in my life even though I've rarely had medication and never taken non-perscription drugs.

If there really is a god...then he HAS to have a great sense of humor. Otherwise he's a just really fucked up.

[2dimes]

I really hate myself for engaging you again because you are so religious about your disbelief in God and the internet is useless for communication. It's really only usefull for high jacking hair advise threads, rigging open source encyclopedias and pretending to be a transgendered person with an ab fetish. Cam?

Where do we draw a line about what is fiction?

If there's concrete evidence about something, it's fact. If there's no evidence whatsoever about something, then it's fiction until proven otherwise.

Evidence does not need to be limited to what you can see or touch. It can be extrapolated from other information, if you follow the scientific method.

What is "concrete evidence"? Do you argue about everything you don't understand or know about? You seem to have difficulty believing in flooding. Are you like those people that buy a nice house beside the river and then are shocked when it's under water one day? "The river's not just going to jump onto the land."

What do you mean not be able to believe, if you say that? It would be weird to be forced to not believe in anything maybe.

Belief requires you to be able to convince yourself that the thing you believe in is true. You can't just arbitrarily decide to believe in something, can you? You need to have some sort of thought process behind it...

What if you could no longer convince yourself that the earth is young? What if you actually considered all the evidence against it, and found that you could no longer truly believe it?

Would this undermine your belief in God?

How could it make any difference if the Earth is beyond time, billions of years, millions, 10 000, 5 000 years old or was created just before I was born.

What effect could it have on your life or anything before or after it to change the age of the earth? If you found out the earth is only 6000 years old what changes for you?

Is your life empty and void of anything more interesting than proving the earth is old and trying to connect that to God while claiming not to believe he exists on the internet? "The earth is really old. How old? Well we can't really figure it out but let me tell you bro, science proves it's way old!" impressive. You might want to get off line if you really want to help figure out the age of the planet.

Does it not seem strange that people care so deeply about a guy that was only here for around 30 years then spent a couple teaching in Synagogs and hill sides. Why would anyone have a clue who this guy was a decade or two after he was gone, never mind a couple thousand years later? You don't even know your great grandfather.

It would seem pretty odd to me that it's so important for people like you to straighten out the "facts" about him if I didn't know what I do. I'm not impressed with the bible because it's true and easy to prove. I'm more impressed it's impossible to prove yet it's still being printed and translated to every language. How true anyting is isn't relevant, sometimes you can't prove basic facts to someone that won't believe you. You must have experienced this before.

[2dimes]

If there really is a god...then he HAS to have a great sense of humor.

Totally and I'm not even counting things like Giraffes and Platypus.

[BigBallinStalin]

In general, Hinduism has one the most interesting definitions of god: God, or the "Supreme Being," is a collection of everything (living and non-living).

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

[BigBallinStalin]

This is entertaining to read. And honestly Natty, I think you're being trolled lol.

which is why I asked shieldgenerator to define "God"

Either, the troll doesn't want to dedicate all that time into supporting a position it doesn't really care about.

Or, the person is genuine but can't think critically enough.

[natty dread]

I really hate myself for engaging you again because you are so religious about your disbelief in God

Stop right there.

I'm an agnostic. It means that I do not believe nor disbelieve. All I know is that if there is a god it does not interact with the universe in any observable way.

So how about you start again, this time by not assuming things just to build strawman arguments against me? Then maybe your next post won't be a huge fail from the very first sentence.

and the internet is useless for communication.

Oh really? I think communication is pretty much the exact thing internet is used for. If you are unable to communicate online, that's your issue, and it doesn't mean you have to project your personal flaws on others.

It's really only usefull for high jacking hair advise threads, rigging open source encyclopedias and pretending to be a transgendered person with an ab fetish.

Well, to each his own. I've personally found much other use for the internet, but... to each his own.

What is "concrete evidence"?

5 point hint: not the bible.

Can you guess yet?

3 point hint: not creationist websites.

Any luck?

1 point hint: Something that is verified by observation, eg. results from a rigorous scientifical experiment which can be repeated by other scientists.

Example: you can take an accurate thermometer, boil some water, and measure the temperature in which the water boils in the air pressure of your location. Then you take note of the results, and if other people can verify these results by repeating the experiment, you'll have evidence of the boiling point of water in the particular air pressure of your location.

See how it works? It's quite simple, really.

Do you argue about everything you don't understand or know about?

No. Is it fun doing that?

You seem to have difficulty believing in flooding.

You seem to have difficulty in reading. You also seem to have a tendency to construct strawman arguments, perhaps because you know that you don't have any valid argument against me.

Are you like those people that buy a nice house beside the river and then are shocked when it's under water one day? "The river's not just going to jump onto the land."

I shouldn't have to explain to you how a river flooding is a very different thing than all the oceans of the world suddenly jumping on top of the continents.

Should I?

How could it make any difference if the Earth is beyond time, billions of years, millions, 10 000, 5 000 years old or was created just before I was born.

What effect could it have on your life or anything before or after it to change the age of the earth? If you found out the earth is only 6000 years old what changes for you?

Interesting question.

In order for a 6000 year old earth to be feasible, a lot - I mean, a HELL of a lot - of areas of science would have to be totally false by some incomprehensible mechanism. I mean, we would have to ignore a majority of the evidence gathered by archaeology, biology, genetics, astronomy, geology, hydrology, physics, chemistry...

So in order for the earth to turn out to be 6000 years old, all of those sciences would have to turn out to be false. Suddenly, all of the things we have developed using those sciences could not be trusted anymore, and civilization would take a hundreds of years leap backwards.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, because we all know that's just not going to happen. I mean, we who live in the real world, not some imaginary la-la-land where purple unicorns nozzle our arses 24/7.

Is your life empty and void of anything more interesting than proving the earth is old

My life is just fine, thank you. Is ad-hominem the only type of "argument" you are able to use when debating?

and trying to connect that to God while claiming not to believe he exists on the internet?

I have not done that, so, no.

"The earth is really old. How old? Well we can't really figure it out but let me tell you bro, science proves it's way old!"

Another straw man argument. Impressive! Oh, wait, sorry, I meant the other thing. Unimpressive. Yes, that was it.

In case you're interested, the age of the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years. It is a very big number, so make sure you sit down before you think about it. I wouldn't want you faint from over-exhausting your brain capacity.

You might want to get off line if you really want to help figure out the age of the planet.

It's not me who has a problem with the age of the earth.

Does it not seem strange that people care so deeply about a guy that was only here for around 30 years then spent a couple teaching in Synagogs and hill sides.

Does it not seem strange that people care so deeply about Paris Hilton?

Why would anyone have a clue who this guy was a decade or two after he was gone, never mind a couple thousand years later? You don't even know your great grandfather.

I know who my great grandfather was, thank you very much. Once again you continue the steady downpour of pure fail.

Also, argument ad populum is not a big improvement from ad hominem, but props for trying anyway.

It would seem pretty odd to me that it's so important for people like you to straighten out the "facts" about him if I didn't know what I do. I'm not impressed with the bible because it's true and easy to prove. I'm more impressed it's impossible to prove yet it's still being printed and translated to every language. How true anyting is isn't relevant, sometimes you can't prove basic facts to someone that won't believe you. You must have experienced this before.

5 billion flies can't be wrong! Shit tastes gooooood.

2dimes, I hate to tell you, but my first impression was right. Your whole post was a huge, steaming pile of fail.

[2dimes]

I know who my great grandfather was, thank you very much. Once again you continue the steady downpour of pure fail.

What is his favorite meal? Where does he work?

[natty dread]

I know who my great grandfather was, thank you very much. Once again you continue the steady downpour of pure fail.

What is his favorite meal? Where does he work?

He's dead, Jim.

Also it's pretty telling that that was the only part of my post you addressed.

[2dimes]

Does anyone know what happened here?

It would seem pretty odd to me that it's so important for people like you to straighten out the "facts" about him if I didn't know what I do. I'm not impressed with the bible because it's true and easy to prove. I'm more impressed it's impossible to prove yet it's still being printed and translated to every language. How true anyting is isn't relevant, sometimes you can't prove basic facts to someone that won't believe you. You must have experienced this before.

5 billion flies can't be wrong! Shit tastes gooooood.

2dimes, I hate to tell you, but my first impression was right. Your whole post was a huge, steaming pile of fail.

I honestly don't understand the response to my statement.

[2dimes]

I know who my great grandfather was, thank you very much. Once again you continue the steady downpour of pure fail.

What is his favorite meal? Where does he work?

He's dead, Jim.

Also it's pretty telling that that was the only part of my post you addressed.

You seem to have difficulty in reading. How can you know him without knowing basic things about him?


What does it tell you? Is there other parts that you want to discuss further?

[Aradhus]

I'm more impressed it's impossible to prove yet it's still being printed and translated to every language.

Yes, evidence that human beings are retarded is most impressive.

How true anyting is isn't relevant, sometimes you can't prove basic facts to someone that won't believe you. You must have experienced this before.

ITT

Everything requires belief, it is not everything though that has any bearing on our lives, it is the belief. If you remove the thing that the belief is attached to, but retain the belief, nothing would change. God couldn't not know this. And so it is, God must know that belief in him is counter to our design. It is through logic that we do not put our hands into the fire. It is by logic that one must either come to the conclusion that there is no god, or that he does not want us to know that he exists.

I submit then, that the way to god, is to not belief in him and to do good. If he exists, and sits in judgement, then he will conclude that with our lives we decided to do good not for some reward like you selfish Christians seek, but simply because that is what we decided to do with our lives.

[natty dread]

Everything requires belief, it is not everything though that has any bearing on our lives, it is the belief. If you remove the thing that the belief is attached to, but retain the belief, nothing would change. God couldn't not know this. And so it is, God must know that belief in him is counter to our design. It is through logic that we do not put our hands into the fire. It is by logic that one must either come to the conclusion that there is no god, or that he does not want us to know that he exists.

I submit then, that the way to god, is to not belief in him and to do good. If he exists, and sits in judgement, then he will conclude that with our lives we decided to do good not for some reward like you selfish Christians seek, but simply because that is what we decided to do with our lives.

Excellent argument! I agree 100%.

I honestly don't understand the response to my statement.

Sorry, but my grade stands. You can retake the test next week if you wish.