Ok, lets take the world's most believed in god, Jesus. I did some research in the bible and came up with the following unlogical error.

Jesus had a virgin birth. Also known as an a-sexual birth. This does exist, but is so unbelievably rare that you have a better chance to be struck by lightning twice in the same spot within 10 to 15 seconds. A virgin birth means there was no sperm involved. Now in order to give birth to a male you need to have Y chromosomes which are only found in men. The Y chromosone is what determines the gender of a child. A woman has nothing but X chromosomes so when there is an a-sexual birth it is always a girl without any possibility of a male. So this concludes to Jesus being a girl, now had he been a girl when he was forced to walk up the hill nude with the wooden cross he should have certainly been found to have no penis, yet if you look on crucifix's he doesn't because his leg is covering it. Now let me tell you, when you have both your feet nailed to a wooden cross you aren't thinking about crossing your legs.

Please post your thoughts and more errors that you may have found.

Jesus' birth was asexual, if you want to call it that. However, you neglected to read or comprehend the whole story. Jesus' birth was God given. He(God) created Jesus in Mary's womb with his awesome power. No sex was required for prenancy to occur. And also it is quite apparent that Jesus was a man.

PS I must give you thanks for giving a well thought out theory that is thought to contradict the bible. Its rare that a person comes here and posts a descent theory.

[This message has been edited by bluntman457 (edited 01-16-2004).]

Nice theory. But that only says the Christian God can't exist. I read somewhere that the whole "virgin birth" thing could've been caused by a screwed up translation.

that crossing the legs bit is hilarious.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 01-16-2004).]

You've overlooked one very important part of the story of Jesus.:

It was supposed to be a miracle.

Cheers,

Lost

Trivial stuff like that isn't enough to disprove god...but i am always looking for information that is sufficient.

Am I the only one who doesn't see how this proves, "God Cannot Logically Exist"?

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Am I the only one who doesn't see how this proves, "God Cannot Logically Exist"?

See my above reply http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

Am I the only one who doesn't see how this proves, "God Cannot Logically Exist"?

no. read my post above too.

Had god used his immense power to make a male inside a virgin, why would he permit intellectuals such as myself to uncover this error? "The universe, all of existance, rests on one thing. God is infalable (never wrong, for all you illiterates)." - Dogma If god is infalable and I have found a flaw, how did his immense power not foresee this?

that 'infalable' bit is hilarious.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Had god used his immense power to make a male inside a virgin, why would he permit intellectuals such as myself to uncover this error? "The universe, all of existance, rests on one thing. God is infalable (never wrong, for all you illiterates)." - Dogma If god is infalable and I have found a flaw, how did his immense power not foresee this?

Supposedly if he is ever flawed, he does not exist. Which explains a lot.

christianity isn't the only place where there have been virgin births, it's a miracle

You're "flaw" isn't a flaw though - as others have pointed out - the idea is that Jesus' birth was a miracle...not bound by physics. (mind you, I'm not a theist - I'm just stating that your proof does not disprove any god)

^so then does that mean that jesus was a male after all???

fudgin' ship! i just finished erasing the beards off all of my crucified jesusinas with nail polish remover... gotta go paint em back on now... http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

at least the bras come right off.

Haha, yea I forgot to mention the beard. And again to that miracle bullshit. If god can make such miracles, why can't he stop wars, why can't he make peace. He seems to be pretty selective on where he makes his miracles. "Hmmm, lets make these candles burn longer than they should, and uhhh lets also make this virgin birth that someone in 2004 will challenge."- God I'm also assuming every god is one god, I know the whole manorah thing is Jewish.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Haha, yea I forgot to mention the beard. And again to that miracle bullshit. If god can make such miracles, why can't he stop wars, why can't he make peace. He seems to be pretty selective on where he makes his miracles. "Hmmm, lets make these candles burn longer than they should, and uhhh lets also make this virgin birth that someone in 2004 will challenge."- God I'm also assuming every god is one god, I know the whole manorah thing is Jewish.

I'm going to overlook that statement and just say-drop it man...ther's nothing to be proven here. If you were able to disprove something, it would have been done hundreds of times over...Theism has been around for a while. I'm not saying you are wrong for trying, but be careful where you look for flaws.

according to what I have read, humans can only have asexual births through cloning. Also all asexual births produce an exact replica of the bearer. I think they only say Jesus was a virgin birth, because preiests are very gay and think vaginal intercourse is filthy. All jokes aside, we often never pay attention to how something feels and just take the word of others who have fallen for the same crap. Sex feels good anyone who's done it knows, so why is it a sin. Mostly because we've been taught to think this way, because our parent's before us were taught to think this way. It also doesn't help that our society is so dependant on ownership. We see marrige as ownership, romantic relationships as ownership, even parental relationships as ownership. All of this because the religions of our world imply a God that is LORD AND MASTER. Yet if this is true why do we have free will. Perhaps we should pay less and less attention to the faulty thoughts of the previous generations, and start getting some thinking and feeling done. Yet, this is what is suppressed most by this culture, such as: "it's not manly to show emotion", "big girls don't cry." Then on top of that we are made to sit in schools where all creativity is slowly driven from our thoughts. When ever someone is different in k-12, they are seen as outsiders, alienated until they comform to the norms set by their peers and the faculty. But it's not too late, all one has to do is see through the bullshit. All we have to do are examine these faulty thoughts and social programming procedures. Lies dissapear when you examine them closely, don't believe me, then start asking questions to someone you know has lied to you(examine their postulates), eventually they'll break, and the truth will come out. This is our world, the ones in power can't keep it forever, they'll grow old and we'll be able to break their legs.

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

according to what I have read, humans can only have asexual births through cloning. Also all asexual births produce an exact replica of the bearer. I think they only say Jesus was a virgin birth, because preiests are very gay and think vaginal intercourse is filthy.

i agree wiht most of your post, but i think originally the virgin birth was meant to prove that jesus was the one true god, in that he begot himself. he CHOSE to incarnate, as he chose to die rather than destroy humanity's free will, as he chose to resurrect to show humanity the point of free will. immortal divinity. it didn't necessarily have anything to do with the morality of sex, rather, it was a metaphor referring to his metaphysical power.

Indeed.

God, I sware the atheists and questioners get stupider each year. Okay, God performs miracles, but wars and peace are acts of free will of men, which God granted as a gift which he can not break or take back. If we were slaves to his will than there would only be peace but we would have no choice. We would no longer be human, but would be more like Angels, no free will.

Please change your name Hammer&Sickle. I feel disgusted that someone with any affiliation to Russia or it's exgovernment would go and call my post moronic when it's perfectly logical.

During the beginning of the movie Snatch, they're talking about how the whole virgin Mary thing is a mistranslation.

Anyways.....

First off, your little theory proves nothing. You're saying Jesus couldn't have been a man because an a-sexual birth would have caused him to be a woman. Since when was Jesus' birth supposed to be a-sexual? Jesus was supposed to have been put in Mary by God. Had the Bible said Jesus was born by an a-sexual pregnancy your theory may have some validity.

Now, about the whole Jesus' penis and him crossing his legs, thats just stupidity. Thats how they nailed him to the cross. Its not like he was sitting up there and just said, 'Wait, wait. Hold up guys, lemme just cross my legs here and get compfrotable before you start hammering away!'. His legs were crossed because thats how they nailed him to the cross.

Note: Im not a christian and don't believe in christianity.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Had god used his immense power to make a male inside a virgin, why would he permit intellectuals such as myself to uncover this error? "The universe, all of existance, rests on one thing. God is infalable (never wrong, for all you illiterates)." - Dogma If god is infalable and I have found a flaw, how did his immense power not foresee this?

Maybe it wasn't an error. Maybe God was more concerned about the universe and his plan for it when he impregnated Mary then what some guy would think of the pregnancy based on his current understanding of modern science. Did you think about that?

And trying to base a theory on a quote from a movie isn't very 'intellectual'.

And even still, you could have simply found a flaw by your perception. If God controls all and can do anything, then anything he does isn't a flaw just because it doesn't obey current laws of science or physics. Its simply out of our understanding.

So, if Mary's pregnancy is supposed to be a miracle, and God can really cause miracles, then where is the flaw?

Miracle - An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God

So if a miracle doesn't have to obey any of our laws, and we don't have to understand it, then any miracle is kind of self justifying in that it is a miracle and requires no justification as its supposed to be 'supernatural in origin' and doesn't have to fit into any of the 'rules' we think things in the universe must abide by. In other words, we don't have to understand why it happened, what caused it, or even how it was able to happen.

So, seeing as how Mary's pregnancy was supposed to be a miracle, it is justified. If you want to negate that portion of christianity you will either have to in some way show that god truly does not exist [to demonstrate that the bible as a whole is not true] or show that even if [a] God does exist that he [it?] cannot cause miracles.

So basically what the thesists are saying is 'goddidit'. Now theres an arguement that i haavent heard a million times, i like it. I mean its new, original, and difficult to argue with, and goes without actually proving anything, just enforcing that it COULD have happened, if god exists that is. Theres no denying that if an all powerful god existed then he could do that, i think you have to not start thinking how, but why. I mean is he just fucking with us?

^he's not fucking with us... he's just fucking us.

at this point in history, god is thrusting his luminiscent almighty cock in and out of our collective bunghole faster and faster... he derives sado-masochistic pleasure from the sensual suffering, the spiritual punishment that is our existence... he's no where close to orgasm, but part of the punishment is leading us to believe so by giving us glimpses of understanding that ultimately prove to be deceptive.

Bloody hell, you guys don't understand the basic principle of christianity AT ALL, which is that you HAVE FAITH about these things. That not EVERYTHING will be logically sound and thats OK. Since you all seem so hell-bent on God screaming at you that he exists, think about it like this.

Think of God like atoms. We can't see atoms, and the average man could not begin to give you logical proof that atoms even exist. The average man, however, believes that they do.

Surely, a quantum physicist could list off thousands of pieces of evidence that atoms exist, just like a theologist could probably list off thousands of pieces of evidence that God exists. Still, generally we just have to accept that atoms exist, much like you should accept that God exists.

-Proof of God can be seen on this page. I ask a question, what seperates humans from animals? The answer, consciouness and the ability to reason. If evolution and the absence of a divine intellegence where true, how can man have "evolved" this ability to reason. Why don't monkeys ask if there is a God? Why don't other animals question there existance. This seperation shows that the line between animals and humans is not as blurred as many believe in the modern day. To find evidence of God

one does not have to search the universe, but rather look within. The fact that you can question the existance of God shows that there is instilled within each human a longing for fellowship with the Father.

-any skeptics out there i ask you to put aside any predujice and actually examine the facts logically, it is then that you will realize that there is a God.

Skeptics? Logic? Let me show you some logic buddy. First off, God was made up. Meaning thought up by fictionally. Then morons like you decided to believe in this pseudo-stupidity of blurred nonsense just to justify things you don't understand. "What created us Bob?", "Well God ofcoarse because I am too stupid to actually think about it."

All. TwatLLama.

quote:any skeptics out there i ask you to put aside any predujice and actually examine the facts logically, it is then that you will realize that there is a God.

No. You claim that by examining evidence, the truth can be found. Prove it: show me the evidence, and show without question that the 'evidence' proves the existance of a god.

Can't do it? Then be quiet - the only thing you've accomlpished is to claim that there is proof.

[This message has been edited by alien8d (edited 01-19-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

During the beginning of the movie Snatch, they're talking about how the whole virgin Mary thing is a mistranslation.

Anyways.....

First off, your little theory proves nothing. You're saying Jesus couldn't have been a man because an a-sexual birth would have caused him to be a woman. Since when was Jesus' birth supposed to be a-sexual? Jesus was supposed to have been put in Mary by God. Had the Bible said Jesus was born by an a-sexual pregnancy your theory may have some validity.

Now, about the whole Jesus' penis and him crossing his legs, thats just stupidity. Thats how they nailed him to the cross. Its not like he was sitting up there and just said, 'Wait, wait. Hold up guys, lemme just cross my legs here and get compfrotable before you start hammering away!'. His legs were crossed because thats how they nailed him to the cross.

Note: Im not a christian and don't believe in christianity.



You're right and your even more stupid for thinking that what you see in church is an accurate representation of the actual jesus in terms of appearance.

^dude, he said he's not christian.

I wonder if Mary was hot...

quote:Originally posted by faithdefend:

Why don't monkeys ask if there is a God? Why don't other animals question there existance. This seperation shows that the line between animals and humans is not as blurred as many believe in the modern day. To find evidence of God

one does not have to search the universe, but rather look within.

How do you know they don't? We have evolved this far simply because of our ability to speak. No other creature out there can communicate on the same level as a human. We've shwon however that monkeys can learn things like sign language to communicate, so chances are they have the mental capacity for our level of communication, just not the physical ability.

So, aside from the fact that its really only one thing that has set us apart from other animals, how do you know they don't question their existance? Obviously they don't talk about it with anyone, but how do you know they don't think about it? Maybe they wonder about something like a God. How do you know they dont?

You dont.....

If God existed logically you wouldn't need to believe in him just like you don't need to believe that you just read this, it's just so. That is why it requires faith to believe in God and I really wouldn't see the point otherwise it would just be a fact and this fourm would be a FAQ not a discussion.

I am constantly questioning everything so understand where you are copming from. But if you subscribe to a faith then that's exactly what you have....faith. Faith has nothing to do with logic.

You want logic, heres a simple proof:

1.Objective moral values only exist if God exists.

2.Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore...

3. God exists.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Skeptics? Logic? Let me show you some logic buddy. First off, God was made up. Meaning thought up by fictionally. Then morons like you decided to believe in this pseudo-stupidity of blurred nonsense just to justify things you don't understand. "What created us Bob?", "Well God ofcoarse because I am too stupid to actually think about it."

All. TwatLLama.

I am amazed that people still consider Christians to be "morons" and say that they do not understand the physical world and science, so therefore hide behind "psuedo-stupidity." Science itself has not disproven the existance of God, but rather points towards a God. For example,"If you were to take the information density just in the human enzyme and analyze the complexity of information, you will come to the very quick conclusion that the possibility of that language coming together is one in ten to the forty thousandth power." This information, by Dr. Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University in Wales professor of Applied Mathematics, is just one example of the complexity and precision seen in the physical world. The atoms of the universe are only one in ten to the eighthy power. That is an enoromously small probality and points to design rather than random combination. Within the universe and the human being is seen the signature of a Creator.

quote:Originally posted by faithdefend:

You want logic, heres a simple proof:

1.Objective moral values only exist if God exists.

2.Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore...

3. God exists.

I hate to say it, but thats one of the weakest things I've ever heard regarding 'does God exist' type debates.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

So, aside from the fact that its really only one thing that has set us apart from other animals, how do you know they don't question their existance? Obviously they don't talk about it with anyone, but how do you know they don't think about it? Maybe they wonder about something like a God. How do you know they dont?

You dont.....

Hey maybe they do have questions about God or their existance. So now I ask if animals do question their reason for living, where is the proof. In human civilation, weighing the heavy question of existance leads to abnormality in some humans. Suicide, murder, rape, and many other destestable actions can be traced in some individuals to the fact that they do not understand their place in the world or the reason for their existance. Have you ever seen a monkey commit suicide? I haven't.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

I hate to say it, but thats one of the weakest things I've ever heard regarding 'does God exist' type debates.

Disprove the proof if it is so "weak"

quote:Originally posted by faithdefend:

You want logic, heres a simple proof:

1.Objective moral values only exist if God exists.

2.Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore...

3. God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

^ uh, ok. i'll do it, if sen d-f doesn't mind...

you're logic is twice flawed. first of all, you're premise is arguable. so the logic is correct only if you state it thusly:

1. suppose it is the case that objective morals exist only if God exists.

2. objective morals do exist,

3. therefore, if the premise is correct, God exists.

is the premise correct? to prove this, you must show logically the necessity of God's existence for the existence of objective morals. i'll be shocked if you do, but you're still not done... you'll then have to prove that objective morals exist.

you've got your work cut out for you, seeing as how thousands of years of philosophy hasn't been able to figure that one out.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 01-20-2004).]

most of what i stated above applies to that link as well... those aren't proofs of anything... seems most theists have trouble understanding that a premise must be proven in order to accept a logical statement as fact.... PROVE THE PREMISE! example of what you're doing:

if objective morals exist, then there is no god

objective morals exist

therefore there is no god.

The beliefs of the Christian religion are based on what men wrote down in times where the on-coming of a storm was unexplainable.

Primitive times call for primitive answers.

Christianity existed on the grounds of a vengeful God.

Fear of this God kept people in line.

Today people rely on "blind faith" to govern their beliefs and the way they live. Religion offers comfort for those who need it, brings hope to others and eliminates the fear of death for people who truly take their religion seriously.

But thats all it is. BLIND FAITH. You govern your lives on something even the Church itself says it can't really prove. Thus the institution that gives the messages of your "God" is conceeding that a God may not exist.

As for the crap about thinking of God as an atom and not being able to see it but it being there, we have tangible proof atoms exist, what proof do we have of God, bar the words of what some people from today's society may call nutcases from 2000 years ago?

EDIT: Good original theory, too bad it broke down into a theological debate.

[This message has been edited by bodomised (edited 01-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

^

is the premise correct? to prove this, you must show logically the necessity of God's existence for the existence of objective morals. i'll be shocked if you do, but you're still not done... you'll then have to prove that objective morals exist.

you've got your work cut out for you, seeing as how thousands of years of philosophy hasn't been able to figure that one out.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 01-20-2004).]

On the thought that objective moral values do in fact exist, is it okay if i am a racist? Can I hate a person on the basis of their ethnnicity? Is there no objective moral value in that?

On the fact that the objective law comes from God:

In even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization we observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. If man was responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other endeavor man has tried. No one has ever lived up to their own moral code, so we cannot look to any person's example. Where then do we get these ideas of what should be done? Every time we argue over right and wrong we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of and holds. If true conscience came from an ultimate lawgiver, we would expect to find exactly what we observe. Predictive hypothesis - that's science

Most of you are hopeless, I pity you.

quote:On the thought that objective moral values do in fact exist, is it okay if i am a racist? Can I hate a person on the basis of their ethnnicity? Is there no objective moral value in that?

i don't think i'm entirely sure what you mean, but if your suggesting that there are absolute morals because everyone agrees that racists are bad for suggesting that people are worse depending on race, you are completly wrong. If you were right then there would be no racists because even racists would know it was wrong, and yet there are are still racists out there who believe they are right to dislike people because of their race. Also look at the death penalty, some people believe it is right, others think it is wrong. Obviously there cannot be absolute morals amongst a sepcies in which some believe killing people is a acceptable punishment for major crimes and others do not. If i misunderstood what you meant and misinterpreted it, i am sorry and please forgive my ignorance.

quote:Originally posted by stealthdonkey:

i don't think i'm entirely sure what you mean, but if your suggesting that there are absolute morals because everyone agrees that racists are bad for suggesting that people are worse depending on race, you are completly wrong. If you were right then there would be no racists because even racists would know it was wrong, and yet there are are still racists out there who believe they are right to dislike people because of their race. Also look at the death penalty, some people believe it is right, others think it is wrong. Obviously there cannot be absolute morals amongst a sepcies in which some believe killing people is a acceptable punishment for major crimes and others do not. If i misunderstood what you meant and misinterpreted it, i am sorry and please forgive my ignorance.

I am merely using the premise of racism as an example of the fact that absolute moral values exist. In your response you say that I am completely wrong, but you indeed prove my fact that objective moral values (aka absolutes) do indeed exist. You say that there CANNOT be absolutes amoung a species that accepts capital punishment. If there are no absolutes how can you logically say that last statement, which is an exclusive absolute statement. I said all that only to say this, you can say i am completely wrong only if there is an absolute right way.

-Also you assume that the objective moral values are excepted by all, I did not say this, I merely said that overall racism is considered an evil. I did not say that all humans adhere to the moral law.



[This message has been edited by faithdefend (edited 01-21-2004).]

quote:In your response you say that I am completely wrong, but you indeed prove my fact that objective moral values (aka absolutes) do indeed exist. You say that there CANNOT be absolutes amoung a species that accepts capital punishment. If there are no absolutes how can you logically say that last statement, which is an exclusive absolute statement.



He was saying that absolute morals do not exist. His statement is not a moral, your logic is flawed.

quote:Also you assume that the objective moral values are excepted by all, I did not say this, I merely said that overall racism is considered an evil. I did not say that all humans adhere to the moral law.



But if some people believe racism is wrong and some believe it is right, how do you come to the conclusion that racism is 'overall evil' and being against racism is a 'moral law'? You can only assume something is a moral law seeing as how we can't simply look it up on the internet. Only a God could telll us whether soemthing is a moral law or not. Now, if we can only assume moral laws, wouldn't it make sense that we only assume those morals which every human lives by as law? How can we assume something is a law simply because we as an individual feel it to be a law?

And even if there was a moral value that all humans followed [which there isn't] you yourself said not all humans adhere to the moral law, so for all we know that one value which we all follow [once again, that does not exist] could be wrong.

Quite simply, the only way to know if something is a moral law would be to have someone who KNOWS the moral laws tell us. IE: A God.

So even if absolute morals did exist, there would be no way outside of devine intervention for us to know about them.

quote:Originally posted by faithdefend:

In even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization we observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. If man was responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other endeavor man has tried. No one has ever lived up to their own moral code, so we cannot look to any person's example. Where then do we get these ideas of what should be done? Every time we argue over right and wrong we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of and holds. If true conscience came from an ultimate lawgiver, we would expect to find exactly what we observe. Predictive hypothesis - that's science

But how does finding similarities in the way these tribes act determine moral law? Using racism as an example again, Im sure you'll find isolated tribes that have racist views about the small amount of people from other cultures they come in contect with. If thats the case, then we would just be picking and choosing moral values based on what we think is right again. We see this isolated tribe doing soemthing we see as morally right, we make note of it. We see the same tribe do something we see as morally wrong, we disregard it along with the fact that someone else out there [part of a large society] feels that it is morally right.

See what Im saying? No matter what resource you use for determining moral law you will have no way of creating a solid argument.

Of course "logically" God cannot exist. That's the beauty of it. I'm not religous, but I have absolute respect for the people who have managed to make a huge proportion of humanity completely disregard their own common sense, to believe that they are more than the sum of their parts, that their is an all-seeing Father figure watching over them. They have convinced these people of this with absolutely no evidence. Not a shread. Just poetic verses and pretty lines.

Can you imagine somebody writing a book in this modern age that people took for gospel truth? If you translated "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" into Sanskrit and took it back to 200BC, people would probably believe it. It would become a Bible. A whole new religion, where God is a circuit and we are all robots.

This makes me think; were people back then gullible, or have we become too cynical?

We assume that age gives wisdom. "We're thousands of years more advanced than the Babylonians, so surely we must be wiser..."

Maybe we're just more confused.

[This message has been edited by Sputnik Calcathon (edited 01-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

But how does finding similarities in the way these tribes act determine moral law? Using racism as an example again, Im sure you'll find isolated tribes that have racist views about the small amount of people from other cultures they come in contect with. If thats the case, then we would just be picking and choosing moral values based on what we think is right again. We see this isolated tribe doing soemthing we see as morally right, we make note of it. We see the same tribe do something we see as morally wrong, we disregard it along with the fact that someone else out there [part of a large society] feels that it is morally right.

See what Im saying? No matter what resource you use for determining moral law you will have no way of creating a solid argument.

There is a solid argument in the facts. You are saying that objective moral values do not exist, so that what is considered right or wrong is just a matter of taste. Just like saying "I do not like brussel sprouts", a person could say, "I do not like murder or rape," or "I like murder or rape." That is ludicrous. There are some things, ie torturing innocent people, raping children, ect, that are objectively wrong. The point I was making about the civilizations was that there has been no society that has embraced rape and many other detestable actions. The fact that this is seen in the remotest of tribes shows that these values did not transfer over cultures, but rather are objectives values. If there is not objective moral values do you consider the holocust to not be evil? Was it okay for hitler to kill 6 million jews because he thought it was "morally right"? You cannot get around the fact that the objective moral laws exist, your logic is flawed.

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

He was saying that absolute morals do not exist. His statement is not a moral, your logic is flawed.



Using the law of non-contridiction,

Either concrete absolutes exist, or concrete absolutes do not exist.

-There can be no compromise on the issue, if absolutes do not exist than how can you be absolutely sure that my logic is flawed, how can you say the statement: "objective moral laws do not exist" Is that statement itself not an absolute? If everything is realitive than there is not concrete truth, what I say and what you say would be in essence equal and there would be no way to differenciate between the two. The logic you use is self-defeating based on the law of non-contridiction.

Faithdefend, your using word games in an attempt to weakly defend your shitty, flawed, circular reasoning that proves nothing other than your ability to repeat the same shit over and over...what's that called again? Oh yeah, brainwashing.

Everyone has their own morals. Abortion isn't right or wrong. It can be right, wrong, neutral, kinda right kinda wrong, mostly wrong but exceptions exist, and all sorts of shit. Hitler and Germany were down with Genocide while some weren't. Murder is generally bad, but we have the death penalty which kills, though some disagree. Morals are not absolute. There's a nice transition on every moral issue from one side to the other with no absolute right or wrong.

Look at things from the survival of the fittest POV and things like genocide, murder, rape, exploitation are quite beneficial as it frees up resources for those who survive with a healthy mind; it strengthens society overall.

Look at those from a humanist POV and they're horrible because they violate people's wills.

Look at it from racist POVs and genocide and murder might be okay against the race you hate, while even rape and exploitation are out of bounds.

There are an infinite amount of variable moral sets with no absolute right or wrong because everyone's morals are right to themselves otherwise they would not hold those morals. If you think it's right, it's right to you; majority generally rules though. A majority moral set that barely agrees with itself and constantly changes over the years with new legal interpretations and laws is hardly proof of absolute morals.

And back to the original topic:

No crap God cannot logically exist, the concept is intangible if you're going for the Judeo-Christian/Muslim God as they transcend logic and therefor are meaningless to existence anyways as logic is our most trustworthy form of showing relevance.

God's intangible, no proof he exists or doesn't exist as a transcendent God is above our comprehension. Why even believe whether they do or don't exist? Even in death they still are transcendent and out of our comprehension and therefor would be meaningless in our afterlife as well if one exists.

A god might exist, maybe thousands do, maybe a couple do...but they're not relevant to anything I do unless they decide to be tangible sometime in my life.

God does not logically have any relevance to humanity...that is what this topic should have been.

quote:Originally posted by faithdefend:

There is a solid argument in the facts. You are saying that objective moral values do not exist, so that what is considered right or wrong is just a matter of taste. Just like saying "I do not like brussel sprouts", a person could say, "I do not like murder or rape," or "I like murder or rape." That is ludicrous. There are some things, ie torturing innocent people, raping children, ect, that are objectively wrong. The point I was making about the civilizations was that there has been no society that has embraced rape and many other detestable actions. The fact that this is seen in the remotest of tribes shows that these values did not transfer over cultures, but rather are objectives values. If there is not objective moral values do you consider the holocust to not be evil? Was it okay for hitler to kill 6 million jews because he thought it was "morally right"? You cannot get around the fact that the objective moral laws exist, your logic is flawed.



you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. you obviously have never taken a course in cultural anthropology. the ignorance you're spouting is just thinly-veiled ethnocentrism, but i have a feeling you're hopelessly stuck in that mode...

there are and have been plenty of cultures that are so mysogynistic that they, in effect, consider rape the norm. up until recently young girls were subject to clitorectomy in afganistan essentially under the belief that women should derive no pleasure from sex. many cultures, including aspects of our own, promote the idea that when a man is ready for sex, it is acceptable to force it on a women, and that a dutiful wife should put out according only to his needs.

as far as murder, the inuit (eskimos) had an accepted practice of murdering young infants for the slightest defect, and leaving their elderly to die in the freezing cold once no longer useful. a lot of societies have fierce torture/murder techniques for prisoners, again including in some degree our own. and a quick glimpse of human history will reveal countless other examples of cultures PROMOTING violence and murder.

oh yeah, i forgot... i told you it would be hard to prove objective morals. you're initial argument is...

SCREWED!!!!! haha.

quote:Originally posted by faithdefend:

Have you ever seen a monkey commit suicide? I haven't.

Does the fact that you've not personally seen it imply that it does not exist?

What if someone has faith that a monkey could commit suicide if it chose to, but that monkeys are either too happy and content to attempt such, or are locked up and prevented access to ways to kill themselves...What if you did a statistical analysis of the proportion of the Suicides over say the past 10 years that were committed by individuals who believed in a Judeo-Christian monotheistic system of dogma? What if it was shown to be disproportionately high compared to the percentage of the world population who held those beliefs?...What if Monkeys don't commit suicide, and they don't believe in a Judeo-Christian dogma?...

What if suicide is caused by societal pressures stemming from expectations and standards laid out by a faith that exists nowhere else in nature, and in fact stresses denying one's natural tendencies?

What if the constant programming that this life is for suffering, abstinence, misery, poverty, subservience, and aversion to all things that bring physical comfort to the natural animal that we are, and instead focusing on only existential and ephemeral beliefs in a reward to follow after death, or more punishment...This leaves only two things for comfort in life, love of others and love of the self....when one or both of those last two comforts is gone or perceived gone, perhaps no hell any god could conceive could be worse than the one that life just became....

Then again, maybe monkeys do commit suicide...I wouldn't know, I don't have a comprehensive collection of "cause of death" statistics for monkeys in all of history.

-=CW=-

quote:There is a solid argument in the facts. You are saying that objective moral values do not exist, so that what is considered right or wrong is just a matter of taste. Just like saying "I do not like brussel sprouts", a person could say, "I do not like murder or rape," or "I like murder or rape." That is ludicrous.

No, its not. Right and wrong exist simply to us humans [and I suppose any other advanced civilization that may exist, assuming they are somewhat like us]. Do you think if a God existed right and wrong would exist to him? No. Right and wrong are our ways of defining certain actions. If God knows all, then he knows the entire future, so wouldn't he see every action simply as one neccessary step towards the inevitable future? Logically that would cause him to see it as neither right or wrong because even if someone is horribly tortured in the proccess, it was what was supposed to, and needed to happen, and whatever happened to something living is irrelevant.

If right and wrong exist only to us, then really so do morals. Which means not only are object morals non-existant, morals all together don't exist, they are simply something we created.

quote:If there is not objective moral values do you consider the holocust to not be evil? Was it okay for hitler to kill 6 million jews because he thought it was "morally right"? You cannot get around the fact that the objective moral laws exist, your logic is flawed.

I wouldn't say yes, but there are millions who would. What would you say if I was one of them and said, 'Yes, I do think Hitler was justified in his actions'? Would you simply say Im wrong? If so, what would you be basing that on, the fact that you feel its wrong? For every moral you have, there is somebody out there who feels the complete opposite, and would defend their views as far as you would. They have just as many reason to justify the way they feel, and though you probably see their reasons as being invalid or irrelevant, they feel the same way about yours.

So once again, the only way we could ever know that objective moral values exist would be by having God tell us. Well, as long as there is 1 person out there who doesn't feel the same way about something as everyone else, which there will always be [and way more then 1 at that].

quote:Using the law of non-contridiction,

Either concrete absolutes exist, or concrete absolutes do not exist.

-There can be no compromise on the issue, if absolutes do not exist than how can you be absolutely sure that my logic is flawed, how can you say the statement: "objective moral laws do not exist" Is that statement itself not an absolute? If everything is realitive than there is not concrete truth, what I say and what you say would be in essence equal and there would be no way to differenciate between the two. The logic you use is self-defeating based on the law of non-contridiction.

'There can be no compromise on the issue, if absolutes do not exist than how can you be absolutely sure that my logic is flawed'

Nobody said absolutes do not exist. You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of things.

First stealthdonkey said, 'Obviously there cannot be absolute morals amongst a sepcies in which some believe killing people is a acceptable punishment for major crimes and others do not.' From that you saw him as saying 'there CANNOT be absolutes amoung a species that accepts capital punishment.'. I then responded by saying, 'He was saying that absolute morals do not exist. His statement is not a moral, your logic is flawed.' to which you replied, 'There can be no compromise on the issue, if absolutes do not exist than how can you be absolutely sure that my logic is flawed.'

Nobody but you has said that absolutes do not exist. As well, everyone was quite clear in what they were saying, so I don't know where you got the idea that we were trying to say that absolutes don't exist. Absolutes exist; 1+1 will always be 2. All we are saying is that moral values do not fall on the list of things that are absolutes.

Understand?

[This message has been edited by SEN D-F (edited 01-22-2004).]

The rules of the universe aren't necessarily logical or common sensical but they hold a truth to the way that things function within a system. Just because the existance of an omnipotant being seems illogical because he/she/it isn't tangible or because the things that are suposed to prove God's/gods' existance is hypocrytical does not mean that it cannot exist. If a higher being has the power to create then it quite surely has the power to form any logic system.

Proof that God(Jesus)does exist:

-He does amazing miracles in the world today through pastors/reg. people. Ex - A man was going to die because of stomach problems, he had it prayed for and a few days later, he had a totally new stomach! He makes the crippled walk at times. How does a stomach just appear? Its on cassette, too.

-People have died and went/starting going to Hell but then they were brought back to life by doctors or w/e. They saw hell and desribed it and there are books on it. Im pretty sure ppl have saw heaven too. So then Heaven and Hell exists which is in the Bible, so theres good proof of an afterlife and God. __Argue that!__

I've had dreams of going into Hell, seeing demons and millions being tortured. I wasn't dying though, I was a little kid who believed what I was told in church...if a little kid can have dreams of Hell, you think a person in a position of mortality might just have a brain that recognizes near death and is in a complete shitstorm to the point that Hell dreams might be possible so long as they have been exposed to the ideology in some form?

May I ask, why do you attribute that which you don't understand to God's existence? Could it be that we just don't know the answer yet? You know...like how it's been with past religions.

Anyone else notice the trend that as science evolved, popular religions became more and more intangible until there can only be one god who maintains absolute secrecy and transcendency from the world, with his only connection to us being a poorly translated, questionable book with several hundred inconsistencies and written by men who, by any doctor of the mind today, would declare insane if they tried to push such happenings as non-fiction?

Its said that when you die, you brain starts releasing DMT [N,N-dimethyltryptamine], a very powerful [I mean very] hallucinogen. When taken recreationally it causes people to completely break away from reality, and just travel around in their own world for a while. So all these visions of the afterlife could just be drugged out hallucinations.

Christians believe that the world was created after the neanderthals. I say that because I'm not sure of the specific year. Anyway, we have found bones of neanderthals, and we have found rocks, sand, preserves of a whole range of things dating WAY back before the beginning of the Earth was in Christian belief. Christians are sheep, sheep.

i dnt mean to flame or anything, i just want to know how many christians out there who can they have never questioned the existance of god. send my an email or somthing, because i would really like to know someone who has that much faith. I am not an athiest or anything, the biggest thing that gives me any problems with christianity is the first books of the bible, where knowledge is looked upon as being a bad thing. Adam and eve ate from the tree of kowledge and were condemed to mortalaty and etc... I just cant really understand how knowledge is a bad thing...maybe its just me, but that seems to be a huge flaw with christianity

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Ok, lets take the world's most believed in god, Jesus. I did some research in the bible and came up with the following unlogical error.

Jesus had a virgin birth. Also known as an a-sexual birth. This does exist, but is so unbelievably rare that you have a better chance to be struck by lightning twice in the same spot within 10 to 15 seconds. A virgin birth means there was no sperm involved. Now in order to give birth to a male you need to have Y chromosomes which are only found in men. The Y chromosone is what determines the gender of a child. A woman has nothing but X chromosomes so when there is an a-sexual birth it is always a girl without any possibility of a male. So this concludes to Jesus being a girl, now had he been a girl when he was forced to walk up the hill nude with the wooden cross he should have certainly been found to have no penis, yet if you look on crucifix's he doesn't because his leg is covering it. Now let me tell you, when you have both your feet nailed to a wooden cross you aren't thinking about crossing your legs.

Please post your thoughts and more errors that you may have found.

OMG, you're a fucking moron. That was the whole defiance? That mary was a virgin? Jesus...you are seriously a fucking moron.

quote:Originally posted by bluntman457:

Jesus' birth was asexual, if you want to call it that. However, you neglected to read or comprehend the whole story. Jesus' birth was God given. He(God) created Jesus in Mary's womb with his awesome power. No sex was required for prenancy to occur. And also it is quite apparent that Jesus was a man.

PS I must give you thanks for giving a well thought out theory that is thought to contradict the bible. Its rare that a person comes here and posts a descent theory.

[This message has been edited by bluntman457 (edited 01-16-2004).]No sex was involved because it's total bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by ate'd:

OMG, you're a fucking moron. That was the whole defiance? That mary was a virgin? Jesus...you are seriously a fucking moron.

Anyone who uses "OMG" is in no position to call me a fucking moron. ROFLMAO U NOOB! PWNED MUTHAFUCKA!



....yes that was sarcasm

Yep, you're a moron.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

You've overlooked one very important part of the story of Jesus.:

It was supposed to be a miracle.

Cheers,

Lost

But miracles are, by definition, illogical.

I don't think the topic title is accurate, though. It should have been "The immaculate conception cannot logically exist". Obviously Jesus existed, it's kind of hard to refute that (although I'm sure you could if you tried). The details of his conception are relatively irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Ok, lets take the world's most believed in god, Jesus. I did some research in the bible and came up with the following unlogical error.

Jesus had a virgin birth. Also known as an a-sexual birth. This does exist, but is so unbelievably rare that you have a better chance to be struck by lightning twice in the same spot within 10 to 15 seconds. A virgin birth means there was no sperm involved. Now in order to give birth to a male you need to have Y chromosomes which are only found in men. The Y chromosone is what determines the gender of a child. A woman has nothing but X chromosomes so when there is an a-sexual birth it is always a girl without any possibility of a male. So this concludes to Jesus being a girl, now had he been a girl when he was forced to walk up the hill nude with the wooden cross he should have certainly been found to have no penis, yet if you look on crucifix's he doesn't because his leg is covering it. Now let me tell you, when you have both your feet nailed to a wooden cross you aren't thinking about crossing your legs.

Please post your thoughts and more errors that you may have found.



Jesus isn't GOD, dipshit! Jesus was JESUS, GOD is GOD in ANY RELIGION.

How do you manage to breathe?

I'm so tired of this stupid argument. Christianity is not the only religion, so even if you had just disproven Christianity, that doesn't mean you've disproven the existence of God. There's still an astronomical ammount of religions, and the possibility that God does exist, but none of the religions so far have been right.

God is a title given to a higher intelligence. look around at all things that exist, there is ORDER...mathmatical precision. that is like a third grader who barely understands the multiplication tabel trying to pose arguments against the highly advanced formulas used to solve problems in calculas or trigonometry. the point is: it's obvious that god knows a fuck of lot more than any of us... so who are any of us to be so proud to even TRY to DISPROVE a level of knowledge that we have yet to aspire to. if you were logical, the only logical answer is to seek after ways to prove truth, not disprove it. all things have their positive and negative, which do you CHOOSE to be.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:

Ok, lets take the world's most believed in god, Jesus. I did some research in the bible and came up with the following unlogical error.

Jesus had a virgin birth. Also known as an a-sexual birth. This does exist, but is so unbelievably rare that you have a better chance to be struck by lightning twice in the same spot within 10 to 15 seconds. A virgin birth means there was no sperm involved. Now in order to give birth to a male you need to have Y chromosomes which are only found in men. The Y chromosone is what determines the gender of a child. A woman has nothing but X chromosomes so when there is an a-sexual birth it is always a girl without any possibility of a male. So this concludes to Jesus being a girl, now had he been a girl when he was forced to walk up the hill nude with the wooden cross he should have certainly been found to have no penis, yet if you look on crucifix's he doesn't because his leg is covering it. Now let me tell you, when you have both your feet nailed to a wooden cross you aren't thinking about crossing your legs.

Please post your thoughts and more errors that you may have found.

The thing about this is, whoever the fuck wrote the bible knew nothing about chromosomes or even reproduction as a science, most likely. Youre talking about concepts that are spaced thousands of years apart. Besides which, this only rules out a CHRISTIAN god, not god altogether. The idea of god to me should not be confused by entering religion into the mix, its just someone fucked up somewhere along the way and religion was born.

Like I said time after time after time after. The whole basis of religion is a group of people not understanding why the suns shines or why the stars glow. So due to their lack of knowledge, and I stress lack of knowledge, they formed an idea of a supreme being that made, controls, and rules them. You cannot possibly argue this fact because this is how all religion came about, a group of idiots believing in something.

There is also no scientific fact the my balls are 2 black holes that counter act eachother but you don't see many people worshiping my nuts now do you, other than my girlfriend that is.

You want to know for a fact there is a god or not? Kill yourself, you will do me that great favor.

Bit harsh.

I think that the main flaw behind religion is that there is no logical argument that applies UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN GOD. All arguments are on the asumption that you do believe.

Religion noticeably includes an afterlife, coincidence?

Or is it that people can/could not face the thought of ceasing to exist when they die? Can anyone imagine not thinking?

The soul is just a way of justifying that we do not cease to exist because people were/are scared of reality:that in this universe were it is likely millions of intelligent life

forms exist WE ARE OF NO CONSEQUENCE

Plenty of logic exists in the argument of Intelligent Design. And plenty of highly logical and intelligent people believe in God. (NOT necessarily a God of the religious institutions.)

Show me a logical arguement for ID and I'll give you a fucking cookie. I've read countless arguements for ID and not a single damned one of them didn't contain some major and crippling logic fallacies.

Logically disprove something? First off, you're ID is belief and I think that it is somewhere around 2 or 3 years of age that parents make you look a the television and say, "See that Johnny, that there is make belief, it's not real." You learn the difference between reality and belief at such a young age but almost 80% or more of the world doesn't stick to it. Learn once and for all that belief is not fact and never will be.

[This message has been edited by TwatLlama (edited 04-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Show me a logical arguement for ID and I'll give you a fucking cookie. I've read countless arguements for ID and not a single damned one of them didn't contain some major and crippling logic fallacies.

There are flaws in the argument, just as there are exposed flaws in every hypothesis of this issue. Yet by definition, logic clearly exists in ID argumentation. The only way you can prove this wrong is by redefining the term logic.

I suppose Behe, Dembski and the rest are unfamiliar with the basic meanings of words now??

If you're still determined, due to your insecurities, to argue about the issue, then I'll show you the logic behind ID.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

You've overlooked one very important part of the story of Jesus.:

It was supposed to be a miracle.

Cheers,

Lost

exactly

I havent read the prior 4 pages to this, so this might have already been said but..

God cannot logically exist

Isn't that the whole point? He cant 'logically' exist.. thus the whole point of FAITH

Faith is just a way out of an argument which doesnt need any explanation

Faith is overglorified ignorance.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Faith is overglorified ignorance.

Beautifully said.

quote:Originally posted by TwatLlama:



Please post your thoughts and more errors that you may have found.

Another error is the belief that Jesus is/was different to us or any other "son of man". Obviously this can not be - according to the internal evidence of roman/western xtianity's bible. when jesus was challenged by the Jews and accused of blasphemy for claiming he was the 'son of god', his defence was that the very laws of the jews stated that "You are gods". In using this as his defence, surely Jesus disclaimed a unique position different from any other?

"31Once again the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him. 32Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many things to help the people. For which one of these good deeds are you killing me?"

33They replied, "Not for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, have made yourself God."

34Jesus replied, "It is written in your own law that God said to certain leaders of the people, `I say, you are gods!'[Ps 82:6.] 35And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people, who received God's message, were called `gods,' 36why do you call it blasphemy when the Holy One who was sent into the world by the Father says, `I am the Son of God'? " -- John 10



Therefore the premise that Jesus was 'god' in a different or unique way from any other human is not sustainable - from the roman/western bible.

Edit - add references & disclaimer Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 04-24-2004).]

Pardon my not so awesome english skills...

Oh and I have never taken a course in cultural anthropology. In fact I'm just a guy going to business school. I get some of the best grades, not because I'm really smarter than everyone else, which you guys will see, but because I know how to get good grades. I simply know how to use my brain, and I know how to take advantage of things.

I don't know what the purpose of this post shall be, but reading these 4 pages made me think.

I guess I should start by saying that I might be just a bit biased as I once was a christian who very much believed in the whole thing. But I had always questioned things, and there's so many things in the bible that don't make sense to me... First there's the contradictions, and then there's the fact that the bible says that a woman should marry the guy who rapes her for some reason, and that kinda stuff... Oh and the noahs ark thing...

But I'm not your average atheist who goes around mocking christians... In fact I more or less hate those people... If people are happy with religion, let them be so. Why do you need to bug them about it? Why step on the beliefs that they base their lives on...

You see when christians try to convert you it might be annoying as crap, but they do it because they care for you and because they feel that it's right... Atheists who spend their lives trying to convince people that there is no god, just... Well there's no real point to it... Generally religion encourages good behaviour...

Anyways... Lama dude. Your first post... That was the most ridiculous thing ever. I allow myself to say that even though I'm a fucked up teenager.

You know what made Jesus special? You know why he managed not to sin? You know why all the sin was put on him? Cos he was a spawn of God. When I was a christian I asked myself, why does god need a son? He's god! But then I told myself that's just something you call him, the son of god... Because he made from god, he's a part of god. I don't believe jesus walked around heaven before he came down to earth. If a regular niceguy would have been crucified... That just wouldn't have sufficed...

And why the crap did you pick jesus' birth from all the illogical not so scientific happenings in the bible? You know, there's talking donkeys in the bible.

Oh and while I don't believe in christianity, I sure as hell don't believe much in science... First of all science is man-made... I'm pretty cynical like that, I don't believe much in humanity. We're proud and cocky and all kinds of stuff... And while science is somewhat based on logic, there's still flaws. We realize new things all the time, we realize we've been completely wrong about something for hundreds of years. Even though it made total sense at the time.

Still, science is a nice little thing to have, but science is always changing. If you take all the recognized scientific facts and then look at our solar system, it's not supposed to exist. There's a couple of planets that aren't supposed to be here, the sun isn't like it's supposed to be... But in 10 or a 1000 years, science will have found a new explanation for this. Smart people will make sense of these things sooner or later, it's how things work. What do average atheists believe about... time? Is the universe neverending? are things just gonna go on and on? Will we all simply turn into stardust in a 100 billion years and then a 100 billion years after that we'll become a new solar system or whatever?

If there's no end to time... We could just go on and on and explore and research the universe... Ultimately that would lead to... The answers to everything, right? Or will we never stop finding new things...? I don't know what the point of what I'm saying is... I just want someone to comment on these things.

A million billion years ago there might have been a civilization living somewhere that had the answers to everything you know.

That's one of the things I like about the bible. It says so many times that humanity is proud. We think we're so smart, but you know in the end we're gonna be proved wrong in so many things.

Why is eternity an impossible thing for humans to grasp? It really bugs me... Oh and... Will we ever find out what... Created the most basic thing or matter or whatever? Won't there always be something that created the thing that created the thing?

Do all things with a design have a creator?

Look at the world... Look at things like, emotions... People cry, people look for a meaning to life, people talk about religious stuff like we're doing now. Sunrises give people hope... Helping people makes you happy. Doing bad things has consequences. Look at the mountains look at the waters look at the stars and the moon look at the beautiful things... Is it all a coincidince?

Is that logic, saying it just... Happened? Or is it more logical to say that some intelligent being had to create something like this? God doesn't play dice, didn't some smart guy say that?

Err I don't sound very atheistic right now, do I? Well maybe I do believe in some sort of a god... I don't know what I believe... One troubled teenager right here :/

Miracles might not be logical, but they do happen. You can't really explain it, but you can just say hey sooner or later science will explain it. That's faith.



I blame Discovery and dumbass atheists for the turmoils in my mind just now. Oh and christians and other religious folk, don't listen to these dumbass atheists... What the crap do they really know? I know people who have ten times the brains of these fools who are active christians.

And by the way, the bible is an amazing book in places. The new testament in particular... Jesus always fascinated me...

Oh and the proverbs. If someone could read the proverbs and like do what it says, he'd be the wisest awesomest most popular guy in the world. Ok maybe not, but he'd be very respectable.

But why all the weird crap in the old testament? The bible is too damn man-made most of the time... I don't like humans :/

Crap... I think I'm starting to believe in God again... I should never have written this thing...

Ok I'm gonna get flamed. Probably cos of my narrow vocabulary and minimalistic use of scientific terms... But I did write this at 5 am :/

Don't worry about your English, it's infinitely better than most of the native speakers that you'll find on these forums (fora?).

As for atheists antagonizing Christians, I do it here because they (presumably) came here looking for an argument. I don't do it in real life, because for the most part I don't really care what a person believes - well, until they try to call their belief logical, or get it into law, or teach it to kids in school or convert me. Then it's bullshit stomping time.

There are very few atheists who run around making fun of Christians, and I think they're mostly the high school type. Either they grow out of mocking people or they grow out of their brand of "atheism". You just notice them the most because they're the loudest.

I would also disagree that there's no point to convince people there's no God; I know I'm much happier not having to worry that somebody is watching me jerk off in the shower and is going to send me to a fiery place because of it. I would also disagree that religion encourages good behavior - it can, but there are plenty of examples where it hasn't.

You're wrong about science, though. I mean, you're reading this message on a machine built entirely with science, yet you don't believe much of it? Yeah, science has been wrong at times, but it corrected itself. That's the whole point of the scientific method. (if you wish to continue this science dispute, please reply to the thread "Evolution vs. Creation : It's going down")

Doing bad things has consequences, but not the bad things listed in places like the Bible. What's the consequence for me eating a big side of bacon, or making unto me a graven image?

In fact, under free will, why should their be post-life consiquences for our actions?

Christians take it for granted that our actions in this world are well-documented in heaven, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in living a good life to achieve salvation. free-will is simply a gift from God so that we can believe in what we want to believe- he loves us too much to not allow us this gift.

of course god cant logically exist but if he does he can defy logic