Mormons

[jmkiser 0]

But the real gem is in Ron Paul, who actually is more Libertarian than Republican. Let's vote that guy in so we can **** some shit up that needs to be ****ed up. (He may be whacked out on some of his beliefs, but he might actually bring down this farce of a two-party government the U S of A is currently run by.)

As an atheist, I completely understand the dangers of a fraud like Huckabee. Personally, I love him, but politically, I don't feel like I can trust Mitt...I'm sorry, his flip-flopping is too Kerry-ish for me. Rudy is a nightmare for individual freedoms in this country. Thompson is a nobody to me (I only watched Law and Order:SVU... I guess I need to check out the original one ).I don't understand why Democrats would be any better, though. Other then her obvious "progressive" viewpoints (which I despise for the most part), she and Rudy are practically the same person... They are both WAY too pro-active and would obliterate the powers reserved for the president... I see Dictator Hillary and Dictator Rudy worse then any others. Edwards is the fraud of the Democratic party like Huckabee is of the Republican party. Obama seems passionate, but I'm worried about the politician that he'll turn into. I worry about how easy he would be influenced by the darker side of politics. He's almost like the young Mitt Romney of the Democratic party.I always come back to Ron Paul. Even though he's a lifelong Christian, I'm not afraid of him as an atheist. His view of the role of government has me fallen in love with him. ..... we need a politics forum ... badly

[speedz99 145]

They are both WAY too pro-active and would obliterate the powers reserved for the president... I see Dictator Hillary and Dictator Rudy worse then any others.

What do you think they could do that isn't a power already reserved for the president?

[crowTrobot 2]

With Christianity you can say that Jesus being God incarnate is stupid and unprovable, but it's still just that... unprovable.

except that you believe jesus was god incarnate (or his son or whatever) because the *gospels* say so, not because you learned it from some undisprovable personal revelation. if the gospels didn't exist you would believe something else.the book of mormon and the gospels both make unsupported claims that are contradicted by evidence and logic, and both fit patterns of mythology. both are invalidated by the same standards.

[Loismustdie 0]

Wow, I'm not even a practicing Catholic any more, and I'm slightly offended. If I were practicing though I believe my retort would go something like this, "How dare you judge my beliefs from that shack you call a worship place! After all we are The Church built by Peter directed to by Christ himself. Didn't your Pastor tell you that? That's what the Pope tells me. You know the Pope, right? Maybe you saw him at the White House once or twice? Your pastor or deacon ever go there? No? I hear it's real swell." Man, if I were practicing that's what I woulda said, yeah. I would have believed it, too. As wholeheartedly as you believe Catholicism is apparently no more than a cult (pretty powerful one though, huh). If the above come back from my bygone self sounds ridiculous, it should.P.S. You spelled Catholicism wrong.

That argument would be fine, except I would say if that were the case- if Peter ACTUALLY started the Catholic religion, well then he went to hell as well, because what he established directly contradicts the principals Jesus set forth in many ways. So, that is rather easy. Catholicism a cult? Interesting thought. I prefer to just call it a lie. Cult is a word that gets thrown around a bit much. However, that being said.... if any mainstream religion fits the bill, they do. I like how you bring up the fact that they are powerful- like that makes a difference. Christ called his people a peculiar people, a royal priesthood. The WWE is powerful- should I believe in Vince McMahon as a religous figure? Power means nothing in the wrong hands. Power could cause a woman to bury a baby outside rather than giving up her nun-ship. Power could cause men to abuse young boys instead of seeking out normal relationships with women. Power could cause versions of the bible being printed with lines replacing scriptures that contradict what the church teacher. Power corrupts. But, yeah, I am just talking out my ass here. I can't show you how catholic teachings contradict scripture or anything. I'm not prepared for that. I'm just a big dummy showed up to a fight with a butter knife and a bit of drool coming out the side of my mouth. P.S I spell things wrong occasionally. Always have, always will. That being said, I could spell everything I say incorrectly and still prove that kuthallacism duz knot teech wut jeebus tot in meny wheyz.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Christianity is so stupid that you can prove it's not true using their own books... i.e. the Bible.

FYP

[Balloon guy 158]

Like it's been said, part of Christianity is believing in things like-the son of god hung out on earth for a while-he was brought back from the dead-something about walking on water and turning water into wine-virgin birth-worldwide floods-etcOk, you say that this has nothing to do with the way Christianity teaches you to live. Well part of Chrisitanity is accepting all of the above ridiculous claims that are no worse than things like magical tablets that only John Smith could read. Also, I'd argue that Mormonism doesn't teach people to live immoraly any more than your leaders, but whatever. Anyways, let's go on..-there is a heaven and a hell-you go to hell if you aren't a proper christian-different sects of christianity argue about what a "proper" christian is...only one can be right-therefore hell is full of the "wrong" type of christians (this is kind of a joke, don't focus on this)You think that doesn't sound crazy enough? The way you have to look at this is as if you were a complete outsider to religion. You hit your head on a rock one day (thrown by a frustrated atheist) and forget everything about your life. After you manage to get your linguistic skills back, your pastor (or whatever you call him) comes by your hospital bed. He reminds you that you better do everything he says, otherwise an invisible force in the sky will make you spend all of eternity in a place where you will be punished for all time. This eternity of torture can be brought on by something as small as not believing that a man who lived 2,000 years ago was the son of said invisible sky-force. Keep in mind the fact that you don't remember this guy at all. As far as you know he just escaped from the mental ward of the hospital. Now tell me again that Christianity isn't crazy.

Speedz, if this is your understanding of what Christianity is, then you have no idea what it is.

[Balloon guy 158]

so the general argument from the non-believers is: Since the Bible has miracles, and we know miracles are impossible, the Bible is wrong.I'll let you try to figure out why you are being intellectually lazy.

[speedz99 145]

Speedz, if this is your understanding of what Christianity is, then you have no idea what it is.

That's one small part of it. He asked for one example. So there it is.

so the general argument from the non-believers is: Since the Bible has miracles, and we know miracles are impossible, the Bible is wrong.I'll let you try to figure out why you are being intellectually lazy.

This is one of many general arguments...you'd have a tough time proving that guys like kramit, LLY, crow, etc are intellectually lazy.

[Balloon guy 158]

That's one small part of it. He asked for one example. So there it is.This is one of many general arguments...you'd have a tough time proving that guys like kramit, LLY, crow, etc are intellectually lazy.

Maybe, but the desire to not believe in miracles is not a firm foundation to approach the idea of miracles.I probably am just as biased in my desire to believe, but I started with doubt, and have experienced enough to see things differently. The western world is largely so materialistic that I think we are blinded to what's available. We deny God's power, and are the lessor for it.

[speedz99 145]

Maybe, but the desire to not believe in miracles is not a firm foundation to approach the idea of miracles.

I don't have a desire not to believe in miracles.

I probably am just as biased in my desire to believe, but I started with doubt, and have experienced enough to see things differently. The western world is largely so materialistic that I think we are blinded to what's available. We deny God's power, and are the lessor for it.

I don't agree with you about everything (ok, almost anything), but I do like the way you think a lot of the time.

[KramitDaToad 0]

so the general argument from the non-believers is: Since the Bible has miracles, and we know miracles are impossible, the Bible is wrong.I'll let you try to figure out why you are being intellectually lazy.

Actually miracles are not that big a problem. Once you can demonstrate an all-powerful being exists, miracles fall into place. However Christianity can't so we hold back on believing that the impossible happens for now.It's the lies, deceipt, double standards, inconsistencies, contradictions and disgustingly repugnant morals of the religion that we actually have a hard time with. Once you get past those we can talk about miracles.The accusation of intellectual laziness is farcical. A child is smart enough to ask "Where did all the water for the flood come from?" The Christian response: "God did it - it's a miracle" Remind me again, who's being intellectually lazy here?

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually miracles are not that big a problem. Once you can demonstrate an all-powerful being exists, miracles fall into place. However Christianity can't so we hold back on believing that the impossible happens for now.So prove an infinate Being in a manner that you accept. Should you choose not to accept it ( and you are predisposed to not believe ) then any and all points made afterwards will be discarded. No, that's not intellectually lazy.It's the lies, deceipt, double standards, inconsistencies, contradictions and disgustingly repugnant morals of the religion that we actually have a hard time with. Once you get past those we can talk about miracles.Yes, picking the worse traits of a group and applying it to the entire group as a whole, that's not intellectually lazy.The accusation of intellectual laziness is farcical. A child is smart enough to ask "Where did all the water for the flood come from?" The Christian response: "God did it - it's a miracle" Remind me again, who's being intellectually lazy here?And if God did it?

But as we already see, you 'know' there is no God therefore any answer with God in it will be false, and a cop out. You have a nice neat little world set out for yourself. I wouldn't want to upset it.Having a knowledge of a subject, and instead of challenging this knowledge with your equals on a forum that is appropriate, you spend your time basically pounding people that are not as well read to make yourselves feel that you are superior is intellectually lazy.You guys want to say you believe such and such while talking about other things, I got no problem. When you spend the vast majority of your time at a poker website tearing into the worldviews of kids who have maybe 1/10th your schooling, I see you as intellectual bullies. Having read critiques of little Dickie Dawkins, I can see why this is the norm, he also thinks that being a bully means he can win the argument by the condescending tones of his ideas, not the validity of his ideas. When presented with a wall, he ignores the wall and attacks the character of the Christian. Whatever, he is just selling books while he tries to convert people to atheism. That's his schtick, not the first, won't be the last.

[speedz99 145]

But as we already see, you 'know' there is no God therefore any answer with God in it will be false, and a cop out. You have a nice neat little world set out for yourself. I wouldn't want to upset it.

No, we don't 'know' that there is no God. We've just never been presented with reasonable evidence that there actually is a God. If you can give us that evidence, please go right ahead.If there is no real evidence that something exists, the logically correct default is to assume that it doesn't. You know, the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, we don't 'know' that there is no God. We've just never been presented with reasonable evidence that there actually is a God. If you can give us that evidence, please go right ahead.If there is no real evidence that something exists, the logically correct default is to assume that it doesn't. You know, the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing.

I am of the design = designer camp. The fact that there is matter, energy, order and laws means to me that randomness is not a reasonable cause for the effect. Nor is there any reasonable argument for the beginning of evolution, the creation of the building blocks of life to be accidently formed, mixed and the result of billions of lines of code on a DNA matrix. However an intelligent Designer makes much more sense and ties in much better with how life and reality are today.If there was a Creator, and He did create us with a purpose, then it follows He would disclose that purpose. The Bible would fill that need. It claims to do exactly that. Now what's more reasonable? To believe in the Creator, or that creation is an accident with no purpose, direction or meaning?

[speedz99 145]

I am of the design = designer camp. The fact that there is matter, energy, order and laws means to me that randomness is not a reasonable cause for the effect.

I would say that you don't really understand the theories of how all those things came about, but I don't either...and really they are just theories for now. So I can't argue with this.

Nor is there any reasonable argument for the beginning of evolution, the creation of the building blocks of life to be accidently formed, mixed and the result of billions of lines of code on a DNA matrix. However an intelligent Designer makes much more sense and ties in much better with how life and reality are today.

I can see how you would think that the most basic building blocks of life may have been created by something. But who created the creator? By your logic, a creator could not exist without something creating him. And the creator's creator must have a creator. And so on.

If there was a Creator, and He did create us with a purpose, then it follows He would disclose that purpose. The Bible would fill that need. It claims to do exactly that.

That's a nice thought, but not necessarily true.

Now what's more reasonable? To believe in the Creator, or that creation is an accident with no purpose, direction or meaning?

I think both are reasonable. I think that there might be a creator...I just don't think that if there is one he makes it his business to make his presence felt. Or at least I don't think that there's any compelling evidence that he has ever done so.

[Ouch-8s 4]

I think both are reasonable. I think that there might be a creator...I just don't think that if there is one he makes it his business to make his presence felt. Or at least I don't think that there's any compelling evidence that he has ever done so.

I dunno - anytime I had an ant farm or sea monkeys, I couldn't help 'making my presence felt'.

[jmkiser 0]

What do you think they could do that isn't a power already reserved for the president?

I haven't read the responses up to this point, but I figured it was asked at me so I'll just answer real quick.The question isn't what can they do. They can do a lot and they are campaigning that they will.The question is what powers the president should actually have and were meant to have by the founding fathers.I would also claim that by evidence of the last 20 years, it seems that the executive office is pushing the boundary harder and harder. Which brings me to my next question... shouldn't it worry the people that it is happening? With the approval ratings of Congress and the President, I think the people of this country have spoken.

[crowTrobot 2]

I am of the design = designer camp. The fact that there is matter, energy, order and laws means to me that randomness is not a reasonable cause for the effect. Nor is there any reasonable argument for the beginning of evolution, the creation of the building blocks of life to be accidently formed, mixed and the result of billions of lines of code on a DNA matrix. However an intelligent Designer makes much more sense and ties in much better with how life and reality are today.

seriously you should study at least the basics of evolution/natural selection. it would raise your consciousness about how naturalistic (creator-free) processes can mimic design in a way that is not accidental or random. your entire design argument is based on the false assumption that they can't.

If there was a Creator, and He did create us with a purpose, then it follows He would disclose that purpose. The Bible would fill that need. It claims to do exactly that.

and the koran doesn't?

Now what's more reasonable? To believe in the Creator, or that creation is an accident with no purpose, direction or meaning?

given that there is no evidence for a creator, the latter is certainly more reasonable. however there are a lot of other possibilities in between - even if there were no god it wouldn't necessarily mean our existence is a directionless accident.

[jmkiser 0]

I am of the design = designer camp. The fact that there is matter, energy, order and laws means to me that randomness is not a reasonable cause for the effect. Nor is there any reasonable argument for the beginning of evolution, the creation of the building blocks of life to be accidently formed, mixed and the result of billions of lines of code on a DNA matrix. However an intelligent Designer makes much more sense and ties in much better with how life and reality are today.If there was a Creator, and He did create us with a purpose, then it follows He would disclose that purpose. The Bible would fill that need. It claims to do exactly that. Now what's more reasonable? To believe in the Creator, or that creation is an accident with no purpose, direction or meaning?

Not trying to jump into the emotional battle, but I had to throw a point in here.There, actually, are quite a few logical theories that haven't been disproven, so far, that make much more sense relative to the world as we scientifically know it. Why is a creator such an illogical theory? Well, evolution works in an interesting way. It starts simple and expands to being more complicated... as is the next step and the next and the next. So if you take our time line and reverse it as far back as we can possibly prove, then what would come before it? Logically, it would be something simpler. The idea of a complex being such as a creator being the logical step doesn't make sense. Now if you take in the sense that there is a product and that product must be created... well, that's wrong in two ways. The weakest argument is that not all product works by way of "creation" as does the watch being made by the watchmaker. Many "products" come together by forces of nature and have nothing to do with creative intervention. The stronger and more known answer is that, scientifically, a creator must have come from somewhere. To claim that this creator is outside of time space and is the know-all, is-all, etc of everything... now that is where being intellectually lazy comes into play (not an attack BG, don't get offended ).If you look at the world, scientifically, there is no OBVIOUS answer as to the beginning. Watch/watchmaker may seem like it makes sense, but it requires belief in a divine power of which there is no evidence, proof, or any reason for one to make sense. On an intellectual plane of what we know as humans so far, as time goes back... so does the complexity. Existence just gets simpler and simpler and simpler and we can only see back so far... everything beyond that is just ideas and the ideas based on reality are a little better then the ones that require magic (in my mind). In the end, of course, they are all just ideas until we get some real evidence.

[Balloon guy 158]

I would say that you don't really understand the theories of how all those things came about, but I don't either...and really they are just theories for now. So I can't argue with this.Yea, in order to really argue this I would become a google student, and to be honest I don't see much value there.I can see how you would think that the most basic building blocks of life may have been created by something. But who created the creator? By your logic, a creator could not exist without something creating him. And the creator's creator must have a creator. And so on.That uses the supposition that the Creator God is a created. He can also be self-exsistant. I have no idea what that means but I read it somewhere and was impressed.That's a nice thought, but not necessarily true. Granted.I think both are reasonable. I think that there might be a creator...I just don't think that if there is one he makes it his business to make his presence felt. Or at least I don't think that there's any compelling evidence that he has ever done so.

I tried to look up a really cool baseball world series upset, but I got nothing.

[Balloon guy 158]

I dunno - anytime I had an ant farm or sea monkeys, I couldn't help 'making my presence felt'.

Many a sea monkey hath felt my wrath as well.

[Balloon guy 158]

Double post still counts in post count

[Balloon guy 158]

seriously you should study at least the basics of evolution/natural selection. it would raise your consciousness about how naturalistic (creator-free) processes can mimic design in a way that is not accidental or random. your entire design argument is based on the false assumption that they can't.and the koran doesn't? given that there is no evidence for a creator, the latter is certainly more reasonable. however there are a lot of other possibilities in between - even if there were no god it wouldn't necessarily mean our existence is a directionless accident.

the biggest problem with this debate is you guys have a schooling level that makes me always be on the defensive, but you're basic foundation is still flawed. Where did the matter come from, what gave the big bang the detonation power. Until you have an answer for point A, really point B-Z are basically educated guesses that can appear very reasonable, but still be very wrong.If I get into a 'this is how argon degrades into lead therefore this rock is x years old', I am going to lose. I don't choose to allow you to frame the debate this way. Get me a beginning, that's where we can argue.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not trying to jump into the emotional battle, but I had to throw a point in here.There, actually, are quite a few logical theories that haven't been disproven, so far, that make much more sense relative to the world as we scientifically know it. Why is a creator such an illogical theory? Well, evolution works in an interesting way. It starts simple and expands to being more complicated... as is the next step and the next and the next. So if you take our time line and reverse it as far back as we can possibly prove, then what would come before it? Logically, it would be something simpler. The idea of a complex being such as a creator being the logical step doesn't make sense. Now if you take in the sense that there is a product and that product must be created... well, that's wrong in two ways. The weakest argument is that not all product works by way of "creation" as does the watch being made by the watchmaker. Many "products" come together by forces of nature and have nothing to do with creative intervention. The stronger and more known answer is that, scientifically, a creator must have come from somewhere. To claim that this creator is outside of time space and is the know-all, is-all, etc of everything... now that is where being intellectually lazy comes into play (not an attack BG, don't get offended ).If you look at the world, scientifically, there is no OBVIOUS answer as to the beginning. Watch/watchmaker may seem like it makes sense, but it requires belief in a divine power of which there is no evidence, proof, or any reason for one to make sense. On an intellectual plane of what we know as humans so far, as time goes back... so does the complexity. Existence just gets simpler and simpler and simpler and we can only see back so far... everything beyond that is just ideas and the ideas based on reality are a little better then the ones that require magic (in my mind). In the end, of course, they are all just ideas until we get some real evidence.

I must admit this is the first time I've heard a we are getting more complex therefore we used to be simplier and that negates a complex God argument. I like it cause I have a really cool answer for it. But I have to look up the specifics so I can look like I'm smarter than I really am.And for the record, Kramit had some offensive things to say, which might have set me off a bit, but I honestly think that there isn't a person on this forum I couldn't smoke a cigar with and argue all night and leave on friendly terms. Okay maybe FWP and Ryland, and probably a few other pot heads, okay and half of OT, and most of strategy. Come to think of it you're all...nevermind

[speedz99 145]

Yea, in order to really argue this I would become a google student, and to be honest I don't see much value there.

"The sun revolves around the earth, and to be honest I don't see much value in the proof that I'm wrong. In fact, I'm glad that the church is torturing people who dare to claim otherwise."-balloonguy'sgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandfatherI kid (sort of). That level of detail is way over my head too.

That uses the supposition that the Creator God is a created. He can also be self-exsistant. I have no idea what that means but I read it somewhere and was impressed.

I hate that supposition for a ton of reasons, but I obviously can't prove it wrong.