At 3/4/10 04:27 PM, Earfetish wrote: Like what I'm doing now.

The Science of Homeopathy

Oh wow, just wow. Yeah, Homeopathy is not Science. Hell, I even find that the phrasing "The Science of Homeopathy" is offensive to real science.

I talked about this bullshit in two topics: The Skeptics Society and Anti-science

At 3/4/10 04:27 PM, Earfetish wrote: Like what I'm doing now.

The Science of Homeopathy

Ah yes, the woman who thinks cures come from sight purely because of a botched physics course.

At 3/5/10 02:24 PM, Brick-top wrote: Ah yes, the woman who thinks cures come from sight purely because of a botched physics course.

Appropriate XKCD is appropriate. People, if you can find an obvious seeming flaw in some theory, chances are it has already been spotted.

So everyone here just argues with religious people, who no one can change because they put all their faith in something that helps and doesn't whenever it wants to, but can't believe reason and fact.

At 3/6/10 10:17 AM, WhoIsPaul wrote: So everyone here just argues with religious people, who no one can change because they put all their faith in something that helps and doesn't whenever it wants to, but can't believe reason and fact.

Change of faith is possible. I used to be a christian, but abandoned faith when I saw the errors in bible, and in general, the problem with religions that rely on anything but the material world. There is always room for debate when both sides are open to dialogue.

At 3/6/10 01:41 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: if you can find an obvious seeming flaw in some theory, chances are it has already been spotted.

Uhh...no. For several reasons.

1. It may not be widely know.
2. It gives everyone a chance to analyse the data.
3. Believers of it wont be aware of it and/or ignore it.

Need I go on?

It's like the Kent Hovind thing, obviously he doesn't have a legit degree, but supporters of him keep calling him Dr. Hovind. Some even think he's innocent of his crimes and it's a massive government cover up.

At 3/6/10 10:51 AM, Brick-top wrote: Uhh...no. For several reasons.

1. It may not be widely know.
2. It gives everyone a chance to analyse the data.
3. Believers of it wont be aware of it and/or ignore it.

Need I go on?

It's like the Kent Hovind thing, obviously he doesn't have a legit degree, but supporters of him keep calling him Dr. Hovind. Some even think he's innocent of his crimes and it's a massive government cover up.

I wasn't referring to holes in the "medicine working by sight" theory, it's so laughable it doesn't even deserve scrutiny, nor did I mean homeopathy. I meant in actual science -- a lot of pseudoscince is based on people reinterpreting science without proper knowledge of how things work, usuallly based on the assumption that there's a glaring hole in the mainstream theory.

At 3/6/10 11:29 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: I wasn't referring to holes in the "medicine working by sight" theory, it's so laughable it doesn't even deserve scrutiny,

Yes it does.

How else are we suppose to laugh at people?

Hey dudes.

I'm not into politics much especially from the states, but what do you guys think of this video?

Not american, so can't really say much. Some sort of secular lobby would be a good idea, I think.

Since there is a gun lobby that works on the basis of the Second Amandment, while the First Amandment groups I know tend to consentrate on freedom of speech and press. Of course, there's the ACLU.

If you'll recall the 'why I'm atheist' post I put up here a good while ago, this is part 1 of a response I received from a theism professor at Indiana Wesleyan.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me. I will try to offer some insights, questions, etc... Please understand my only desire is to see you think through and understand some of the very good questions you have raised. You obviously have a keen mind and an ability to think critically. It was because of my own set of questions as someone who was raised in the church that I also underwent a journey of asking some of the same questions you've raised.

Let me do my best to address some of the issues you've raised.

1. Why does the Pope get to change and adapt God's law and why does God condone such a pollution of his message?

Great question. As part of the protestant movement, I agree with your assessment. But, let me explain why I think the Pope does not have the authority to change the scripture. The scripture is to be viewed as a source of instruction for living because it is the eye witness account of those who walked and talked with Jesus. While there isn't enough time here to describe why I hold it to be an authentic eye witness account, I can explain why that is so important.

The eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death, are also eye witnesses to his resurrection. Many of these eyewitnesses were hostile eyewitnesses as well, so we cannot simply dismiss them. (I'd be happy to discuss that with you further as well) The resurrection of Jesus from death is critical. According to these eyewitnesses, God did this to confirm to us that Jesus was in fact the creator and sustainer of the universe. If that is true, and he really did come to earth, I want to know what he said about how relationships with God and each other are supposed to work. The eye witness accounts of his life, teachings, etc... become very powerful if you can show that the resurrection is very likely true. We actually have a way to get a picture of how to live in a way that makes relationships healthy.

So, the reason the New Testament should not be altered by anyone, including the Pope, is that it really is the eye witness account of those who walked and talked with Jesus, witnessed his life, death, AND resurrection. That should not be changed. In fact, it should be closely protected and not modified at anyone's whim. I want to know what really happened, what really was said, etc... To have written down what God really said to us is very important and should be treasured for the miracle it is.

So, It stands to reason that God does not tolerate the fact that from the first century to this day, many have attempted to modify, twist, or ignore what the apostles taught us about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. That is not to say that God chooses to punish these people now in ways we want him to. However, we can be assured that anyone who intentionally distorts God's word will have to answer to him on the day of judgment.

2. Why does God let evil things happen to people and the creation he loves.

Great question. I suffered most with this question when my daughter died at 4 months in the womb. 2 more weeks and we would legally have had have given her a funeral. I went through a couple years of seriously questioning how God, who is supposed to love us, would allow this horrific reality to happen. There are a few things I came to realize that helped me deal with this.

First, God didn't bring death to us. Death happened to the human race when we walked away from the source of life- God. He has been working ever since Adam and Eve to undo the damage of what sin has done to the human race. If humankind hadn't chosen sin, death would not be here.

So, the answer to death that God brought was resurrection from death. What I realized is that God provided the answer to my daughter's death by offering us resurrection from death. In fact, Jesus' resurrection is the evidence God has provided to show us he can and will raise us from death.

However, there are other kinds of evil that happen to us. People hurt us. But, that isn't God's fault. People hurt us because they are imperfect, make mistakes, and sometimes choose selfish behavior. God doesn't force people to behave correctly because if he forced us to serve him we would be robots. He wants us to choose to love him. That means we have to have the ability to choose not to serve him. When people choose to not serve God, they inevitably choose to do things that hurt others. So the horrible reality is that God allows us to suffer other people's bad behavior. He doesn't want them to do what they do. That is there choice.

So what about natural evils like tornadoes, earthquakes, etc... The scripture teaches that we are in a transition time. God created us in a protected state- the garden of Eden. We messed that up, not God. The Apostle Paul talks about the idea that the earth is in "BIRTHING PAINS" as we await the 2nd coming of Christ where he will restore the natural world to its intended state of peace and harmony. Until then, we still deal with the reality that we don't live in a world where we are fully protected from nature. Why doesn't God just fix that now? I don't know. But, I do know he has promised to restore our protected state once he has completed his plan to bring his creation back into a proper relationship with him. His timing frustrates us all. But, that is the reality.

3. You raised the question of the church being God's and why doesn't he fix the issues in it.

You have to understand that while the church is God's, God doesn't force people to do his will. He wants us to choose to love him. So, wherever there are people, there are going to be problems. The church is no different. The church isn't God. The church is a collection of people struggling to follow God. They are still selfish and can make major mistakes.

The New Testament is very honest about this reality. We even read about the arguments and disagreements among the apostles before and after Christ's resurrection. Sometimes we want to act like the scripture teaches the church is more than it is. The church isn't perfect. It was intended to be a place where imperfect people could explore what it means to live out Jesus' teachings. Those imperfect people often do stupid things and make big mistakes. Try not to confuse a frustration with people in the church with a frustration with God.

God will fix our imperfection at the 2nd coming of Christ. Why doesn't he just fix it now? In order to finally fix our imperfection, he has to totally do away with sin. That means casting those who have chosen to continue in sin into hell. Paul taught us that he is patiently waiting to return so that as many people as possible will have the chance to hear the truth about Jesus and accept his forgiveness. If he came right now and ended our mess, how many million people would end up in hell? He loves us too much to be that impatient.

4. How can a loving God punish people rather than forgiving them?

This is another great question. However, the question makes a wrong assumption. It assumes that God's nature should be defined as "loving". While he is loving, that is not his primary character. He is "HOLY". His holiness should be understood as a balance of love and justice always working for our good. Sometimes he is more loving towards us in order to help us become more like him in our character. However, sometimes he is more of a disciplinarian...he inflicts justice. But, he does that in order to spur us on to behave in ways that are not selfish.

As a HOLY God, he refuses to tolerate UNHOLY behavior in his creation. He offers mercy to anyone who chooses to accept his forgiveness and let him help change their behavior. So the only ones who receive punishment are those who CHOOSE to go against God. It isn't that he is behaving in any way contrary to his character. He is operating right within his HOLY character. He wants to help us overcoming the affect of our selfishness, but refuses to ignore our selfish behavior

Part 2
We might want to put God into a box and say he is always only loving. But, that isn't an accurate portrayal of who God is. We don't have the ability to change him. So, we need to be honest about his true Character. He is holy. That means sometimes he is loving, and sometimes he inflicts punishment.

He disciplines us now in order to protect us from an eternity separated from him. And, we must know that we are choosing to spend eternity away from him by embracing a life of sin. That is our choice, not some outcome caused by an unloving God.

5. You've raised a couple issues in the Old Testament.

Adam, Eve, their children, and who Cain and Able married... Hebrew literature is not written as a detailed historic accounting of all details. Generations of children are left out because they aren't central to the story. Even Genealogies are listed skipping generations. Remember too, that at this point in history people lived hundreds of years. Genesis doesn't list all of Adam and Eve's children. Neither does Genesis tell us how long Cain and Able lived before their fight ensued. Adam and Eve obviously had other children who had children, who had children, and so on. Some of those children became small groups of people scattered throughout the region.

Let me give an example. We go every year to my wife's grandma's birthday party. In her first 50 years of life, her family has resulted in over 50 people. Multiply that out exponentially for a woman and her children over the course of several hundred years. It is more than feasible to see how Cain could find a wife among a small group of people (relatives) who had relocated to a surrounding area.

You have to understand that Jewish literature is written to make a point, not lay out what we would call a detailed history. The point being made in Genesis is that God created us to be in relationship with each other and him, and that sin immediately distorted how those relationships function. From Adam and Eve's children, to Noah's community, sin destroyed the Holy Character God put in man. Man's selfishness, if left unchecked, ends in evil behavior.

6. The issue of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot offering his own family to be raped.

The previous explanation is appropriate here. The story of Sodom is intended to show just how wrecked God's creation had become. Even Lot's idea to save these Angels, is distorted with sin. The scripture isn't saying Lot was right. It is showing just how bad mankind get's when left to their own sin. In fact, Lot is being criticized for going to Sodom.

7. the issue of warfare and "the sword".

While we dislike any form of war, the instructions given to Israel concerning the sword are to be understood as a necessary evil to rid the land of the effects of sin. It isn't perfect, or beautiful. However, it is likened to the idea of fighting Hitler. We hate the idea of killing in war, but if we hadn't done so, Hitler would have continued to inflict his evil across the globe. You are reading about a similar period in history when Israel was overthrowing heathen nations.

You also have to keep in mind that this is not the end of God's game plan. When you come into the fulfillment of his plan as explained in the new Testament, there is the promise that war and death will end.

8. different things recorded about what Jesus said while on the cross.

This is an easy one. Different people describing the same scene are going to highlight different statements or activities. Just because you mention one thing a person says, and someone else mentions another thing they said, doesn't mean either of you are wrong. You have just highlighted a different part of what happened. Remember, they aren't trying to tell us everything that happened. They are trying to show us something specific about what happened. They are showing us the details of the event that help us understand that particular point.

9. written 150 years after Christ's death....

The original pieces of paper the apostles wrote on are all destroyed. What we have are copies. This is true of all ancient literature. From those copies, we can compile all of the writings contained in the New Testament with the LATEST pieces of paper dating within 150 years of the death of Christ. That doesn't mean they were written that late. It means the copy of paper is that old. Moreover, the oldest pieces are copies made at 150 years out. Most were copied at a much earlier date. And, NONE of these copies were made AFTER the originals would have worn out. That means the copies could have been easily verified as accurate to the original. In fact, the accuracy of these teachings was very important to the first century church. Moreover, the apostles and/or the disciples they trained were alive at the time these copies were made. So, the idea that they are somehow unreliable or mythology, does not line up with the reality of how these documents came into existence.

In fact, formalized statements by the early Christians about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are dated within 18 months of his death. By "formalized", I mean they had been repeated enough to gain a standardized way of saying it. For instance, If I said, "humpty dumpy sat on a wall", you would easily be able to recite from memory the ending to that quote. That is a "formalized" statement or "creed". Paul's statement about the resurrection of Christ is one such "creed". (Don't forget Paul was a hostile eyewitness to Jesus AFTER the resurrection.) So, from the very beginning days following Christ's death, his resurrection was being proclaimed as a true, historic event.

10. Other ancient virgin stories involving deities.

Stories of god's having sexual relationships with virgins resulting in the miraculous birth of superhuman heroes is common in mythology of the day. There were many such stories. One of the things that separates Jesus birth account from these other stories is the NON SEXUAL nature of the relationship. When the apostles tell Jesus' birth story, they are making sure they clearly define that it was the "Power of the most high" that "overshadowed" Mary. This was not the typical Near East myth. Such stories were also told of such people as Alexander the Great.

While I will need to do some research into the particular story you've highlighted, it is important to note why the apostles highlighted what they highlighted. They are in essence saying, "this is not the same old thing you've heard about. God has done something new here. This isn't about sex with god's. This is about God restarting the creation through Christ. Jesus isn't infected with Adam's seed, and therefore his sin. And Mary is still a real virgin, not just a previous virgin impregnated by a Greek god."

Don't forget that Mary was alive when these writings were first circulated among the church. She would have rejected them had they been out of line with the facts. She did not. In fact, Mary's son by Joseph- James- was the leader in the church at Jerusalem and held up these teachings. He also suffered for his stand to this being true. (see comment below on the significance of this)

11. Similar resurrection story in the Egyptian story.

I am not familiar with this story and will need to do some research to make sure what the real facts are in this. However, you need to be aware that the authors of the New Testament books were not telling stories about things they "heard", but things they saw. They even died for their insistence on the truth of their statements. While many people will die for what they believe to be true, these men died for what they KNEW to be true or false. That gives a significant level of credibility to their testimony.

While this doesn't address directly the story you've listed, and I will do some research to find out the accurate details of this story, the idea that the story of Christ's resurrection is a repeat of an earlier myth, or a much later development of a myth, simply does not match up to the historical evidence of how the New Testament writings came into existence.

and part 3
It also ignores the thousands of eye witnesses who embraced these writings as accurate within a short period of time following Christ's death and resurrection.

Matthew, I realize that is a great deal of information. There is so much more. I only write these things to begin a dialogue. I am not here to condemn you for your views and questions. I think it is vital for you to ask these questions and find answers to them. In fact, I think it is absolutely necessary for you to ask such questions, as long as you are sincere about finding the truth.

So, in closing, let me encourage you on a couple things.

1. Don't confuse frustration with the people of the church, with the God of the church. The people will always let you down. None of us are perfect. That doesn't change the truth that God is there and is doing all he can to get us to love him without FORCING us to love him.

2. Science and God aren't in opposition. The scripture isn't intended to speak scientifically. It speaks theologically. Science is really just "How" God does his thing. The scripture is intended to point out that it is God that does his thing, not to talk about the HOW. Science and scripture are speaking two different languages. They aren't in opposition. They are just different. However, I would love to have the opportunity to discuss the evidences for God FROM SCIENCE.

Now here is my rebuttal
Thank you for taking the time to do this, it is appreciated. But to get to the heart of the matter if I may...
As to your answer to the first question, I would agree with you up to the second paragraph. In the second I just don't agree with the whole premise of God(s). The premise of it is to suggest that there is a being that is all powerful, all knowing... omnipotent really. And if you look back through history, this omnipotent being fills in the blank spots of what we know as humans, and as our understanding grows evermore, the space God(s) occupy in our minds grows ever smaller. That is not to say there will never be blank spots in human knowledge, but it just seems that this is not exactly conducive to the idea of god. And in a sort of round about way, this brings me back to the whole ant and a television metaphor, if you'll recall. The ant (man) worships sees the television (God... or existence I suppose) and is afraid of it, and tries to wrap some sort of story around so that it can in some small way understand it. As by standers, we see there is nothing special (or at least not divine) about the television, but try explaining that too the ant.

As for the second, please I mean no offense, but couldn't it be that man has these stories, rituals, beliefs, etc. to deal with things such as death? That it's just a lie we perpetuate to ourselves? And then further on there is the point that man is the one that causes the suffering of other men. Yes that is undoubtedly true, and yet in this context, God made man. As he is. With a defect. With greed, malice, hatred, racism and every vice man has. And god punishes us for not being able to overcome these things that he "programmed" into us? Isn't that playing it out with a lot of unnecessary suffering for someone eating an apple from the tree of knowledge? And in perhaps in an even darker train of thought, if I am to remember my religious education correctly... God created man in his image.

As for the third, you say that God cannot redeem man kind until sin has been banished. But since Satan is the source of all sin, evil, etc... Couldn't he just strike down his fallen angel and do away with it? Rather than let greedy, narcissistic, even downright evil mankind rebuke him? As for the fourth, I think I've responded to it here oddly enough. Although I will say that, if memory serves, the other side of the coin is jealousy/vengefullness. Not only do I recalll these being outlined against in the beattitudes, but I've also known people to overcome these rather petty human emotions.

As for the fifth, couldn't those that wrote the bible not have implied that those in the garden weren't the only people on earth, and saved themselves a lot of trouble. Since it was sort of dictated by god according to Christianity, I would think that would've played out that way. I can also see your point about Soddom and Gommora. Yet when we get to the biblical quote: "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: Put everyman a sword by his side, and slay everyman his brother.", couldn't he just have come to the Israelites (not the invaders, the Israelites those guys killed so they could be Israelites) and bid them stop their "evil" ways? Instead of sending his chosen people on a war path, in which they are documented as putting entire cities of people, men, women and children, to the sword?

As for Jesus saying different things at his death. It's just that: at his death. Not in the course of several agonizing hours, but moments before he died. As well, both convey drastically different moods. And doesn't that contradict a point you mention shortly after this, that the gospel writers were in essence copying earlier works, as they were 150 years old? And I must question even the existence of earlier works, particularly if they were to have come from the apostles. After all these were Gallilean fisherman, and literacy was abissmally low to begin with.

As for the Egyptian Book of the Dead, even if I was incorrect and Horus was conceived through.... physical means, even though if memory serves it was immaculate conception. After all, she was a virgin when Horus was born.... suuposedly. But even if the idea of a virgin birth is different, heck, it only appears in two f the gospels, I think the other simialarites are more than enough to suggest that the story was, in fact, a copy. And further more is seen in religious stories and writings throughout this era.

At 3/9/10 07:36 PM, Cayler wrote: I think it makes more sense to say that the force is actually proof of the flying spaghetti monster.

Bitch please, everyone knows it's proof of The Invisible Pink Unicoorn.

ZOMG a thread about a religion that isn't mainstream Christianity!! Imma bitch about it and say that everything science has proven can be disproved by God!!!

lol......Christians.....

Oh hey, look what I found

Oh hey, Bartok, Brahms, Strauss. Cool.

Hey guys, I wanna join, I'm no atheist, but i think religion is BULLSHIT!!!

Look how many people die in the Iraq, LEbanon, it's all because the called ''promissed land''!!!
They're killing each other just because they think that Jesus died in that territory! And Jesus even exist, it is a bullshit!! People dying just because of idiot people that don't know what to do... The world is getting even crazier every day!!

>:(

Thoughts on Pantheism, guys? Is it, as Dawkins once said, merely "sex-ed up Atheism," or something more?

At 3/14/10 05:21 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Thoughts on Pantheism, guys? Is it, as Dawkins once said, merely "sex-ed up Atheism," or something more?

Pantheism is a bit like neo-paganism or Wicca, in that if you put ten practitioners in a room, you get 15 different views of "what it's really about". I know a few pantheists, but I don't really get the whole idea, and of course, my practical definition of divine stating, that if you can't see or otherwise sense it (or them as the case may be), measure it, observe any interaction or reaction, it or they, in practical terms don't exist.

Hi Atheists,

I made Jesus a "bad guy" in a flash cartoon I made ages ago and here's a funny comment I got.

"i was gonna be nice and give you a 9 but you insulted jesus he died for us and this is how you repay him by insulting him you wouldn't even be alive if it was not for him you ungrateful lil bastard how dare you i pity you you deserve no votes you pissed me off when you did that"

This guy is oviously an idiot - I just looked at his other reviews.

I'm sure if I used another religious icon like Buddha then less people would have been insulted. I just don't get it. Next time I make fun of religion (which I didn't actually intend to do in the first place) I'm going to go the whole way like (this guy (The Atheist Delusion).

And another thing I don't get about pantheism, does it imply that everything is it its own divinity, or that all is a part of the greater divinity? It's confusing, and for the most part, people who profess it don't seem to know themselves.

At 3/14/10 06:15 PM, AdamJack wrote: you wouldn't even be alive if it was not for him

By what logic?

At 3/14/10 06:24 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 3/14/10 06:15 PM, AdamJack wrote: you wouldn't even be alive if it was not for him

By what logic?

*shrugs*

At 3/14/10 06:29 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Let's talk about pantheism instead. Though there's not much to talk about. It's another belief that can't be verified nor proved wrong (though it has less weak spots than amny other religions).

Shame. He's funny to respond to. He's like the guy you ask questions to see his retarded answers. I don't know much about pantheism.

At 3/14/10 06:15 PM, AdamJack wrote: "i was gonna be nice and give you a 9 but you insulted jesus he died for us and this is how you repay him by insulting him you wouldn't even be alive if it was not for him you ungrateful lil bastard how dare you i pity you you deserve no votes you pissed me off when you did that"

People think this is a useless review.

This means that there are sane people on Newgrounds. I feel all soft and warm inside.

Regarding Pantheism, there isn't much I can add to it really. Since it's fairly straight forward there's not much to talk about.

Pantheism is linked to Taoism. It was Taoism that inspired the belief structure for George Lucas to create the Jedi, which became an official religion a few years ago. George Lucas congratulated James Cameron in 1998 for the movie Titanic, that very same director recently made Avatar which is being accused by some people to having a pantheistic viewpoint.

This means that movie directors are trying to force Religion down our throats and start a revolution. The evidence is there people!! *eats some happy pills and drools over 9/11 conspiracy porn*

Let's play a game. It's called "where's the baseball". You see, I have a baseball, or so it is claimed. I cannot produce this baseball, and it is somewhere inaccessible to you by any means whatsoever except (your own) death. I don't know where this baseball is, I've never seen/touched/heard/smelled/ or even tasted said baseball. But I will continue to think I have a baseball until you can prove that I don't given the above rules.
This is the course one must take to try and convince (most) ardent theists otherwise. Sounds impossible, doesn't it? It is, so long as said person sticks to this (metaphorical) set of standards for disproving the 'baseball', or god as I probably don't need to spell out for most of you. One way I've found is to try and make people see just how impossible and idiotic such standards for proof... or disproof at any rate, really are.
In a related story, I was recently discussing the existence of 'god'. What my friend kept coming back to was that there was no other explanation for the origin of matter, so... god did it. His proof also came down to "there are no other explanations for certain things so... god did it.". Circular and flawed logic aside, this is a textbook case of someone just using god to 'fill in the blank spots' so to speak. That the idea of god fills in the blank spaces of human knowledge due to humans being so profoundly curious. And as a result, we get absurd claims like the following: Science can't adequately explain how the Universe was first formed, so God must have done it. Granted, he would have had to break every law of science and nature, but he's god. True, we don't know where god is, but maybe he's on another, inaccessible plane of existence.
Yes, that is an actual argument, and one I've come across more than once. But here's the coup de gras: For proof of god we need look only to the angler fish. Science can't explain exactly how the fish developed and figured out how to use it's bio luminescent diode it uses to attract small fish, so god must have given it to the angler fish, and taught the angler fish how to use it.
You see, this is where my problem with religion comes from. It leads ordinary, often rather intelligent people... to accept things they know can't be true; without so much as a shred of evidence. Having such a mind set so widespread is a nursery for some the most ignorant, bigoted, and plain wrong ideologies. Could Innocent III have sent children to war without such a mindset instilled in vast numbers of people? Maybe it's just me, but I come to the conclusion of "no".
In closing, I fail to understand how so many people believe virulently in religion... and that I'm an odd man out for questioning such audacious claims. I think, that if more people really listened to Einstein when he said "Never stop questioning", religion would have a much shorter list of followers.

That's an interesting point Patton3, but I think you're never going to win arguing about the existence of God or not; it's more a tool for sharpening your wits. But, despite how interesting an argument it is, I don't think it's right to equate the existence of God with that of a potential baseball (Russel's Teapot as the argument is known). Because humanity has always believed in this kind of supernatural entity that is responsible for everything, whereas a teapot in space is completely arbitrary.

The most compelling evidence for the non-existence of a 'Trigger' God is how it looks like he isn't necessary. One has to compare that version of God with the 'Personal' God, who cares about you and answers your prayers and is actively involved, which is far more implausible.

And then one has to consider how much more likely that God / supernatural energy is than the interpretarions of a specific organised religion. On a gradient of philosophical likelihood, this has to be way at the bottom, yet people believe in it. And, disregarding the damage it seems to do, it is a falsehood. A falsehood that comes with a lot of tenents. And living your life with loads of arbitrary rules based on a falsehood is like spending every day aiming to go in a spaceship and visit Russel's Teapot.

God Hates the World - Westboro Baptist Church - hilarious

Westboro Baptist Church - Google Street View

hi ph0ne lol

I talked to a Dr. of Theology in college on Friday. All he could was recite me bumper stickers from a non reliable source of evidence when I wanted a good argument.

Lawl.

He couldn't even defend Hume's causation without pulling the Bible. Have mercy on his uneducated, circumscribed soul.

I once found a way to disprove God. But I can't remember what that is so I'm making it up as I go along.

I've noticed that the term "God" is rarely defined from Religion to Religion. Sometimes it even varies in denominations and certainly an individuals own interpretation.

But the fun doesn't stop there. It's not just "what" something is, but how it works, where it is, if it's thinking, if it has any control etc etc etc bla bla bla.

Here's the fun part. The Religious generally alter their belief structure if/when new knowledge arises. I've seen varying (but admittedly, not very reliable) studies suggesting about 77% of Christians globally accept evolution. There are obviously scientists such a Robert Bakker and Ken Miller who are both top notch but also deeply Religious.

But no one, not a single person who have interpreted their Religion to 'include' evolution prior to it's discovery. Prior to this happening people would have chosen a different explanation.

So it's basically, science is altering Religion based on what is known.

However the general public aren't academics and not everyone is a critical thinker. So not all Religious people will be able to incorporate all the discoveries into their ever interpreted beliefs. Some even deny the discoveries that they're aware of, however they have a massive misunderstanding of what it actually is.

So I put forward that someone's interpretation of their beliefs and (possibly) a God is dependant on their intellect. If someone has a lower intellect, their interpretation of what they define as 'God' is going to inevitably conflict with current knowledge.

If that individuals interpretation is contradicted with what is currently known, then the likelihood of that particular God existing is dramatically low and cannot exist.

Therefore, you have just managed to disprove a God. Maybe just a single interpretation of what a "god" is, how it works, where it is etc, but disproving nonetheless.

Food for thought.

Hey guys, your thread just lost a ton of posts. That would be my fault..well really it's your own fault. I guess you had a bit of a troll infestation. I cleaned it up and in the spirit of fairness and continuity and NOT FEEDING THE TROLLS I had to knock out a lot more than just the troll's posts.

In the future, if somebody is kicking up a fuss in this thread please contact a BBS mod as soon as you see it and do not reply to him.

This is a thread I am sure sees its fair share of attempts to rile you up, but when you react to a troll, he wins. No amount of whining and hurling insults at him is going to make him think he lost. Any reaction to what he says, especially the negative kind, is exactly what he wants. By replying to him you are only encouraging him to keep at it. If you ignore him, and continue to ignore him, eventually he will grow bored of it and move on to being retarded someplace else.

This has become an issue in other club threads and I've had to be heavy handed and hand out short BBS bans to repeat troll feeders. You know who you are, and you'll probably be pissed at the notion of getting banned for replying to a troll post, but if after so many times in a row you still can't learn that what he is doing is trying to get you to feed him some more, maybe a little "injustice" on my part could at the very least make you stop. Clearly, replying to him only makes it worse which means I have to do more work to clean the place up.

If you want, I can try to keep an eye on this thread during my normal browsing habits but otherwise please just PM me if you see somebody trying to start shit.