Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/god?

[dthmstr254]

This is all well and good, but it doesnt relate to evolution. I suggest you at least get a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms of evolution before you try and spout this bull again.

well, there goes the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. if my argument isn't relevant to evolution, then neither is the fossil record, which is one of the key topics of my debate.

 

[dthmstr254]

\Really? But I am already a Christian. I am not a lying, creationist Christian, but perhaps that is what bothers you?

then quit debating against other creationist Christians. because a nation cannot be a nation if it is divided against itself.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

There is nothing wrong with the Fossile Record. Your argument is patently absurd.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

well, there goes the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. if my argument isn't relevant to evolution, then neither is the fossil record, which is one of the key topics of my debate.

\
Your arguement is a farce. Its all smoke and mirrors manufactured to discredit valid scientific research and data collection. You aren't actually debating anything, you are posting an interesting story, one which, unfortunatly for you, is about as relevant to the discussion of evolution as what I had for breakfast this morning.

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

then quit debating against other creationist Christians. because a nation cannot be a nation if it is divided against itself.

Interesting....I was unaware our nation was a theocracy.

 

[steen]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

unless you are talking about the creation theory, you have no point, and there is still SCIENTIFIC evidence of that.

And never mind how much you claim this, you are still lying.

Tom Berra: responsible for adding meat to the modern teleological argument by comparing the fossil record to a line of corvettes.

Irrelevant, as cars are not subject to biological evolution.

"if you compare a 54 corvette to a 55 corvette, and a 55 to a 56 and so on, you can see the ability for small change to result in large change after a while." the problem here is the question: "what caused the change?" the answer to the corvette is the team of engineers. so saying that these two are comparable would be like looking at a street and saying that once, millions of years ago, it was a golf cart path. simply stupid.

And evolution doesn't claim that either.

But what you were responding to here was about the evidence FOR "the creation theory." You did not provide any evidence; as such we can conclude that you were AGAIN lying.

so the supposed homologies in the fossil record is more evidence for ID than for evolution.

Why? because you say so? If there is evidence of change over time, then certainly that speaks against a design.

That is, unless you are cvlaiming that the design is ongoing right now, every day? Now, I have yet to hear even the most ardent fundie creationist liars ever dare to claim that stupid nonsense, so I am curious as to whether that is really what you are claiming.


But I digress. back to the issue of evidence. You claimed actual evidenmce FOR "the creation theory." Where is that actual evidence? erely claiming that "X seem more like ID/creation than Evolution" is not exactly evidence.

So I ask again, do you actually HAVE evidence, or were you again LYING?

it just shows that God could have used similar parts to build a whol lot of animals.

And the new species we have actually witnessed being formed in front of our eyes, they are from mixing parts up right now? How do you explain ring-species per your claim?

when you get down to it, my computer is made from the same stuff as yours: nuts, bolts, screws, wires, plastic glass, etc. but I guarantee that you probably have a better one than I do. so is that evidence that all these parts just came together through completely natural forces???

Yes.

 

[steen]

well, there goes the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD. if my argument isn't relevant to evolution, then neither is the fossil record, which is one of the key topics of my debate.

SIGH! The fossil record is from biological organisms, your car example is not. So no, the Fossil Record stays; your demagogery isn't evidence of anything.

But for ome odd reeason you seem to cowardly avoiding the evidence of species having been formed under our direct observation, without any fossil record involved. Why do you keep running away from that?

 

[steen]

then quit debating against other creationist Christians. because a nation cannot be a nation if it is divided against itself.

Rather, YOU should stop lying. Because lying Christians ARE divided against God. Stop your lies, stop your pathetic quest for EVIDENCE of God, evidencing your weak faith that can't accept God per faith alone. Stop breaking God's commandments in your weakness for a tangible God.

Did I mention STOP LYING IN GOD'S NAME?

Creationists are the False Preachers that Jesus warned us against. They are the pharisees who are selfrighteously claiming the goal justifies the means, never mind how much the means directly violate God's word.

You guys should be ashamed of yourself; but you are probably to much holier-than-thou narcissists to see the harm you do to God per your political agenda. NOTHING has turned people away from God like the lies you and your ilk are spewing. STOP LYING!

 

[steen]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Interesting....I was unaware our nation was a theocracy.

Rather, he wants licence to lie, wants other Christians to =say that it is OK to bear fal;se witness when done in the belief that it is for Jesus. LYING FOR JESUS, that is what these fake, weak Christians are doing. Their faith is so weak that they need evidence for their god. They are like the Israelites in the desert, building a Golden Calf because their mind can't hold a God they can't tuch.

Rest assured that Christianity is nothing like the lies these types spew. I, on behalf of Christianity, reject these liars.

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Rest assured that Christianity is nothing like the lies these types spew. I, on behalf of Christianity, reject these liars.

Dont sweat it....I know many Christians I hold great respect for. This young man however, I must admit holds nothing but entertainment value. To be Honest I once knew someone very much likeminded....who helped me realize it was time to move on. I wonder at how it would feel to be a follower of the Christ, and know you drive people from the very path Jesus asked you to follow.

 

[dthmstr254]

Rather, YOU should stop lying. Because lying Christians ARE divided against God. Stop your lies, stop your pathetic quest for EVIDENCE of God, evidencing your weak faith that can't accept God per faith alone. Stop breaking God's commandments in your weakness for a tangible God.

Did I mention STOP LYING IN GOD'S NAME?

Creationists are the False Preachers that Jesus warned us against. They are the pharisees who are selfrighteously claiming the goal justifies the means, never mind how much the means directly violate God's word.

You guys should be ashamed of yourself; but you are probably to much holier-than-thou narcissists to see the harm you do to God per your political agenda. NOTHING has turned people away from God like the lies you and your ilk are spewing. STOP LYING!

let's see:
1.) you must be an emissary from the Jesus Seminar, because you are NOT reading the KJV. I bet you believe in the Gospel of Thomas, which is a very unchristian and unbiblical book which states that only men can go to heaven, and I quote: "if any woman is to make herself like a man, then will she enter the gates of heaven." what does this mean? should a woman undergo a sex change operation???
2.) false preachers: the false preachers in James was a prophecy that actually foretold the invention of evolution. back when this prophecy was written, there was nothing except CREATIONIST CHRISTIANS!!! you really think that a creationist Christian would say that he was wrong??? and I quote "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." since you want to claim that you are a Christian, I will argue with you from a purely theological standpoint.
3.) lies: actually, if you want to say someone is lying about creation, you must have never read Genesis. or John 1, or any of the rest of the Bible as a matter of fact. you must have a real big problem with Jesus if you want to say that we are lying. hows about you quit calling yourself a Christian and put on your real title: atheist.

 

[dthmstr254]

SIGH! The fossil record is from biological organisms, your car example is not. So no, the Fossil Record stays; your demagogery isn't evidence of anything.

But for ome odd reeason you seem to cowardly avoiding the evidence of species having been formed under our direct observation, without any fossil record involved. Why do you keep running away from that?

well, protect the theory of evolution with it. and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish, an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line. let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill. but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"
secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I am tired of hearing that I am out to prove God's existence. that is IMPOSSIBLE! you cannot PROVE God, but you CAN give EVIDENCE for God and AGAINST evolution.

Why is it impossible to prove God exists, if in fact She does?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

well, protect the theory of evolution with it. and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish, an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line. let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill. but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"
secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?

Macroevolution is the same thing as Microevolution, except microevolution refers to non-speciation. Speciation has occured and has been viewed both in and out of a laboratory.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

well, protect the theory of evolution with it. and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish, an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line. let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill. but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"
secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?

:2wave: Even the Creationist Lunatic webpages state the span of the Cambrian "explosion" took "five million years".:doh

http://www.newcreationism.org/CreationArticle8.html

The Cambrian Explosion is the compound term used to describe the vast number of new phyla that appear in the fossil record for the first time around 540 million years ago. Species from 70 or so different phyla show up suddenly within a time period of about 5 million years (and some Chinese scientists even believe that time period is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)). Before the Cambrian Explosion the fossil record shows that life on Earth was fairly static. Only a very small number of Pre-Cambrian life forms (Ediacaran fauna), blue green algae, and single celled animals show up at all in the fossil record from about 3.5 billion years ago to about 600 million years ago.

 

[Cloud9]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

Excellent dialogue. Glad I found this forum/thread, and enjoyed reading the posts over the last 2 days. Particularly the comments by Scarecrow Akhbar, Independent Thinker 2002, Kelzie, DonRicardo, Mr Fungus among others.

I'm agnostic, probably because I'm too intellectually lazy to be a full blown atheist. If I get any lazier I'll end up being a born again Christian. :lol:

Like many agnostics/atheists, I grew up with religion - Roman Catholic - went to Catholic school for some of my education, attended Bible study classes after school, etc. That is, until I got kicked out for asking questions in 3rd grade - the nuns/priests didn't like my questions.

Generally, I don't have a problem with religion per se, but rather with its followers. Like many have stated in this forum, one of the problems I have is with Christians attempting to impose their beliefs on the rest of the populace.

Ironically, many Christians don't even abide by their own beliefs. Which brings me to my second pet peeve with believers - hypocrisy. A tendency to follow just select passages of the Bible and ignore the rest, or actions contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

While I enjoyed the discussion of string theory, astrophysics, evolution, etc. one only has to quote the contradictions of the Bible itself or simply ask questions (as I did in my youth).

If Adam and Eve were the beginning, then wouldn't children that follow be the product of incest? (Got a good old yardstick across the hands for that question, but no real answer from the nun).

Can God create an object so large that He cannot lift it?

Besides, I don't know if I'd want to follow the type of God described in the Bible - one that condones rape, murder, slavery.

Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)
Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) (Ironically, 25-50% of priests today are homosexuals http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051112...1ADW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
)
Death for Hitting Dad (Exodus 21:15 NAB) and I thought I was tough on my kids...:roll:
Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) - talk about a God with an insecurity complex, sounds like more like my ex than God.
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Kill Followers of Other Religions. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
Death for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
Infidels and Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Kill Brats (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
God Kills the Curious (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
God Will Kill Children (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
Kill Men, Women, and Children (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
God Kills all the First Born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
Kill Old Men and Young Women (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
God Will Kill the Children of Sinners (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
More Rape and Baby Killing (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Mass Murder (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
You Have to Kill (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB), (Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT), (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT), (1 Kings 14:9-16 NLT), (Judges 20:48 NAB),
Kill Your Neighbors (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

Slavery: (No wonder the very religious, slave condoning South likes to go Bible thumping) (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT), (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT), (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT), (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB), (Ephesians 6:5 NLT), (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Not even mentioning the numerous contradictions in the Bible or the rampant hipocrisy of believers.

Example:
The Christian attempts to put prayer into schools run directly counter to biblical teachings. Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV).

Problem with the Bible is all the meaning lost in the numerous translations - Bible history - http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/#timeline

Besides, is there even any room left in Heaven to be one of the 144,000? :lol:

 

[tecoyah]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

You do of course realize....you will burn in the depths of someones hell for posting that.....heh

 

[Cloud9]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

You do of course realize....you will burn in the depths of someones hell for posting that.....heh

Not possible for I am only quoting from the Bible - that is, the word of God.

 

[steen]

let's see:
1.) you must be an emissary from the Jesus Seminar,

What is that?

because you are NOT reading the KJV.

And so? Oh,l I get it, all other translations are lies, right?

I bet you believe in the Gospel of Thomas,

Never heard of it. Is that in the KJV? Any other misrepresentations and lies you want to spew about me? Just because I am disgusted with your perversion of God's message to us, turning it into hatemongering and disbelief in Faith, it must be ME that are wrong? How nutty of you.

which is a very unchristian and unbiblical book which states that only men can go to heaven, and I quote: "if any woman is to make herself like a man, then will she enter the gates of heaven." what does this mean? should a woman undergo a sex change operation???

And what the ##%#$@%#$#$ does that have to do with anything? Do you frequently go off on such rambling, irrelevant tangents?

2.) false preachers: the false preachers in James was a prophecy that actually foretold the invention of evolution.

Ah, so now you are also outright lying about JESUS. You are just getting worse and worse.

back when this prophecy was written, there was nothing except CREATIONIST CHRISTIANS!!!

There were NO Christians back when Jesus stated this. You are again spewing stupid lies. You are, in fact, showing an astonishing ignorance of the bible itself, and about Jesus. SO it is not only Science you are ignorant about. You are making ignorant rantings about EVERYTHING.

you really think that a creationist Christian would say that he was wrong???

I think that somebody like you who lie all the time will make up anything that props up your weak faith sufficiently that you can function from day to day without being paralized by fear of not being saved. Your weak faith demand that you yourself must save yourself instead of leaving that in God's hands and God's grace.

Your fearful demand for evidence of God merely shows how you have misunderstood Christianity. Now, talking about Thomas as you do above, you seem to have something in common with him, namely the absense of faith without physical evidence. For you, Faith simply isn't enough. Yers, I can understand your fear of lack of salvation when your faith is THAT weak.

and I quote "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." since you want to claim that you are a Christian, I will argue with you from a purely theological standpoint.

As in that this is a parable from God to the beduin tribal society for which this was written? Sure, go ahead.

3.) lies: actually, if you want to say someone is lying about creation, you must have never read Genesis.

False. Your absolutist claim is a lie. I have read Genesis, and I still sday creationists are flat-out lying. The creationist lies about science have been documented so many times that the talk.origin website has generated a specific library of the most common repeat-offending lies that creationists spew. For them to be able to do so, creationists must be spewing predictable lies in a regular fashion, which indeed they do. As I said, you guys are bearing false witness.

or John 1, or any of the rest of the Bible as a matter of fact. you must have a real big problem with Jesus if you want to say that we are lying.

When you spew lies about the science, as I have shown you to do, then that is a problem with you lying, not with the Bible. Please cease your incessant misrepresentations.

hows about you quit calling yourself a Christian and put on your real title: atheist.

Ah, but I am a Christian and not an atheist, so if I did that, I would be lying as much as you do.

 

[steen]

well, protect the theory of evolution with it.

Huh?

and I mean you better include the Cambrian Explosion. for a picture of what it really is here is a timespan: 100 to 200 years, and in that timespan we see the emergence of several thousand different species out of nothing but things similar to your jelly-fish,

What a load of nonsense. The "Cambrian Explosion" occurs over t ime-span of 5-10 MILLION years. Any other lie you would like to spew? Oh, wait, maybe you aren't lying? Maybe you truly are that misinformed and ignorant of what you are talking about?

But let me help you. The resource library of creationist lies I mentioned above, here are a few of their lies and scientific responses regarding the "Cambrian Explosion":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

an example of a fossil from that era would be the archaeopteryx, which was a flightless bird, not a step in the reptile/bird evolution line.

Ah, another creationist "because I say so" postulation. But per your previous history of incessant lies, you will have to document this. What is the foundation for your absolutist and false claim about archaeopteryx? Please assure me that you didn't just mindlessly copy this off some creationist lie-site, but that you actually have a glimmer of understanding of what you are talking about?

let us just say, this scraps your fossil record because you cannot find the many thousands of missing links that we have to fill.

Huh? SO because we don't have every one fossil link imaginable, none of the links we have are valid? Yeah, once again the stark dishonest of the misrepresentations that creationists spew is made clear by you.

but it isn't like you evolutionists will ever believe that matters, I bet that I will get a like answer to this post as I did to my last post: "it doesn't matter"

Nope. It merely mean that paleontologists have much more fun in the field before everything has been found. But it certainly doesn't mean that what is found somehow is invalid as you so dishonestly suggests.

secondly, your argument of recent evolution includes only modern examples of it that only support MICRO-evolution. where are the examples of MACRO-evolution?

Well, if "macro-Evolution" is the formation of new species, then yes it does involve that.

But despite many requests you have still failed to define what these two terms are, and what it i9s that prevents one from becoming the other.

Suffice to say that you either are lying, are a coward, or both.

 

[dthmstr254]

Huh?
What a load of nonsense. The "Cambrian Explosion" occurs over t ime-span of 5-10 MILLION years. Any other lie you would like to spew? Oh, wait, maybe you aren't lying? Maybe you truly are that misinformed and ignorant of what you are talking about?

But let me help you. The resource library of creationist lies I mentioned above, here are a few of their lies and scientific responses regarding the "Cambrian Explosion":
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

if you read the previous posts, I recanted that part. however, compared to the rates that evolution was moving at before, you would have to have changed several constants before that was possible.

Ah, another creationist "because I say so" postulation. But per your previous history of incessant lies, you will have to document this. What is the foundation for your absolutist and false claim about archaeopteryx? Please assure me that you didn't just mindlessly copy this off some creationist lie-site, but that you actually have a glimmer of understanding of what you are talking about?

the Archaeopteryx was proven by evolutionist scientists to be 150 million years of age.
the next step is considered to be more than 300 million years old!!! last I checked, a person or animal is ALWAYS younger than its ancestors. this is at least 150 million years OLDER than its mommy. got any explanations as to your issues?

I used the following sites/books to obtain this information:
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator

Huh? SO because we don't have every one fossil link imaginable, none of the links we have are valid? Yeah, once again the stark dishonest of the misrepresentations that creationists spew is made clear by you.

unless you have some hidden cache in of fossils underneath your house, there ar no more fossils that can be found to fit the holes, in fact, the more fossils we find now, the more holes are made, because none of the newest fossils fit into the gaps.

Well, if "macro-Evolution" is the formation of new species, then yes it does involve that.

But despite many requests you have still failed to define what these two terms are, and what it i9s that prevents one from becoming the other.

Suffice to say that you either are lying, are a coward, or both.

MACRO EVOLUTION IS ANY EVOLUTION OF AN ANIMAL ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html)
Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101)need any more, I have already posted these. I will NOT repost them.

 

[dthmstr254]

a whole lot of bashing crap that called me a lying, thieving, non-Christian imbosil who doesn't know Jesus for who He truly is.

maybe you should learn what true Christianity is. last I checked, Jesus asked us to "love our neighbors" and treat eachother with love. you are definitely not acting Christ-like (the definition of Christian when it was first created). maybe you should reread the Bible, and not the NWT, which screws up its own translations to mean something else. John 1:1-5 in the NWT:
"1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it.
6 There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John."

if you notice, I emboldened each one of the instances where the term God was used. each one of these designated spots are the same in Greek, but are translated different ways in the NWT. this is why it is not an acceptable version of the Bible to use. I have now figured you out. you are most likely from either the Jesus Seminar or of the Jehovah's Witnesses. you believe more in scientology than in the Bible. you do not believe that the Bible is infallible. you do not believe in the book of Genesis. you do not believe in the Jesus I know. and you do not believe in YHWH. this is just a quick summary of your beliefs, gleening the information by comparing your pots to the beliefs of other religions.

 

[Donkey1499]

Re: Why do Athiests and other non-god believing people have a problem with religion/g

I would rather make the most of the here and now than waste my life waiting for something that most likely doesn't exist. I don't buy into the whole "savior" nonsense. I don't want your saving. I would rather go to hell if it existed, since at least the people there are free thinkers and not mindless Godsheep.

Nah, you'd be tortured in Hell. Trust me. Heaven's a lot better.

 

[Donkey1499]

Fist, I'd like to ask you how a toddler can be responsible.

The definition of responsibility:
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British cabinet
- re·spon·si·ble·ness noun
- re·spon·si·bly /-blE/ adverb
synonyms RESPONSIBLE, ANSWERABLE, ACCOUNTABLE, AMENABLE, LIABLE mean subject to being held to account. RESPONSIBLE implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust <the bureau responsible for revenue collection>. ANSWERABLE suggests a relation between one having a moral or legal obligation and a court or other authority charged with oversight of its observance <an intelligence agency answerable to Congress>. ACCOUNTABLE suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation <elected officials are accountable to the voters>. AMENABLE and LIABLE stress the fact of subjection to review, censure, or control by a designated authority under certain conditions <laws are amenable to judicial review> <not liable for the debts of the former spouse>.

In short, we can coclude, responsibility encompasses the fact of knowing the difference between right and wrong - in this example at least. Well, explain, how can a very young child know the difference between right and wrong? Why is there any education required?

You were wrong to say that the toddler is still responsible, although he did not know what he was doing. The definition says that one who knows what he's doing is responsible, otherwise not.

Also, what about the baby who was smacked at the floor. Did he have a free will or was he able to make a decision to prevent it? Did he make any sin? Please, explain.

...

Well, what do we have here?



If your "God" knows every possible outcome, then he must be responsible for each action that occurs - and not remotely, but completely. Assuming this, "God" knows what will happen in advance, if he sets a trigger or defines an action that will cause reactions - the outcome.

This is a contradiction you have made. Which one is true now, according to you?

A) God is all knowing and powerfull (evil)
B) God is not all knowing and not all powerfull (not completely responsible)

Ok, so if the toddler throws a baseball, he's not responsible for the baseball being thrown? Then who the Hell threw it? See, you're full of crap.

And about God being responsible for EVERYTHING just because He knows everything. Your statement is false. It's like saying you witnessed the toddler throw the baseball ,but he's not responsible, you are cuz you WATCHED him throw it. See how retarded you sound? God Witnesses all possible outcomes and KNOWS what's going to happen. It doesn't mean he is responsible for it happening. That would be like someone saying that a fortune teller is responsible for your actions because he/she knows your future.

 

[Donkey1499]

And they found the guy who forged it.

Alright. Prove me wrong then. Show me a link to a "credible" and "unbiased" website that proves it was forged.