Where is the logic in all this? It may be that I cannot comprehend how big this plot is but from what we've ascertained Bush intends to destroy the world so that Jesus will return and bring about Revelations. Logically he knows he can't force Jesus to return but he's going to destroy the world anyway trying to do so. The people who voted for him in 2000 and 2004 are Christians and want Jesus to return, want Bush to force Jesus' return. The people Bush appointed to positions of power are Christians and are in on Bush's plan, they made sure Bush won no matter what the votes were. September 11 was allowed to happen or set up by Bush so he can set this grand plan into motion, first by attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, with the retalliation for his actions throwing the world into further chaos. To add to the drama Bush continues to support Israel rather than help Palestine wipe them out, something he knows will cause further strife. And even though everything is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush is looking at other targets such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. And all of this isn't because Bush is after the oil that Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich in but to do the logically impossible and force Jesus to return and 'save' the human race through what the fairy tale known as the Bible has fortold in Revelations. Does that about sum it up? Am I missing any pieces of the puzzle? So where does logic come into this? Logically Bush cannot force Jesus to return, logically Christianity is meant to be a myth in the first place isn't it? Logically a devestated world is no use to anyone. Logically positive relations with America and the rest of the world look about as positive as communism did. Logically the military would be exhausted to really no avail. Logically Bush could be attempting to cull the weak who would be killed during his actions, but to what logical purpose?

Where is the logic in all this? It may be that I cannot comprehend how big this plot is but from what we've ascertained Bush intends to destroy the world so that Jesus will return and bring about Revelations. Nope. Pretty please recognize that this is a movement for which Bush is a figurehead.

Logically he knows he can't force Jesus to return but he's going to destroy the world anyway trying to do so. The people who voted for him in 2000 and 2004 are Christians and want Jesus to return, want Bush to force Jesus' return. No logic to it. I don't know (and neither do you) that Bush (or his supporters) "know" that they can't force (or to my point, influence) events.

The people Bush appointed to positions of power are Christians and are in on Bush's plan Close. I don't know if I'd call it "Bush's plan". Many of the key players have been around for a long time (wolfowitz, cheney, rumsfeld). Many people see the current administration as the product of the last few years but these guys have been in control since the 70's minus the 8 years Clinton was president.

they made sure Bush won no matter what the votes were. It's slightly more complicated than that, but essentially yes. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research.

September 11 was allowed to happen or set up by Bush so he can set this grand plan into motion, first by attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, with the retalliation for his actions throwing the world into further chaos. That's one of the theories. Look up "Project for a New American Century". Take note of who signed the statement of principles (especially those that are in key administrative roles). Finally, read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (published September 2000). Then tell me what you think.

To add to the drama Bush continues to support Israel rather than help Palestine wipe them out, something he knows will cause further strife. Not quite. One of the more popular signs of the 2nd coming is that Israel will be returned to the Israelis. Bush doesn't support the Palestinians, rather he supported a two-state solution before general elections put Hamas in power. Now all bets are off.

And even though everything is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush is looking at other targets such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Nope. Saudi Arabia is an ally (SA alliance with the U.S. is why UBL hates us). Prophecy says "war" and Bush thinks god is on his side. So what if everyone else can see that we're spread too thin. How do you think the Roman Empire was toppled?

And all of this isn't because Bush is after the oil that Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich in....We already have a partnership with Saudi Arabia. Arguably, keeping Saddam (a dictator that we put into power to keep Iran in check) around would have kept oil prices stable. Maybe Bush wanted the oil to keep China from getting it, but China is looking to South America for oil, so....*shrugs*

I'm sure there's a case for it being "all about the oil", but there also seems to be a case for "the oil was just fine". Aside from the fact that world oil production peaked in 2005 but I'm not sure what invading the middle east would have done to change that. Make Haliburton rich maybe?

but to do the logically impossible and force Jesus to return and 'save' the human race through what the fairy tale known as the Bible has fortold in Revelations. Not a matter of logic. We left that arena the moment religion got involved.

"but to help foster the conditions set forth by prophecy and to help set the stage for Jesus to return and 'save' the human race through what the fairy tale known as the Bible has foretold in Revelations." might be closer to what is argued to be the case.

Be careful not to set up a false dichotomy here. Arguing the the U.S. gov't was after the oil does not automatically exclude the possibility that they were after religious conquest as well. There are other possible answers too, so don't tie yourself down to an either/or argument.

Does that about sum it up? Am I missing any pieces of the puzzle? So where does logic come into this? Where did I lose you?

Logically Bush cannot force Jesus to return, Logic has nothing to do with it. We're in the realm of faith now.

logically Christianity is meant to be a myth in the first place isn't it? Yep, but as I've stated dozens of times, it's not about what I/we believe, it's about what they believe. This point is essential to your understanding of the problem. I cannot stress this enough.

Logically a devestated world is no use to anyone.After the rapture, christ will sustain the earth. Sure walking the tightrope might seem risky, but not so much if you think there's a safety net the size of rhode island beneath you. Doesn't matter whether or not it's real, only that you believe it's there.

Logically positive relations with America and the rest of the world look about as positive as communism did. Not sure I take your meaning. The opinions of others means jack-squat when you believe that truth is on your side.

Logically the military would be exhausted to really no avail. And if you believe that god is on your side? He's the one that told you to go, after all.

Logically Bush could be attempting to cull the weak who would be killed during his actions, but to what logical purpose? Not sure. That's your theory, not mine. You'd have to tell me.

I'm having a look at these sources, but I'm wondering, are you hedging your bets with religion? The Bible's meant to be fiction isn't it? Bush can't bring back a fictional character, but he's trying, so maybe religion is real. Either way if he is trying to throw the world into chaos and force Jesus to return he's doing a very half hearted job about it. A few nukes should do the trick. Leave the devestation of Iraq rather than trying to bebuild and strike somewhere else.

I'm having a look at these sources, but I'm wondering, are you hedging your bets with religion? I'm not sure what this means. Could you expand on this please?

The Bible's meant to be fiction isn't it? Bush can't bring back a fictional character, but he's trying, so maybe religion is real. Or maybe the rapture right is dealing in something other than reason. Guess which one of those scenarios we have more evidence for.

Either way if he is trying to throw the world into chaos and force Jesus to return he's doing a very half hearted job about it. A few nukes should do the trick. Leave the devestation of Iraq rather than trying to bebuild and strike somewhere else. If the Bush administration were to begin launching nuclear weapons unprovoked, it would not take long at all to for other countries to say enough is enough and stage an intervention. I said these people are irrational...not stupid.

That's the bigger problem. The smaller problem is who would he nuke?

How about the traitors such as France and Germany, who refused to have anything to do with Iraq?

Seriously if chaos, ergo forcing Jesus to return is his plan why the need to be subtle?

As I said you believe the Bible is fiction, but Bush is trying to force Jesus to return even though according to the Bible he can't, so maybe you're thinking that it might be true. Maybe Bush can force this fictional Jesus to return and bring about Revelations.

How about the traitors such as France and Germany, who refused to have anything to do with Iraq? That's a good idea. Why don't you write to him and ask why he hasn't started nuking people yet? In the mean time, I'll stay here and try to figure out what this line of thinking has to do with what we were discussing. :)

Seriously if chaos, ergo forcing Jesus to return is his plan why the need to be subtle? The Bush administration has been anything but subtle. I think you're trying to take my arguments to an extreme that I have not suggested. While you are more than welcome to do so, it won't help to move the dialog forward.

As I said you believe the Bible is fiction, but Bush is trying to force Jesus to return even though according to the Bible he can't, so maybe you're thinking that it might be true. Maybe Bush can force this fictional Jesus to return and bring about Revelations.Really, Nancy, my thinking on this should be crystal clear to you by now. It's not about what I believe, it's about what the rapture right believes. What part of that am I failing to explain adequately?

Thanks.

Ya know, Atheism is a faith too. you can't say any religion is right or wrong, cause there just isn't enough evidence either way. personally, i'm a Christian, cause it makes sense to me and it's what i choose to believe. what you believe won't change reality. the universe is the way it is. And what is this about Bush destroying the world to effect Christs return? I mean, that's kinda up to God last I checked.
ps: thanks Achilles, appreciate the welcome. figured i'd stop by this thread and stalk you till you convert!!! joking....i hope......but seriously, i mean if you wanna.....:) God, er, i mean....primordial ooze:laughing:.....bless you kind sir....have a good day

Ya know, Atheism is a faith too. It is not. Faith is belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence. Faith makes positive statement regarding belief. Theism makes the claim that a god or gods exists without any evidence.

Atheism is belief-neutral. In order for atheism to be considered faith, it would have to make some positive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of god. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a god and one cannot prove non-existence of anything, atheism cannot possibly be based on faith.

In summary: sorry, sir. You're wrong :D

you can't say it's right or wrong, cause there just isn't enough evidence either way. There is no evidence at all and that's the whole point of being atheistic. Theists presume to know something without any evidence. Atheists recognize that there is no evidence and therefore remain neutral.

personally, i'm a Christian, cause it makes sense to me and it's what i choose to believe. what you believe won't change reality.
Actually, sir, what you believe won't change reality. :)

the universe is the way it is. Indeed. ;)

And what is this about Bush destroying the world to effect Christs return? I mean, that's kinda up to God last I checked You'll have to ask Nancy Allen about that one as it is her caricature of my argument. As such, she's the only one that will be able to explain it.

EDIT: Whoops! There's more now :D

ps: thanks Achilles, appreciate the welcome. figured i'd stop by this thread and stalk you till you convert!!! Good luck with that! You have quite a bit of work ahead of you. :D

joking....i hope......but seriously, i mean if you wanna.....:) I'll believe just as soon as there's some evidence. If you can provide some, I'll be happy to make the switch.

God, er, i mean....primordial ooze.....bless you kind sir....have a good day You do the same.

Take care.

It is not. Faith is belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence. Faith makes positive statement regarding belief. Theism makes the claim that a god or gods exists without any evidence.

it contradicts itself. a lot. to use a slightly overused argument, just for fun, where did matter origionate? hmm? that's what i thought...:)

There is no evidence at all and that's the whole point of being atheistic. Theists presume to know something without any evidence. Atheists recognize that there is no evidence and therefore remain neutral.

ugh, i don't get it. could you explain the neutrality thing? i'm not sure i understand. and are you a Theist, or an Atheist?

Actually, sir, what you believe won't change reality.

that's true

Good luck with that! You have quite a bit of work ahead of you.

oh, don't worry, i'm diligint:nut:

I'll believe just as soon as there's some evidence. If you can provide some, I'll be happy to make the switch.

Oh i will....you just wait

sir.....;)

It is not. Faith is belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence. Faith makes positive statement regarding belief. Theism makes the claim that a god or gods exists without any evidence.

Atheism is belief-neutral. In order for atheism to be considered faith, it would have to make some positive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of god. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a god and one cannot prove non-existence of anything, atheism cannot possibly be based on faith.

In summary: sorry, sir. You're wrong :D

:lol: - i like that last bit, a straight to the point conclusion! I agree with this statement, like you said Atheism cannot be a 'belief' of 'faith' (i ain't gonna lie - i'm one of them) as Atheists strive to prove the non-existance of a god or gods (depending on faith); in contrast a person of faith believes in their heart unflinchingly that God exists. I believe what people believe in is their own accord, i respect believer's just as non-believers because at the end of the day it's that person's choice in life and no-one can tell them otherwise.

who founded Atheism?


I believe what people believe in is their own accord, i respect believer's just as non-believers because at the end of the day it's that person's choice in life and no-one can tell them otherwise.

ok, i agree with that

it contradicts itself. a lot. Religion? Yes, I know ;)

to use a slightly overused argument, just for fun, where did matter origionate? hmm? that's what i thought...:) The Big Bang, of course :)

Ok, that's the "how" not necessarily the "where". I'll be serious now.

The answer is that I (we) don't know (although science has many hypothesis and theories that are based on evidence). The truth is that you don't know either (no one does), but your religion claims to have an answer that cannot be proven.

The difference between religion and science is that science accepts that and then tries to find out, whereas religion just makes something up and declares it "truth" despite an utter lack of evidence.

ugh, i don't get it. could you explain the neutrality thing? i'm not sure i understand. and are you a Theist, or an Atheist?Atheist (although I have to tell you, the term is ridiculous).

Picture a number line that goes from -100 to 100. Theism (positive or negative) is anything other than 0. Anti-theism is anything less than 0. Positive theism is anything greater than 0. Atheism is 0.

In order to deny a god or gods, you have to first believe in one, which is why I reject the definition of atheism that suggests that it's "a denial of god". To accept or deny a god is to make a positive statement (one way or another) regarding that god's existence. True atheism (imho) does not make a positive statement in either direction, seeking to remain neutral.

Any atheist that says that he or she wouldn't accept god or gods if evidence was presented has beliefs just as dogmatic as the religion(s) they claim to oppose.

Is that easier to digest? Let me know if I can clarify anything further.

Oh i will....you just wait I look forward to seeing what you bring to the table :)

who founded Atheism? Atheism is a natural state, therefore it has no founder. Everything in the universe is atheistic until it is indoctrinated into a religious tradition.

Think about it for a second:

a = without
theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Little babies are without belief in the existence of a god or gods. Same thing goes for trees, rocks, stop signs, planets, stars, nebulae, etc. Everything is atheistic until it has been indoctrinated (I prefer the term brainwashed, but that gets me banned :D), into a religion.

You, yourself are extremely atheistic and probably don't even realize it. You probably don't believe in Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon, Hades, Osiris, Ra, Isis, Amun, Ptah, Amaterasu, Owadatsumi, Susanowo, Brahma, Vaishnava, Allah, Yahweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot, or any of the hundreds of other deities that I have not listed here. You are completely atheistic to all the gods that "exist" now or have ever "existed"...except one. Atheists just extend their disbelief one god further than you. :)

I hope that gives you something to chew on. :D

Take care.

huh. that actually makes sense. the part where atheists reject ALL gods, whereas theist accept one, but reject all others. by the way, what kind of atheist are you? darwinian(there's that image of a monkey in my mind a gain:)), or something else? and do you believe in evolution?

huh. that actually makes sense. the part where atheists reject ALL gods, whereas theist accept one, but reject all others. Yeah, I kinda think so too ;)

by the way, what kind of atheist are you? To be honest, I'm not sure how one would go about categorizing atheists. How do we categorize people that don't believe that Elvis is still alive?

darwinian(there's that image of a monkey in my mind a gain:)), or something else? and do you believe in evolution?Yes, I accept that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the theory (NOT HYPOTHESIS!) of evolution. I accept that conclusion until a better explanation which fits the evidence is presented. My offer to answer any questions/challenges/reservations that you have about ToE over in the evolution thread still stands :)

the THEORY of evolution was founded by charles darwin when he studied finchis on the galapogos (or however it's spelled) islands. what he witnessed was survival of the fittest, which i accept as true, cause logically the most fit will survive to reproduce. no one has witnessed the evolution of a new species. besides, do you REALLY believe the 300000000000000 years ago, you're great^999 grandparent was an ameoba?? i mean, i feel much better knowing that there was an intelligent designer creating all this. wouldn't you?

the THEORY of evolution [...]Yes, the scientific theory of evolution. Like the scientific theories of atoms and gravity. All proven.

no one has witnessed the evolution of a new species.Actually, believe it or not... they have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Observed_instances). Pretty amazing, isn't it?

Here are some more (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

besides, do you REALLY believe the 300000000000000 years ago, you're great^999 grandparent was an ameoba?? i mean, i feel much better knowing that there was an intelligent designer creating all this. wouldn't you?Doesn't really matter, when it comes down to truths, right? I don't want the Holocaust to have been real either... it still is.

the THEORY of evolution was founded by charles darwin when he studied finchis on the galapogos (or however it's spelled) islands. what he witnessed was survival of the fittest, which i accept as true, cause logically the most fit will survive to reproduce. You're using the word theory out of context. It has a very definitive meaning when used in a scientific context. Wikipedia to the rescue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

no one has witnessed the evolution of a new species. Wrong. We discover new species all the time. Some go extinct. Others appear from nowhere. We do observe evolution on the micro scale all the time and there is substantial evidence that shows that it happens on the macro scale as well.

Predictions are just as powerful as observations within the scientific method. If I hypothesize that whales evolved from land mammals, I don't have to have seen it happen with my own eyes to test my hypothesis.

If I look at the modern whale I can find hip and pelvic remnants. From this I can hypothesize that whales evolved from land mammals. From this I can assume that if I look a little bit into the past (a few million years) I can find fossils that are very whale like but have hind legs or flippers (like Basilosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus)). I can hypothesize that if I go back even further (a few more million years), I can find similar fossils of mammals that were equipped for both life on land and life in water (such as Ambulocetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus)). Finally, I can hypothesize that if I go back even further (more millions of years), I can find fossils of fully land-based mammals that share characteristics with the other fossil finds (like Pakicetids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetid)).

So even though there's no possible way that I could have ever witnessed such a transformation with my own eyes, I can certainly find an awful lot of evidence that support my hypothesis. Since I can create similar "family trees" for almost any animal that we know about and make similar predictions, we graduate our hypothesis into theory. Until we can figure out a way to go back in time and witness every single genetic mutation that's ever occurred, we cannot bestow the highest honor possible, which is the status of law. I guess we'll just have to be ok with being 99.99999% certain :D

Compare that to a few hundred conflicting stories about invisible skydaddies that made everything out of dirt, dust, ash, or clay in a single day and tell me which one of those options seems to make the most sense. :)

besides, do you REALLY believe the 300000000000000 years ago, you're great^999 grandparent was an ameoba?? Sure. You have to have single-cell life before you can have multi-cellular life (aka "you have to walk before you can run").

i mean, i feel much better knowing that there was an intelligent designer creating all this. wouldn't you? I'd feel better knowing that I was a billionaire, but that isn't going to make it true. ;)

No, I would much rather have the truth than a fable. There's no certainty in fables.

Thanks for reading.

PS: Really though, if we delve into evolution any further, we should take it to the appropriate thread.

alright, alright. i'll go over there

Achilles, I'm going to pick you out here, because of a post I saw you make on the Athiest thread; but I'm only singling you out because you happened to mention it, not because you are alone in this particular train of thought.

You said that religion is harming our lives, but in this I believe you are wrong. I think that religion is how our society was created, its the basis for what we call society. We live by the Ten Commandments, or at least some of them, and to say that that's not right would be wrong.

The Ten Commandments state among other things:
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not murder

Aren't those the ground rules for civilization as we know it? Those are considered to be the worst offenses a man can commit, if you group torture and those sort of things with murder.

And you can even say that adultery is considered a capital offense in the eye of the public, which is what matters most. We all remember Bill Clinton for cheating on Hilary or whatever that situation was (I was too young). As a President I'm sure he was a great one, but the adultery always lingers in my thoughts--and I'd like to think I'm not alone in this--when I think of him.

You may say that George Bush is a bad President because he doesn't consider Athiests people. I've yet to see a President that was an Athiest. I'm not saying that Athiests would be bad Presidents, I'm merely saying that America is without a doubt the greatest country in the world. And when you think of a country as great, you must look to its leaders. So, if America is great, its leaders must have been great. I'm not saying they were great because they believed in God, I'm saying that this country is great because it was built on the beliefs of God.

I've never read the Bible in its entireity, as its way too long, and just didn't quite hook me (reading about God creating the World, while cool, just isn't attention-grabbing). So, maybe I'm wrong in this statment, but I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, nor do I think that Christianity contradicts itself. I'm not sure about this, as I'm not an expert, this is merely what I believe in.

I think that religion is how our society was created, its the basis for what we call society. We live by the Ten Commandments,

Which, I might point out, are borrowed versions of already existing moralities. :) You don't think "don't kill your neighbor and he won't kill you" didn't exist before the Bible was written (or if you want to run with it, before Moses was supposedly around), do you? "I leave you alone and you leave me alone" is a concept that's been around for about as long as there were humans with the capacity to understand it, and it's hardly a concept that can be made any better or worse than believing in a deity.

As a President I'm sure he was a great one, but the adultery always lingers in my thoughts--and I'd like to think I'm not alone in this--when I think of him.

Clinton wasn't the first politician to be a skirt-chaser and he won't be the last. IMO, though, it's completely irrelevant for someone's qualities as a politician. As long as they can do a good enough job in office, their sex lives are irrelevant. Who they have sex with is their business, and as long as it doesn't interfere with their abilities to be President/something else it should remain theirs.

You may say that George Bush is a bad President because he doesn't consider Athiests people.

I can think of a whole lot more reasons to consider Bush one of the worst Presidents in our history apart from that, but I'm getting off-topic...

I've yet to see a President that was an Athiest.

How does this relate to their ability to consider people with diverging religious views people?

I'm not saying that Athiests would be bad Presidents, I'm merely saying that America is without a doubt the greatest country in the world.

I would disagree. :) A country is really nothing but the people and the possessions they own in it, and frankly it's extremely arrogant to consider ourselves better than everyone else. No human being is born superior to another, and where they live is not going to change that.

I've never read the Bible in its entireity, as its way too long,

You've missed out on some stuff. An explanation below the next quote follows:

So, maybe I'm wrong in this statment, but I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, nor do I think that Christianity contradicts itself. I'm not sure about this, as I'm not an expert, this is merely what I believe in.

I think whether the Bible contradicts itself or not is secondary to some of the absolutely monstrous things it claims:

'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.'

'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.'

'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

'If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married...'

'...And he seizes her and rapes her...'

'...but is caught in the act...'

'...the rapist must pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels.'

'She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.'

'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father...'

'...or his mother...'

'...even when they punish him...'

'...his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.'

'They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard."'

'All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'

More quotes... (Kudos to Achilles for the link in his sig)

Cruelty and violence in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)

Intolerance (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html)

Which, I might point out, are borrowed versions of already existing moralities. :) You don't think "don't kill your neighbor and he won't kill you" didn't exist before the Bible was written (or if you want to run with it, before Moses was supposedly around), do you? "I leave you alone and you leave me alone" is a concept that's been around for about as long as there were humans with the capacity to understand it, and it's hardly a concept that can be made any better or worse than believing in a deity.


Well, of course its borrowed, every religion borrows something from a different religion. But would you not say that the Founding Fathers were Christians, and one might say that they were inspired in part because of the Bible?


Clinton wasn't the first politician to be a skirt-chaser and he won't be the last. IMO, though, it's completely irrelevant for someone's qualities as a politician. As long as they can do a good enough job in office, their sex lives are irrelevant. Who they have sex with is their business, and as long as it doesn't interfere with their abilities to be President/something else it should remain theirs.


As long as it doesn't interfere with their abilities, then it should be irrelevent. But with the media being the huge God (no pun intended) it is nowadays, it is going to interfere. It may be unfortunate, but its the truth. America, on the whole, cares about celebreties, and the President is a celebrity. So, the President is chewed out more so than anybody, as he is the leader. So, if a President is caught in a sex scandal, then the world is gonna know about it, and going to care about it. This would distract the President from his duties. Hence, it interferes.


I can think of a whole lot more reasons to consider Bush one of the worst Presidents in our history apart from that, but I'm getting off-topic...


Just using that as an example.



I would disagree. :) A country is really nothing but the people and the possessions they own in it, and frankly it's extremely arrogant to consider ourselves better than everyone else. No human being is born superior to another, and where they live is not going to change that.


To say that would be naive. A country is its military and political prowess. To say it simpler, a country is its image. And America projects the image of unity, freedom, strength, but most importantly: power. We are the Empire, just a more forgiving Empire. We've got the Death Star: our image. People are scared by us, we intimidate other countries. We have been truly attacked twice on our soil in the past 100 years or so. Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Countries are afraid to attack us.



I think whether the Bible contradicts itself or not is secondary to some of the absolutely monstrous things it claims:

It was a different time back then. Monstrous now, normal then. At least, that's what I think. No one knows what actually went on back.

The Ten Commandments state among other things:
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not murder

Aren't those the ground rules for civilization as we know it?Yes, but they certainly do not originally come from the Bible. Altruism is a base instinct in most, if not all mammals, as far as I know. It's been with us since before we evolved into homo sapiens, hundreds of thousands of years ago.

And we actually live quite differently than the 10 commandments want us to. There's no law against coveting thine neighbour's goods, in fact, the capitalist system of the West seems to revolve around getting your hands on as much as or more than what your buddies and family members have. Whatever happened to Thou shalt not covet thine neighbor's ox, or wife, or PlayStation?

I'm not saying they were great because they believed in God, I'm saying that this country is great because it was built on the beliefs of God.The statement that the USA was originally a Christian nation is history revisionism from religious fundamentalists. Several of the founding fathers of the US were atheists, and according to sources such as the Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#Article_11), the US was not started as a Christian State.

Oh, and regarding the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity):
What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.Many of these originate litterally centuries before the birth of Christ.

I'd just like to point out that the supposed Golden Rule in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain/somewhere in Mark is not Jesus teaching: ""Do unto others as you would have done unto you" - this is the law and the prophets". Jesus is setting a standard higher than the old - that you must treat others better than you would wish to be treated yourself. That's the point of the Beatitudes/Six Antitheses, and the parables of Matthew 25 (Where the Beatitudes are outlooks, Matthew 25 is the practical applications, IIRC).

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the Bible quotes ED quoted have, as far as I understand it, been superceded by New Testement, Jesus dying for our sins, ect. I'd also like to point out that such trains of thought are absolute BS by any standered. Then again, daring God's athority by declaring that even he couldn't sink the Titanic probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the Bible quotes ED quoted have, as far as I understand it, been superceded by New Testement, Jesus dying for our sins, ect.
God needs to look into this great thing called Concept Mapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_mapping) before he starts writing things down.

To say that would be naive. A country is its military and political prowess. To say it simpler, a country is its image. And America projects the image of unity, freedom, strength, but most importantly: power.

It scares me whenever countries adopt the idea that they infallible, all-powerful bastions of freedom and might. It's attitudes like that which led to the WWs and Iraq.

It was a different time back then. Monstrous now, normal then.

Erm, why is it you've been advocating how important it is for people to follow the word of a book you've labeled as "monstrous"?

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the Bible quotes ED quoted have, as far as I understand it, been superceded by New Testement, Jesus dying for our sins, ect.

Might I ask why God never stated the Old Testament is now non-canon?

No problem, I've got some New Testament quotes to provide as well.

'Whoever divorces someone...'

'...and marries another...'

'...commits adultery.' (Punishable by death, I might add)

'Whoever marries a divorced woman...'

'...commits adultery.'

'You have heard how it was said "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."'

But I say to you: offer no resistance to the evildoer.'

'If someone strikes you on the right cheek...'

'...offer him the other as well.'

'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.'

'I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'

'I have come to bring fire to the earth.'

'And how I wish it were blazing already!'

'You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery."'

'I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully...'

'...has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'

I think it's less a case of the Old Testement being non canon and more a case of it explaining how things were. Like a history book, saying this was crime and punishment in those times.

Christians are not evil people. If you can believe that, then it's a start.

I think it's less a case of the Old Testement being non canon and more a case of it explaining how things were. Like a history book, saying this was crime and punishment in those times.

Christians are not evil people. If you can believe that, then it's a start.


I can say that the old testiment has some groundings in how we live our lives though. The Ten Commandments was a cornerstone in early law.


Getting back to topic, I'm going to say you need to have just as much faith to believe no god exists as someone that believes in god.


Also Devon you need to study your history.

World War I was started due to a guy being assassinated and his country demanded retribution and went to invade another country. This caused countries allied to both countries to get involved starting the first world war.

World War II was started by Japanese expansion in the Pacific in conjunction with Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union expanding their empires. Though Germany later backstabbed the Soviet Union. The Japanese then turned around and made a grievous error in judgement when they attacked Pearl Harbor which dragged the US into the war officially.

1st Persian Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait from Iraq which had invaded.

2nd Gulf War was partially due to bad intelligence combined with (not sure if US intelligence learned of this before we invaded) the fact that France was taking bribes from Saddam to vote against any resolution that would authorize force to ensure Saddam wasn't making WMDs. Further one could argue that Saddam smuggled a bunch of stuff to Syria while we were trying to get the UN on board.

Gulf War was partially due to bad intelligence [...]Nonsense. It was started with lies and deliberate misleading. I think the Downing Street Memos and the other debates over at the Senate, in particular elaborate posts such as this one (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=1434831) more than prove as much.

Further one could argue that Saddam smuggled a bunch of stuff to Syria while we were trying to get the UN on board.Yup. One could also argue that the government of Iceland is secretly building a Borg Cube underneath its capital of Reykjavik. Without evidence, though, the statement is worthless diplomatically and politically.

Getting back to topic, I'm going to say you need to have just as much faith to believe no god exists as someone that believes in god.Seeing that science is covering more and more of the roles of religion, I'm inclined to disagree.

And America projects the image of unity, freedom, strength, but most importantly: power.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but where I live the image is more like: power, greed and arogance.

We are the Empire, just a more forgiving Empire.

Yes, because the U.S have "never" staged coups in countries that it didn't like...............

[/QUOTE]People are scared of us [/QUOTE]

And this makes the U.S great?

we intimidate other countries.

Some countries, others like Iran, don't apear to care much

We have been truly attacked twice on our soil in the past 100 years or so

If terrorist attacks counts as attacks, the U.S is far from the country who have suffered most attacks

Anyway, this is geting off topic, If you want you can make another thread.

Countries are afraid to attack us.Hey, or maybe they just don't want to attack other countries? I mean, why don't you go over to you neighbour and beat the crap out of him and take over his house with pool? Because you're scared or because you don't feel like doing so?

No, it's just impractical. JK707's attitude is one reason a lot of people quite like the idea :)

Nonsense. It was started with lies and deliberate misleading. I think the Downing Street Memos and the other debates over at the Senate, in particular elaborate posts such as this one (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=1434831) more than prove as much.

Not likely, seriously if Bush deliberately did something like that he would have been impeached by now.


Yup. One could also argue that the government of Iceland is secretly building a Borg Cube underneath its capital of Reykjavik. Without evidence, though, the statement is worthless diplomatically and politically.


There is a significant difference because we know that Saddam had WMDs, what's bothering me is where did several tons of Chemical Weapons, anthrax, and other biological agents went. If you don't believe he ever had any WMDs ask the Kurds.


Seeing that science is covering more and more of the roles of religion, I'm inclined to disagree.

Many scientists are actually just out to try to prove god doesn't exist. There is a bunch of things that could be used to prove the existance of god as well.

Many scientists are actually just out to try to prove god doesn't exist. There is a bunch of things that could be used to prove the existance of god as well.I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't actually know many scientists, because any scientist who is out to "prove god doesn't exist" isn't a very good scientist.

I say this for several reasons, the main one being that is 100% impossible to do so, and anyone with a solid background in the sciences will know this. They'll also be aware that it's impossible to prove that god does exist.

By very definition any god exists completely outside the realm of science, there exists no test that can prove or disprove anything related to the supernatural.

What scientists are trying to do is learn new things about how the universe works by developing new hypothesis and tests that can provide useful information and allow them to make sound predictions.

I think it's less a case of the Old Testement being non canon and more a case of it explaining how things were.

Would it not be prudent to include, "hey Bible-readers, just so you know, the first half of this book is to explain what things were like back then"? With how the Bible is, as it and many other people claim, the literal word of God, it ought to be extremely clear on what parts of it should taken seriously. It's been nothing but the contrary.

That's one of the problems with holy texts. Since they're holy and unquestionable, you'll have people who still follow laws meant for civilizations that existed thousands of years ago while there's now way to rewrite them like with today's laws.

Like a history book, saying this was crime and punishment in those times.

Which a fair number of people today are still saying is the unquestionable word of God. If it was a history book someone in the Bible should've said so, rather than declaring anyone who did not follow it a godless heretic who'd burn in hell.

Christians are not evil people. If you can believe that, then it's a start.

I do not believe them to be inherently immoral people. I do, however, believe that your capacity to be a moral person is less inhibited if you do not follow any religions.

Also Devon you need to study your history.

World War I was started due to a guy being assassinated and his country demanded retribution and went to invade another country. This caused countries allied to both countries to get involved starting the first world war.

I would say the same to you. Franz Ferdinand's assassination just an excuse for an extremely nationalist group of nations to fight a war they'd been eager to have for years with each other, thanks in part to the attitude I criticized Jedi_Knight_707 for (belief in being the best country on earth, being strong and powerful, the sole voice of reason in the world, etc). That one heir to one country being shot is too minor a thing to spark a continent-wide war over, there had to have been and there were background reasons.

World War II was started by Japanese expansion in the Pacific in conjunction with Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union expanding their empires.

You should look in to the reason why they were expanding their empires. A great deal of that was due to, again, the arrogant attitude I described above.

Not likely, seriously if Bush deliberately did something like that he would have been impeached by now.

Would it? The decision to invade Iraq was a profitable one for the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. With how much influence the people connected to those unfortunately possess in our government and how closely tied the Bush family is to those people, good luck the impeachment.

The invasion stank worse than sauerkraut soaked in oil on a hot day. A group closely tied to his family and his father in particular (the CIA) approaches Bush, saying that there are WMDs in the very country his father coincidentally invaded a presidency earlier but never finished the job with. Never mind the complete lack of any evidence there were WMDs or how the CIA was basing their position on assumptions rather than proof, or that the invasion would be beneficial to the industries that had gotten the Bush family to where it was... (Though this is getting very off-topic, perhaps it would be better in another thread)

I say this for several reasons, the main one being that is 100% impossible to do so
Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ET :xp:

Would it not be prudent to include, "hey Bible-readers, just so you know, the first half of this book is to explain what things were like back then"? With how the Bible is, as it and many other people claim, the literal word of God, it ought to be extremely clear on what parts of it should taken seriously. It's been nothing but the contrary.
Re-read the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me that it's fairly clear. If that doesn't help, IIRC, 'Acts' contains some stuff on the Council of Jerusalem, which is explicit on what of the OT applies post-NT. If not, I'm sure Paul will have something to say on the subject. He usually does.

I think one of the mistakes being made here is treating the Bible as a single, cohesive work. Plainly it isn't. It was written over millennia, and rather than being a single work, or picture or pattern, I would say that certainly the Old Testament is rather a written account of the ongoing divine revelation to our antecedants.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ETIt is actually 100% impossible to prove a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative). In other words, no one can prove for sure that a given thing doesn't exist.

Not likely, seriously if Bush deliberately did something like that he would have been impeached by now.That's like looking at a rapist who went free and going 'nah, if he was really guilty, he'd have been in jail by now'.

There is a significant difference because we know that Saddam had WMDs, what's bothering me is where did several tons of Chemical Weapons, anthrax, and other biological agents went.And if you had bothered to read the post I linked to, it'd have answered your question.

So you mean to tell me it never existed, don't give me that garbage because he used chemical weapons against the Kurds, it was one of the charges brought against Saddam in his trial.

You can't tell me he disposed of everything because he kept moving things around on the UN weapon inspectors, if he did destroy the stuff he wouldn't have anything to hide.


Back to original topic, there are several things that seem to indicate that there was divine intervention. The very fact life exists, because it is extremely difficult for amino acids to form because there are a lot of chemicals that more readily react to the components of amino acids than the building blocks react with each other.

I do not believe them to be inherently immoral people. I do, however, believe that your capacity to be a moral person is less inhibited if you do not follow any religions.

You're forgetting one very important facet here. There's a general rule that if one's religion interfere's with their humanity, then there's something wrong with their religion. Example? Condemning homosexuals. Not quite, it's the condemnation of homosexual activity. Witches, not just condemning Harry Potter but wanting to burn those who declare themselves witches at the stake. It says that we are meant to follow the law, and murdering someone who is supposed to be a witch is against the law. This is the stumbling block abortion clinic bombers, plane hijackers, ect, stumble over.

Garfield, instead of putting words in my mouth, I suggest you actually read the post I linked to. And the Downing Street Memos.

Re-read the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me that it's fairly clear.
Not to me. And after half an encyclopedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount#Structure_of_the_sermon) later, it's even less so.

The very fact life exists, because it is extremely difficult for amino acids to form because there are a lot of chemicals that more readily react to the components of amino acids than the building blocks react with each other.Just because it was extremely unlikely does not prove anything one way or the other. That is the point. A god or gods are just impossible to prove or disprove, no matter what methodology you take.

So why do people try and disprove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is no God?

It is actually 100% impossible to prove a negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative). In other words, no one can prove for sure that a given thing doesn't exist.Can you quote the portion in that link that supports that claim, DE? I'm not finding it.

So why do people try and disprove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is no God?
That is a valid point I think. If there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of something, then why bother being on either side of the spectrum?

I'll ask you a similar question:

Why do people try and prove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is a God?

I think you would be amazed at how much hounding there is of the religious and the non-religious by other religious people who believe themselves to be infallible. Atheists and the religious have a lot in common, particularly the fact both like to state that their belief system is right and yours is wrong by trying to show evidence to their opinion. Another reason why I personally believe right and wrong to be a relative point of view.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ET.
I guess that makes the majority of humanity a Sith in my opinion. Lovely Star Wars quote, but it comes off as really silly when used in a real debate :P

Just because it was extremely unlikely does not prove anything one way or the other. That is the point. A god or gods are just impossible to prove or disprove, no matter what methodology you take.
Impossible to prove, most likely. Even if we somehow proved existence of a God or the proof that a God does not exist, I doubt the world would change all too much. People would accept it and deny it, which, to be quite honest, is exactly what we do to this day.

I think it is a silly debate personally because I both believe and do not believe. You cannot prove to me a God exists, but you also cannot prove to me a God does not exist. I will not state my view as fact, but as opinion and viewpoint.

Can you quote the portion in that link that supports that claim, DE? I'm not finding it.I'm sorry, wrong article. Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). Although it should be mentioned that the appropriate section (Theism) lacks citations:(.

That is a valid point I think. If there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of something, then why bother being on either side of the spectrum?

I'll ask you a similar question:

Why do people try and prove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is a God?

I think you would be amazed at how much hounding there is of the religious and the non-religious by other religious people who believe themselves to be infallible. Atheists and the religious have a lot in common, particularly the fact both like to state that their belief system is right and yours is wrong by trying to show evidence to their opinion. Another reason why I personally believe right and wrong to be a relative point of view.

Oh I don't think I would be amazed, they go about it quite a bit. To answer your question though I think it comes down to beliefs, whatever they may be. I'm sure there would be war between Atheists who believe in science and Atheists who don't, Atheists who comdemn religion and those who don't, the same as there is with Prodestent, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Islam, ect. Perhaps a better question would be why do people want to go beyond the acceptance of their beliefs and go into trying to make others have the same beliefs?

That is a valid point I think. If there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of something, then why bother being on either side of the spectrum?That leads to the question of why bother with the possible existence of god for the whole life then? Why wars about gods? Hm.


Another reason why I personally believe right and wrong to be a relative point of view.the right and wrong of a statement, idea, conclusion, whatever is not relative. The belief if something is right or wrong is. One can believe it is right there is one god who fiddled together this universe. One can believe it is right there is no god around and the universe popped out of nowhere just to exist. Both maybe wrong because in fact papa-god and mama-god were very in love with each other, so they went to their favourite Asian restaurant to eat spaghetti and meatballs. And after that they made god-love. They made god-love to hot and demanding that the rubber they used broke. But nothing happened so the got themselves a god-dog. And that god-dog makes god-dog-poo. And every time he makes a pile of god-dog-poo, a new universe is created.


Impossible to prove, most likely. Even if we somehow proved existence of a God or the proof that a God does not exist, I doubt the world would change all too much. People would accept it and deny it, which, to be quite honest, is exactly what we do to this day.I think scientists would try to catch an exemplar of god for studying purposes like if it can differ between colours, perform simple tasks or if it has some kind of social behaviour (which I doubt in case of a single deity). I think in case we find proof for god to exist the most thrilling question would be: which RELIGION does she follow?


I think it is a silly debate personally because I both believe and do not believe. You cannot prove to me a God exists, but you also cannot prove to me a God does not exist.That is funny because most people just "believe" in what they can examine through their physical senses, except for that one thing. Also, that is one useless statement to make. You either do believe in god, or do not. Your statement, opinion, view, or whatever you call it is merely a way to coward yourself out of trouble to explain why you believe or not, because grandma would be shocked and your friend would laugh, or the other way around. In the end your statement indicates that you don't believe else you would say so.

Calling someone a coward, or making that inference, is flaming here. Don't flame. --Jae

The whole point of Faith is that it cannot be proved, or it isn't Faith. God's existence can not be proven or disproven, you either believe or you don't.

the right and wrong of a statement, idea, conclusion, whatever is not relative. The belief if something is right or wrong is. One can believe it is right there is one god who fiddled together this universe. One can believe it is right there is no god around and the universe popped out of nowhere just to exist. Both maybe wrong because in fact papa-god and mama-god were very in love with each other, so they went to their favourite Asian restaurant to eat spaghetti and meatballs. And after that they made god-love. They made god-love to hot and demanding that the rubber they used broke. But nothing happened so the got themselves a god-dog. And that god-dog makes god-dog-poo. And every time he makes a pile of god-dog-poo, a new universe is created.
The idea of right and wrong is belief and opinion created by the viewpoint of someone based on the society they live in and the upbringing they received, whether it be by themselves or from their parents. One person can say God does not exist, another can say God does exist. Both believe they are right and the other is wrong. Thus, the idea (or at least the belief) of right and wrong is relative to me because I believe that every action, every opinion and veiwpoint taken has an equally "good" and "bad" repercussion and that no opinion is right or wrong and that applies to my opinion as well. Although I contradict myself in having an opinion of my own. I'm not exactly sure if you are mocking me, disagreeing with me, or agreeing with me to be honest.

Although science does have some ideas that can be stated to be right and wrong. If one person says "You are breathing!" and the other person says "No, I am not." then the other would be wrong in this day and age. But, if the other person states that they are merely absorbing the life given to them by god everytime they draw breath and that it is not the air that keeps them alive, but god, how do you prove him wrong? Sure, science states that when you breath the oxygen is used to power your muscles and brain and it has been concluded as such, but we make scientific discoveries all the time that disprove theories and conclusions before us. Maybe in a thousand years we can be proven wrong on that like so many other things. Maybe reality itself can be proven wrong somehow. Science and Religion are simply ideas being applied to what we have and a conclusion being created from that information. At the core, they are almost the same to me and the constant bickering does not help either side.


I think scientists would try to catch an exemplar of god for studying purposes like if it can differ between colours, perform simple tasks or if it has some kind of social behaviour (which I doubt in case of a single deity). I think in case we find proof for god to exist the most thrilling question would be: which RELIGION does she follow?
Indeed, and if we could not get an answer I suspect people would probably fight over the right to call god theirs.


That is funny because most people just "believe" in what they can examine through their physical senses, except for that one thing. Also, that is one useless statement to make. You either do believe in god, or do not. Your statement, opinion, view, or whatever you call it is merely a way to coward yourself out of trouble to explain why you believe or not, because grandma would be shocked and your friend would laugh, or the other way around. In the end your statement indicates that you don't believe else you would say so.
That is a pretty black and white way to look at the world. The truth is I do not care. I neither believe a god exists, or a god does not exist because there is no evidence to my eyes that either one is fact. I have yet to see someone give me infallible proof that a god exists or does not exist. So, I sit in the middle between the two and watch them yell at eachother as I simply live my life in the gray. Some of us find the gray or the illusion of the gray quite a comfortable place to live.

And so that makes me a coward? I have taken the trouble to explain my viewpoint in as few words possible. I am far more afraid of what people might think of other aspects of who I am then what religion I am a follower to. I could care less what my family thinks of my veiws because they do not have control over who I am, and my friends do not care or they would not be my friends.

I do not really mind if you hate me or like me for my opinion because if I really cared I would not dare post, but please do not disrespect me by calling me a coward and labeling me to a side because I will not pick a side in this timeless debate.

Garcon? Sense of humour for the whole table.


Not to me. And after half an encyclopedia article later, it's even less so.

Fair enough. For this discussion, I'll be using BibleGateway.com's NIV translation, just so you know. If you really want, we can go back to the koine, but I'll have to brush up beforehand. Might be able to manage the Vulgate. I suppose what I was getting at as the key phrase in particular was:


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Embolding added by me)

Furthermore, the Six Antitheses (the six sets of paragraphs beginning 'You have heard how it was said', and 'but I say to you' set a standard higher than the old standard of 'do unto others'.
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
^Also translated in the Jerusalem Bible as "you must be perfect" - probably an imperative of some sort, but I'm not sure. So I don't know about you, but to me it seems quite clear that where in the Jewish law there had been specific precepts, Jesus has radicalised them to being broad principles of behaviour. And if we are to 'be perfect', then laws on rape etc clearly no longer apply - such things are no longer applicable since they are clearly unacceptable to Jesus, and so, presumably are part of the 'wide path'.

That's the way it seems to me, anyway :)