At least a death sentence involves a trial!>> ^Enzoblue:

No one deserves a death sentence for stealing.

No one deserves a death sentence for stealing.

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger:

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

>> ^blankfist:

And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

But you can't. You're constantly misapprehending and misrepresenting my position on things, and you don't listen when I try to correct you on what I think.

>> ^blankfist:
If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

So it's okay for a doctor to choose to let the guy die if he wants to? Morally and legally, that's his right?

Keep in mind that at the same time, you're saying it's totally off-limits for there to be any kind of compulsory solution. No law saying that patients in life-threatening situations need to be treated regardless of their ability to pay. No taxes collected to compensate doctors for the services they render to people who are unable to pay. No collective bargaining to keep prices on drugs and treatments low. No national health insurance program, or even health insurance regulation, and definitely no subsidization of anything.

Maybe doctors are supermen who have an infinite wellspring of compassion, but they still live in a market-dominated world. They're going to need money to pay off their college debt. They're going to need a place to live, food to eat, etc. The hospital is going to demand some level of compensation for the use of rooms, equipment, and medical supplies. Once all the donations and his own savings are exhausted, even the most noble doctor is going to eventually have to say no to somebody, whether he wants to or not.

So, you're saying the patient who's dying must not be given guarantees of any kind, while the doctor must as a matter of moral imperative, be guaranteed the right to refuse to treat people, even if that's a death sentence for their potential patient.

That is sensational, controversial, and in my opinion, morally reprehensible.

I'm not asking you this as some sort of "gotcha" question. I'm mostly using the question to try to get you to think about this conflict between mainline libertarian ideology, and what you know is right in your heart.

There's gotta be a better way. I'm not married to any one way to solve the issue, but I definitely reject the way you and Paul are insisting is the only way society can handle these kinds of situations.

I'll ignore all your bait and just ask you this: tell me how in a concensus based morality anything could truly be right and wrong?

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed.
That's always been the case.
Enough people thought stoning people to death was moral, therefore it happened on numerous occasions. Now a majority of us (hopefully) look back and see it at reprehensible. The same is true for death sentences for blasphemy, treating women as second-class citizens, or any number of other behaviors we've "grown out of".
Our collective morality evolves over time (faster in some places than others). I'd say, for the most part, that change has been for the better.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is basically just morality by concensus which means that the most reprehensible acts could be ordained as morally good if enough people agreed.

That's always been the case.

Enough people thought stoning people to death was moral, therefore it happened on numerous occasions. Now a majority of us (hopefully) look back and see it at reprehensible. The same is true for death sentences for blasphemy, treating women as second-class citizens, or any number of other behaviors we've "grown out of".

Our collective morality evolves over time (faster in some places than others). I'd say, for the most part, that change has been for the better.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

Btw, I don't delve into apologetics. Not knowing anything about apologetics, I can see why you've made this mistake. This is entirely from my own understanding.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^spoco2:
Nah, my take is that in the movie, it's so stupid it's awesome.
This though, I can see many American's seriously singing along with pride and a tear in their eyes.
It's pretty sick really.

Am I reading your post strangely?
Why is pride in seeing Osama dead pretty sick really?


Wow! You don't see the problem with that?

a) Killing him is not some great victory. A victory would have been capturing him, having him tried in a proper court and actually convicted of something with real evidence.
b) Having the kind of insane celebrations so many Americans currently are because a man was killed is pretty sick.

Can you not see how madly dancing around because a man has been killed is wrong? If he could actually be shown to be responsible, then I'd be far more happy to see him rot in jail for life, it brings 'monsters' down to a real, pretty damn pathetic level and shows people that justice can prevail. To have him killed like this, and his body just gone will purely engender him with almost mystical powers for some.

The number of comments I see of people saying 'I don't support the death sentence, but in his case I make an exception' are scary. Basically they are saying that they turn off their morals at a certain point, which is surely the opposite of what you should be striving for. I don't see how you can have over the top celebrations for killing someone and somehow think you have the moral high-ground over terrorists.

>> ^smooman:

jesus some of you sure are quick to exact deadly vengeance to a man who kicked an owl. I'd hate to see how you'd react to someone kicking an actual human in the same manner.
is he an asshole? perhaps unintentionally but still arguably so.....but "diaf", "death deserving prick", "kick his stupid face in" (which could very well result in death)? fucking really? the man kicked an owl, he didnt bomb an orphanage! Ya owls are awesome, ya most, probably even this one, are endangered, but at the end of the day its still just a fucking owl, the kicking of which is absolutely not deserving of a lynch mob death sentence. get a fucking clue, damn


OK. I can't pretend to know what this guy is thinking, or know for sure that sifters who are calling for death aren't just exaggerating a little to make a point. Either way, intentionally hurting a living thing for no good reason should be a serious cause for concern. It's a definite sign that something is seriously wrong with the person doing the hurting. And sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes... all that's needed is a good kick in the face to solve the problem.

>> ^smooman:
jesus some of you sure are quick to exact deadly vengeance to a man who kicked an owl. I'd hate to see how you'd react to someone kicking an actual human in the same manner.
is he an asshole? perhaps unintentionally but still arguably so.....but "diaf", "death deserving prick", "kick his stupid face in" (which could very well result in death)? fucking really? the man kicked an owl, he didnt bomb an orphanage! Ya owls are awesome, ya most, probably even this one, are endangered, but at the end of the day its still just a fucking owl, the kicking of which is absolutely not deserving of a lynch mob death sentence. get a fucking clue, damn


I really wish reincarnation were true because your karmic reward would be sweet justice.

jesus some of you sure are quick to exact deadly vengeance to a man who kicked an owl. I'd hate to see how you'd react to someone kicking an actual human in the same manner.

is he an asshole? perhaps unintentionally but still arguably so.....but "diaf", "death deserving prick", "kick his stupid face in" (which could very well result in death)? fucking really? the man kicked an owl, he didnt bomb an orphanage! Ya owls are awesome, ya most, probably even this one, are endangered, but at the end of the day its still just a fucking owl, the kicking of which is absolutely not deserving of a lynch mob death sentence. get a fucking clue, damn

So what's the sentence for reincarnation - the death sentence?

Next up, The western United States outlaws Prayer!

@Stormsinger speaks the truth. This reminds me of a Larry Niven short story about a man who is sentenced to die so that his organs may be harvested. In the end it is revealed that he was convicted for running a red light.

There is a constant need for fresh organs. If organs are to be harvested from death row inmates, and the current 'stock' does not meet the current demand then all that needs to be done is extend the death sentence to more crimes. Where should the line be drawn? Will parking tickets eventually warrant a death penalty?

The divide between the rich and poor is growing ever larger and the rich will always be able to pay for the organs they need in order to extend/improve their own life. It is the rich who influence the government and the laws it makes. Does making organ harvesting legal make it ethical as well?

To me, the obvious solution is to have no death penalty, and if an in-mate wishes to donate his organs then they can be donated when he dies from causes other than execution.