Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Jetfire]

religion requires blind faith...

debating religion logically = pointlessness

Believing that a "big bang" created our universe logically = pointlessness

The "big bang" has reason and scientific logic to it although its mostly theory it would be a reasonable assumption.... god just has magical powers that creates crap from thin air and has all these wonderful powers while being able to prevent suffering and pain in this world sits back and watches like some redneck watching an episode of cops.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Which can be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true.  This is not the case with assumptions made in radiometric dating which cannot be backed up by repeated demonstrations to be true...

How about in a thousand years?

You see, you can keep testing.

How much time will pass before there's enough evidence?

It's not how much time has passed but the FACT that one cannot possibly know the ratio of isotopes in newly formed rocks.  Unless you can somehow prove this ratio, all dating methods fail.  The "FACT" that so many rock samples disagree with others in the same strata show how unreliable radiometric dating is.  Yet the "scientists" who take the samples will simply claim that "this sample" is "contaminated" and will keep taking more samples until they find one that reads the "correct" ratio according to their preconceived notion of what the age SHOULD be.

[rabidfurby]

See sig for why this thread is pointless.

[ChristianAnarchist]

religion requires blind faith...

debating religion logically = pointlessness

Believing that a "big bang" created our universe logically = pointlessness

The "big bang" has reason and scientific logic to it although its mostly theory it would be a reasonable assumption.... god just has magical powers that creates crap from thin air and has all these wonderful powers while being able to prevent suffering and pain in this world sits back and watches like some redneck watching an episode of cops.

The "big bang" theory was promoted first by Steven Hawkings and he has since taken an opposing view claiming that it did not occur...

[John Shaw]

The "big bang" theory was promoted first by Steven Hawking

Um, this is totally incorrect, Gene.

George Gamow/Georges Lemaître proposed and started promoting the concept in 1946, when Hawking was FOUR YEARS OLD.

EDIT: For clarity - Lemaître proposed in the late 1920's. Gamow started promoting the idea in 1946.

[rabidfurby]

Let's play everyone's favorite game, SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY!

"X used to believe that Y is true, but X changed his mind. Therefore, Y is false."

[ChristianAnarchist]

Let's play everyone's favorite game, SPOT THAT LOGICAL FALLACY!

"X used to believe that Y is true, but X changed his mind. Therefore, Y is false."

It's merely a demonstration that the "high priests" you guys look up to keep changing their minds, so why do you keep believing them??

Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling, Global warming, Global cooling,

etc...

[Johnson]

Actually, I just skimmed this,

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

Amazing how you read one article written by who-knows-who and make all those conclusions as if they are fact.  You are a "programmers" dream...

Actually, it wasn't the article itself that I was concerned with, it was the relevant quotes from the bible, also this wasn't a lone article, there were MANY that said the exact same thing. I posted the link to this one because it was clearest and easiest to skim.

As far as being programmed, I think you need to speak for yourself. You just made the assumption that I'm arguing that there is NO god. I'm not. I'm not an atheist, and hence not "programmed" by any atheist thought. I'm simply arguing that all the things you claim to know, are in fact lies, because you don't know them.

The reason why I don't argue against the science side, is because scientists aren't all atheists, there is no CULT goal to disprove god among scientists. While atheists may use science to point out the ridiculous lunacy of religion, the goals of science have NOTHING to do with tearing down religion. Scientists are trying to figure out how the world works, and the truth of reality. They don't do so as a whole with respect to any religion. There are scientists of ALL the faiths of the world. If the TRUTH of reality was what the BIBLE says... We wouldn't be debating at all using ANY scientific claims, because SCIENCE, and general scientific consensus, would point to things like Noah's flood being true. Creation 'scientists' would be world renowned. However, this is not the case. Creationists use fiction to fill in gaps, start with preconceptions, are NOT in search of truth, and are known as JOKES in the scientific community.

I think you need to look at the walls of the cage your mind is in, and the fact that you live by an EXTERNAL set of rules created by SOMEONE else, and realize who, in REALITY, was programmed. I'm not the one that chose someone else's CODE to live by.

[John Shaw]

I'm not an atheist, and hence not "programmed" by any atheist thought.

Yeah, I'm kinda there too.

Well, I just don't worry about the existence or non existence of god. If he's there, he's the clockmaker sort.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

I see no evidence for God in the pattern of things. It seems to me more or less Nature as it is has no designer or governor. It's order without hierarchy. It's action without committee sanction.

[John Shaw]

I see no evidence for God in the pattern of things.

I agree.

If'n dey is a Gud, aye ain't seen him none.

[Johnson]

The "big bang" theory was promoted first by Steven Hawkings and he has since taken an opposing view claiming that it did not occur...

HAHAHAH Not only is this a logical fallacy as pointed out above... but it's also plain stupid and un-ed-juh-ma-kate-ed...

Hawkings "refutation" of the big bang theory was only to say that he believed that there was not ONE but MANY big bangs.

HAHAHA So, Gene, is this your way of telling us that you now believe in not ONE but MANY evolutions?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Actually, I just skimmed this,

http://www.learnthebible.org/q_a_free_will_of_angels.htm

and apparently I was slightly mistaken about Angels not having free will... I guess they have an approximation thereof, where, if they EVER disobey... God will make them his BITCH, and kick them out of heaven, and generally carve a new oraface our of their Angelic little hides, because ANY misstep for an Angel... results in BURNING for eternity. There is NO respite.

Again... just another example of how awesome and wonderfully benevolent God supposedly is. What a cool guy.

Amazing how you read one article written by who-knows-who and make all those conclusions as if they are fact.  You are a "programmers" dream...

Actually, it wasn't the article itself that I was concerned with, it was the relevant quotes from the bible, also this wasn't a lone article, there were MANY that said the exact same thing. I posted the link to this one because it was clearest and easiest to skim.

No, actually you had a completely different position before reading that article.  You hardly had the time (check post history) to review volumes of additional references...

As far as being programmed, I think you need to speak for yourself. You just made the assumption that I'm arguing that there is NO god. I'm not. I'm not an atheist, and hence not "programmed" by any atheist thought. I'm simply arguing that all the things you claim to know, are in fact lies, because you don't know them.

The reason why I don't argue against the science side, is because scientists aren't all atheists, there is no CULT goal to disprove god among scientists. While atheists may use science to point out the ridiculous lunacy of religion, the goals of science have NOTHING to do with tearing down religion. Scientists are trying to figure out how the world works, and the truth of reality. They don't do so as a whole with respect to any religion. There are scientists of ALL the faiths of the world. If the TRUTH of reality was what the BIBLE says... We wouldn't be debating at all using ANY scientific claims, because SCIENCE, and general scientific consensus, would point to things like Noah's flood being true. Creation 'scientists' would be world renowned. However, this is not the case. Creationists use fiction to fill in gaps, start with preconceptions, are NOT in search of truth, and are known as JOKES in the scientific community.

I think you need to look at the walls of the cage your mind is in, and the fact that you live by an EXTERNAL set of rules created by SOMEONE else, and realize who, in REALITY, was programmed. I'm not the one that chose someone else's CODE to live by.

Ah, but "programmed" you are.  You accept what some (I've made it very clear that I'm not talking about all) scientists are guilty of promoting what can only be described as a "cult of science" that is based upon suppositions, assumptions, and hot air.  These men promote their fantasies as fact and that is where I get riled.  Present your suppositions as suppositions all you want, but don't steal money from me and then use my money to promote those same suppositions as FACT (which is both a lie and theft)...

[Johnson]

For one thing, as the author of what "good" and "evil" are, we have no standing to make such a claim (I'm sure you feel that you do).

I already addressed this, and now you are rehashing old arguments because you chose not to participate in the original discussion.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.msg498895#msg498895
The bible REQUIRES that morality does not come from god, but in fact that you MUST judge god - (even though it says that you should not, it requires you to, which makes sense, since you have CHOSEN Christianity) You are going to have to READ the text of that post to see the explanation for how the bible expects you to judge the morality of your deity.

I'll get to your question about Angels tomorrow I think.

Silly assumption on your part since I have stated numerous times that I do not accept all that the books assembled into what is called "the Bible" are all accurate...

I'm assuming then, to claim to be a Christian, that you at least believe in a past being that had magical powers and was supposedly the son of a deity?  (something akin to the EXACT same story as Dionysis, Osiris, Krishna, Mithra, and even to a large extent... Buddha)

So, what special powers do YOU believe Jesus had?

Could he fly? Did he shoot lasers from his eyes? Did he move things with his mind?

[Johnson]

I've never made the claim that I support state funded science.