PS, don't lecture me about quoting verses out of context you filthy god-whore.

How many evangelists when speaking of God's "love" quote only the sixteenth verse of John chapter three ?  Here's a hint you moron, they're quoting that verse out of context by not reading the surrounding text.

Do you get pissed off when you're driving around and you spot a church sign that quotes only a single verse ? You should because they're taking that verse out of context. 

I guess it doesn't really matter because I have never seen any of the blood and guts verses spread out across a church's marquee.  Gore doesn't attract people to religion and you fucking god-whores know it !

Can't let those prospective Christian converts see all that blood on God's hands can you ?

 

 

ps, how much you want to bet that the verse I have in my signature below has never seen the light of day on a church marquee and never will ?

 

ok every kid is born with the choice to be bad or good. kids usually pick up influences from their parents or other kids. if a kid hears there parents cursing they will curse, if they see another kid beating up another kid they would think its cool and also do it,but the kids that were taught right would see that is wrong and may try and stop it. but its up to the parent to teach them the right thing at an early age. when they reach adult hood they can make there own decisions. there are people that can be both nice and mean. but there are some people that is completely mean i mean really if you ask for help they would yell at you and say did i ask for your help,or  they may just be grumpy and cause trouble for no reason or people that just kill random people out of hate. there are people that are nice no matter what even when trouble faces them, for example jesus and many of his deciples. many of them were spit on and even killed, they never retaliated back nor hated them. if you read the bible you will see that god didnt kill for no reason, you will see his reason are mostly for disobedience to him and the people themselves kill for no reason just to show their power.

I don't hate Christians, or God, for what some nutjob did in Ohio. He was obviously crazy, and merely used God to control other people. Whether or not he really believed in God doesn't matter. He was a nutjob, and the people who followed him, and helped him murder, were also crazy. I don't hold that against other Christians, any more than I hold Isaac Asimov's terrible puns against other atheists. I don't hate Christians at all. I truly respect many Christians, both for their faith, and for their contributions to humanity. Lundgren's actions had nothing to do with Christianity.

I believe you do more harm in God's name than J. Lundgren.

I have known many Christians. I was married to a fundamentalist Christian when I was in the army, twenty years ago. She was a good person. But, like you, she refused to accept the evidence of reality. If her own senses contradicted something from the Bible, she took the word of the Bible over her own sensations and conceptions.

That is a textbook case of "delusional."

I would rather be able to trust my own senses, my own brain, my own logic, my own intelligence, then take the word of a book. I distrust people who don't rely on their own senses. The practice of science itself requires everyone to question results, to verify with their own senses the results of others. It's vital to every day living to question authority, to question our own beliefs about various aspects of life.

I distrust those who, like you, actively cast away knowledge that contradicts their personal interpretation of the Bible. This is the sort of dogmatism and blindness that leads to poor political and personal choices. This is the sort of selfish, reactionary zealousness that leads to stonings, burnings at the stake, and Presidential candidates that would like to change the U.S. Constitution to "match God's law."

Your belief in the strict, literal inerrency of the Bible makes you dangerous. Not in the J. Lundgren way. He was only dangerous to a few people. No -- your belief will help lead to the suppression of knowledge (such as evolution). Your belief will elect someone who claims to be a born-again fundamentalist Christian, but is really just another nutjob like Lundgren. (Someone like Mike Huckabee, say.) Your belief will lead to mass ignorance in an age of enlightenment.

You have every right to believe as you wish. I will not try to stop you. If you come to a place of rationalism, such as this website, I will try to reason with you, to hold a rational discussion with you, to actually engage you, intellectually. I don't even intend to save your non-existent immortal soul. Your path through life is yours to make, not mine, and I respect that, and I will give you every chance to make those choices yourself.

All that assumes you try to engage me rationally. If you wish to talk about your Christianity, that's fine. If you wish to discuss the reasons you choose to be a Christian, that's fine, too. (Expect some serious deconstruction of your arguments, though. This site has some really sharp chainsaws of intellect. Me, I'm like a pair of safety scissors, the ones with the rounded ends.) But if you only desire to try to convert me, to save my non-existent immortal soul, to limit my choices to choose my path through life, then we have a problem.

So far, you've been all preach, no conversation. That doesn't cut it among people who try to think for themselves. Saving souls among atheists is dangerous business. They'll challenge your arguments, make you prove that you've thought it all out. If you haven't, and you are intellectually honest, you may end up questioning your belief. If you do end up questioning your belief, and end up still believing in God, your faith will be stronger for it.

If you're not intellectually honest, then you'll merely say, "The Bible says it's true, so it is true." Really, that's no kind of faith at all.

So you're arguing against the well-established evolutionary idea that aggressive traits can be inherited, and replaced it with the claim they were "created that way," for some undisclosed reason. Fantastic. You follow by redundantly elaborating on the behaviors you failed to provide an alternative explanation for. Wonderful. Please go away.

I would like to thank Iknowtruth for his awesome role on our hit series

"How Deep is the Rabbit Hole?"

He has been a super contestant, and one of the most illogical in a LONG time.

*audience claps*

 

Thats right Truthy, you've been played, man

 

We've just been toying with you for a week to see how big of an idiot you would make yourself ^_^

Ok, i luv you buh bye!

hehehe

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Of course you proved them wrong every time. When you have a book written 1900 years ago, vs a mountain of physical evidence that you yourself could corroborate, the book of magic wins every time. That's exactly what I was getting at before, and why you are more dangerous than a crazynut with a gun.

You do not understand evolution. You've proven that yoruself, with your statements. Your statements are about equivelent to saying:

"A quadratic equation walked into a bank, pulled out a 32-calibar Briggs and Stratton polyphony automatic, and shot two people just for being Christians. While the teller was fetching the cash from the vault, the quadratic equation sodomized one of the bodies, and urinated on the other. Then he went into the empty vault and farted, closing the door to seal in the odor for the next person to find when they opened the vault. Then the quadratic equation got on his flying earthworm, took the money to his hideout, and jumped on his bed, even though his mommy told him not to.

"This is patently impossible, because Briggs and Stratton doesn't make a 32-calibar polyphony automatic! Furthermore, it couldn't be posible anyway, because quadratic equations don't have thumbs! And even worse, the Bible doesn't mention quadratic equations, so they must not exist."

It makes about as much sense.

There is a much simpler explanation - threat elimination.

If Joshua didn't kill the older people, they'd fight him again when they regrouped. Or, they'd tell the youngsters stories about those bastard Hebrews who came to town on a killing spree.

If he didn't kill the young ones, they'd grow up and seek revenge. Why leave a potential army around?

So that was the only way an all-powerful God could solve such a problem? He could have changed all their hearts to remove those evil ways. After all he didn't mind intervening to change Pharoah's mind and 'harden his heart' against the Isarelites, so why couldn't he step in here? And don't give me any crap about not wanting to interfere with people's free will, he apparently did it with Pharoah, and no way that could be worse than killing them and everyone else in that place which would have had to include a number of innocents.

Try again, or admit that God is Evil, or not ALL-powerful, or doesn't exist. Those are your options.

Yeah, Joshua the Vampire Slayer and his Judah's asswhipped all the nasty bloodsucking Canaanites, he was the, like, best vampire slayer ever!, pity he didn't stick around for Season Two the series went totally downhill after he was gone. Israelites worshipping Baals and getting hot with the infidels. Sooo wrong!

And I answered you. People have always depended upon one another. Empathy, sadness, happiness all have benefit to a group, but not necessarily to an individual.

Now you're just getting scary. I suppose you won't read anything I say, but on the off-chance you do, I beg you not to hurt anyone for God. Can you do that for me?

I sometimes wonder about that: when theists get crazy, and they're Jesus-based, is there a nice, friendly quote I could give them that says "please don't go on a violent crusade" or something like that?

god used the pharoah as an example,he showed everyone in the world his greatness no one is more powerful. when people saw what god did to the pharoah they no longer took him as a joke(well at least some of them, many of them went right back to idol worshipping there are always fools who fall for satans temptations). god slaughtered all of them because all of them had to be in this sacaraficing,it was being practiced throughout the whole land, and also they were very disobedient to god,and god is no joke.he gives you time to change but once he takes your life there is no turning back. the land was tainited and cursed, all the inhabitants who caused this had to be killed including the cattles.most likely adults would show younger kids this horrible act, and so most likely they would pass it down god had to end the cycle.

"Sodom and gomorrah (not the real names btw) is another fantasy. Why would an all-knowing god need to test a couple backwater towns?"

 

i hope you know the remains of soddom and gommorah still stand till this day. "Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens"  Genesis 19:24.  "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly"  II Peter 2:6. he said live afterwards which would also apply to us. and as you can see its clearly still here, but the fools will say this is not because of god,they will find anything to change the truth of the bible to lies. satan the fater of lies awaits for all the liers.

I will not be in a rush to type next time. but a few word errors insn't a big deal.

 {edit } Eloise . you are family .... you are wonderful ....  

Let's see if I can spell > Evolution , Wow, proof , of evolution ....       

Now what do I want? .....    (yeah, rrs girls and the rest)  Can we get serious here !?!?

{ edit }  Hey guys, girls to touch , why are we wasting our time ! ?   

Scary that you believe in an all-powerful petulant child. Scary.

That's not a belief, it's a fact -- to disprove as you'd like to, you'd have to prove the implied foundations of your claims: dualism, god, divine command, etc. Saying that people are capable of the behavior we ourselves have dubbed regret isn't remarkable; saying that it was magically shoved into humanity is.

Typical naked assertion.

You have to prove dualism for that to be meaningful.

How you live... determines how you live. Deep.

Read a book.

And if someone points out defects, you'll make an ad hoc about sin. What does "perfect" mean, anyway?

LOL. Yeah, that imaginary theory that biological science and pathogenic medicine rely on. It can't compare with Christianity's innovations in tall hats and gilded edges.

LOL!!! Oh, man.

So ... you don't trust yourself, and evolution is a mistake? Honestly, now. Evolution is fascinating. Even just a basic understanding of it would help you so much. Let's go with this explanation here:

 

Im sorry, Im not as heavily schooled as some of my fellow athiests here, but I have to chime in on this one...

In the bible, is slaughter after slaughter, after slaughter, all in the name of the one true god....

 

Somehow, thiests think this is ok??? (the ole god/satan made me do it?)

 

As group animals, we developed (through evolution) the social ability to interact with the group, (good for the species) emotions are simply an extention of that.

Emotions help us to act as a group/pack/herd.

 

As far as acting with other species such as dogs, "symbiotic relationships" read a book!

And not that piece of politcal fiction...the bible.

"PREDICTION:  If mutations happen on a frequency sufficient to be an evolutionary mechanism, there will most likely be far more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial.

OBSERVATION: Many, many single-point mutations result in birth defects, or non-viable fetuses. Many pregnancies spontaneously abort. In humans, this often happens before the female even realizes she's pregnant. So, mutations occur quite frequently.

 

PREDICTION: As mitochondrial DNA is passed down through the generations via the egg, mitochondrial DNA will be more similar in species that are closer together in the evolutionary family tree. That is, mitochondrial DNA in humans will be more similar to apes than monkeys, but human/monkey mitochondrial DNA will be closer than human/dog.

OBSERVATION: Sequenced mitochondrial DNA turns out to follow the predicted pattern. The human mitochondrial DNA is closer to that found in dogs than that found in cetaceans. And fish are way out.

 

PREDICTION: Fossils within a single geological layer will be more similar to fossils found in adjacent geological layers than those found in non-adjacent layers.

OBSERVATION: As predicted. The farther up or down the strata you go, the greater the difference between fossils.

 

PREDICTION: Breeding animals over several generations to have a specific trait will result in all offspring having that trait.

OBSERVATION: Although they originally came from common stock, breeding two toy poodles will never result in a saint bernard.

 

PREDICTION: If selection pressures existed to select for a specific genetic disorder, that disorder would become prevelant in a population.

OBSERVATION: Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder of the blood, which distorts the shape of the red blood cells. In most populations, this is a debilitating genetic disorder. However, it is also provides more resistant to malaria than "normal" red blood cells. In certain populations where malaria is prevelent, sickle cell anemia is, in fact, prevelent in the population.

 

PREDICTION: The use of anti-bacterial soaps, which kill off only about 98% of the bacteria they contact, will lead to anti-bacterial-resistant bacteria.

OBSERVATION: The number of cases of resistant bacteria is on the rise in countries that regularly use anti-bacterial soap."

 

seriously do not bring this up in an argument or you will look bad. these are the type of arguments evolutionsit should despertately avoid. here is one of the big problems of many with evolution.scientist claimed many of times that life can form from inaminate matter. to make my point short that means that ALL life would not share the SAME common ancestor. for example scientist use evolution and macroevolution in the same category. macroevolution requires the creation of whole brand new genes, they do not continuing from existing ones. though both processes are called "evolution" they both are a completely different process. scientist know they can fool people like you all, but if you all were smart you wouldve realized that macroevolution is not evolution. evolution is the change in demographics, but macroevolution starts from an complete beginning. evolutionist also claim the life came from inanimate matter.even though this isnt true if it were true,every species would have its own common ancestor. for example, if a new life form from no where it wouldnt share the a common ancestor as us. evolutionist always trip themselves up,if inaminate matter could form once it should have happened many times. but for some reason it only happened once so EVERY SINGLE LIVING organism on earth share the SAME common ancestor. this is like the father of theories within evolution. life orginated within an warm pond full of inanimate amino acids, or some place very hot, or some place very cold. that means this inanimate matter had to produce something living that could produce offspring, that natural selection can select from. there is no evidence what so ever on earth of this happening,becuase it cant happen. it doesnt stop here. evolutionist also would try despretely to seperate the origin of life from the origin of species. the reason being is because evolutionist know that spontaneous generation is literally impossible. they cannot avoid this argument though. because the theory of evolution is suppose to explain how we got here without no supernatural activity creating life.so they must include the origin of life for it is suppose to explain how we got here, but evolutionist DESPERATELY try and avoid this argument becuase every time they loose and look foolish.

 

 

deariknowtruth.youaresuchaworthlesspieceofshit.ifyouareevidenceofwhatgodcreatesthenyourgodisauselesspieceofshitaswell.infacteverythingaboutyouisuselessjustlikeyourstupidgod. fuckyouandyourstupidgod.youdon'tknowwhatyouaretalkingaboutandyouneverwillbutkeepflappingyoujawsandpretendingthatyouhispreciouscreation.psidecidedtostartmakingmypostslooklikeyoursdo.howdoyoulikeitsofar?

"Decide whether you want to talk about abiogenesis or evolution, please. You're confusing the two."
 

i dont see why people seperate abiogenesis from evolution. the two shouldnt be seperated because abiogenesis is suppose to explain how life came from non life then that life supposively evolved to whats here today. if you all are going to deny the fact that god didnt create then something must have.science has shown MANY times that life cannot come from inanimate matter.evolution as a whole is stupid. heres a question to you all why do everysingle living organism  share the SAME common ancestor? is that possible?.

It's actually not even necessary. There are bacteria that feed off of volcanic vents in the ocean floor that have never needed contact with anything above to live. The universe simply allows for life, and it happens. That's what we know. What you're saying is that you know exactly where life comes from, and it just happens to be this specific invisible thing. You can't know that, but you're pretending that you do. It's dishonest.

why the fuck hasnt Truthy hit the bottom of the hole yet? i tossed him in a while back >.>