I've always agreed with what most of Sam Harris has said on Islam and also how he points out problems with moderates/liberals. Problems as far as not calling religion into question or saying that religion isn't the problem. I'm trying to figure out when the violence in the middle east crosses the line from the civil war or resistance to the U.S occupation to flat out religious fundamentalism. Because I can say that one thing is clear. If another country occupied america and one of my family members was murdered, I would be dedicating my life to completley fucking over whoever the enemy was.

... a really big mess.

I originally brought this point up on Theologyweb, and the discussion grew... well, ornery and confused:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=92106

"I've been having some serious difficulties getting across a few problems I have found with some apologetic 'tricks' as practiced by many on this board. The shifting of burdens tends to rear it's head too often for it just to be coincidence; many theists assume the 'default' setting of inquiry to the the presupposition of either their god's existance, the validity of their metaphysical schema, and/or their justificational methodology pertaining to what counts as 'evidence' for their claims (and they ARE claims) and how that applies to matters of the absolute. How could someone use empirical events (or anything else worldly) to verify the existence of specific metaphyscial entities?

The end is nie

The end days are upon us there is no escape brethren

There are only a few months before it's all over

Men in white coats. with spectacles and incredibly frizzy hair. and totally unpronounceable foreign names

Will be making black holes in the world's largest particle accelerator in Europe around November

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st12

Making black holes Ekkkkkkkkkkk !

 November there is barely enough time to learn some extreme yoga so are able to kiss you're own butt goodbye

last chance to convert to the correct religion ? but which one is it Help!!!!!

In almost ALL theological debates, I have seen theists admit that the "Problem of Suffering and Evil" is the most difficult atheist argument to overcome.

Why would an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God allow bad things to happen? There are a wide array of answers to this question. Any systematic theist response to this question is called a "theodicy".

I have an important new argument to refute theist theodicy, that is explanation of evil & suffering.

First, let us assume the most common form of theodicy. The theist posits a four-pronged response: 1. The devil causes evil. 2. Humans have free-will, and this allows moral evils. 3. God himself creates natural disasters and other natural harms such as disease to punish bad people or force them to undergo spiritual growth. 4. Adam and Eve screwed everything up in the Garden of Eden, and God was forced to unleash suffering upon mankind.

No, I am not talking about that fat jerk on Youtube!

Last night, I was at my friends graduation party. She introduced me to a person who was an athiest and I immediately introduced myself as a Christian. We continued to have a long and deep conversation about God, the values and possable contradictions of the bible, the reason for disbelief in God and, most of all, the rampant wickedness and hypocrasy of modernized American Christianity. He was incredibly open minded and it was not his style to bash my religion at all and it is not my style to bash his decision in un-belief. We talked for a long time, and it was not about him convincing me or me convincing him, it was about two people of different mindsets coming together to speak there minds in a respectful manner.

i saw this article and thought that some may appreciate the irony. i think there are some "actual" recorded events at the beginning about people being born without a brain and still functioning, well to a certain extent.

--------------- - - ---------------

"The old manuscript of the Troitse-Sergiev monastery describes a tragedy that occurred in the Pskov-Pechora monastery in 1570. Father Superior Kornily was the prior of the monastery at that time; the man was famous not only for his healing talent and good deeds, but for his courage as well. He ordered to build a high wall around the monastery for protection from enemies, but he got no consent of the tsar for this construction. Ivan the Terrible was informed of the unauthorized construction, and the tsar went to the monastery to administer his cruel justice. Father Superior Kornily met the tsar near the gates with a cross in his hands, but enraged Ivan the Terrible was implacable. He ordered to decapitate Kornily.

My post is centered around a few issue which arose from the debate which the RRS had with Comfort and Cameron. Before starting, I'd like to initially point out that I didn't watch every second of the debate, so I apologize if I misrepresent the RRS. With that said, I did watch nearly all of the debate which the RRS took part in. (I skipped nearly all of Comfort and Cameron's arguments and points out of sheer embarassment, and I'm a theist! Those guys simply aren't debaters.) I have four points or issues to discuss: agnostic or atheist?; defining 'science' and its relevance to the current issue; the cosmological argument; Josephus on Jesus.

sent to me by my theist friend. im looking forward to responses from my fellow board members.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNocC85MU6w

Deleted

part 1