Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)
- Thread starter DJ Hexadecibel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bumper stickers
I believe, based on the evidence, that they may still exist, and certainly did exist at one time. I also agree that there are no shortage of scam artists out there trying to make a buck out of it, just like I state there are plenty of pseudo-scientists propounding that all the evidence is false, and that scientific organizations have failed to properly address the issue for a myriad of reasons.
Nah. I'll leave that one alone. I promise.
Nope.
I'm not much for Hollywood.
In fact, I don't even like them or many of their offerings.
I'll pass, thanks.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
There is no, none, evidence that they ever existed, believing in them has nothing to do with them ever being, but then you do believe in a god, so what does one expect from you. When you buy into one non-existing thing (god) you find it easy to buy into another. Also the movie I refer to is the link in my previous post, it was found on Randi’s website. You use Randi’s forum, you can use his other resources, but you will found the resources don’t support you.
Paul
kurious_kathy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,142
What a cop out, that all it is, that is just like the boss taking all the credit for a job well done, when in fact he was on vacation. And why does this Jesus not fix things before they go wrong, I know, so he can get credit from people like you who buy into the god BS.
Paul
Here's another bumper sticker idea..."Jesus just isn't"
My friend don't be deceived, Jesus Lives and He saves people like you and me everyday. I am totally convinced that it is a miracle when someone gets saved. I myself came back to live a life of faith when Jesus revealed the truth to me after I had wondered off on the wrong road for several years.
Once someone has their spiritual eyes opened we truely are free men walking in the light of truth. Scripture is truth! The only people that are missing out on this point are the ones that have chosen to deny Him.
"If Jesus can save me, He can save anybody."
zizzybaluba
sultan of zip
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 375
This sounds a little more realistic to me:
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Huntster
Apparently you skipped the next bit. You stated
kurious_kathy
Ossai
Ditto.
Gee, god must not love all those other people.
Apparently you skipped the next bit. You stated
in post 1374.
kurious_kathy
Then tell him to appear on TV, do a few bona fide miracles.
Whoo! Hoo! God hates me! (If you don’t understand this, then I’ll explain it in small words, if you ask nicely.)
Ossai
I less than three logic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,463
Oh please, not for at least another month.
"I will tell you, that you Christians have created a holiday that has become a beast that cannot be fed. Every year, Christmas gets longer and longer and longer, and you don't care, do you? You just take more and more of the calendar for yourself. It's unbelievable. How long does it take you people to shop?! It's beyond belief. It's insane. When I was a kid, Halloween was Halloween, and Santa wasn't poking his ass into it!" - Lewis Black
I did make that statement.
So? What does that have with someone's feet in their mouth?
I stand by the statement.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
One of the first signs of becoming an adult is questioning all that you have learned as a child and casting off those that don’t hold up and by not making excuses for those faulty ideas by saying “That’s how I was brought up”.
Paul
Paul
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yeah, we do tend to run on. But I have a clever plan to cut down the size of our responses. I’m going to cut out anything that refers to evidence and faith. It is obvious that we don’t define these things the same way, so we’re not going to make any headway.
Unless it’s interesting. Nothing is 100% certain.
If He wanted to be, He could be. (Note: all answers like I will make that God exists like you describe Him. Obviously, I don’t have any personal opinions on the nature of God, never having seen any evidence that He exists.)
LOL. So you won’t be learning anything new then? But I know what you mean. I too have enough for a very good life.
There’s some evidence. Google “The God gene”.
Or else what? Divorce? Jail? Still sounds like coercion to me.
I don’t see any evidence that “the spirit” is alive now. Can you define it in a way that doesn’t require faith?
Yes, knowledge is a double-edged sword. But I know you mostly choose to use the benefits it gives you. I doubt seriously that you are living in an igloo in Alaska. Still, the environmental consequences of our activities on earth are very important, and likely to get even more so. But quixotically, the best tool we have against them is more knowledge.
Oh, I grasped it just fine, but I think it is not a “big picture” view. The law is the master, just or not, but the law is made by the people. People can change an unjust law. Did you know slavery used to be legal in the U.S.? Of course, the Old Testament sanctions slavery, so I guess that might be support for your stance on our country’s religious heritage.
We all have many communities. Your work community is not the same as your neighborhood community or your church community. But it is true, this internet community is probably the least like the others. You have no important consequences here. You can say anything you like. That is a kind of freedom you don’t have in the other communities. Yet, I still see you correct people when they misrepresent you. You do care. Everything you do here gives evidence for this.
LOL. It’s not just okay. It’s what you want. You seek resentment, Huntster. You are confrontational. That’s okay, but don’t play the poor little abused non-conformist who just wants to say his piece. We’re not idiots.
Oh, I don’t mind. I appreciate a well-crafted insult. It is even better if it is from somebody you like. Since I started to understand you, I find you more likeable too. Still crazy, but likeable.
You think? You’re not perhaps a little biased in this guess, are you?
Hard to tell how sincere you are in that. You commented over in the Politics forum that killing Saddam would be “just”. I’ll bet the Vatican doesn’t agree with that statement. They have the crazy idea that life-or-death justice should be God’s to decide. I disagree with them, since I wouldn’t leave a mythical entity in charge, but there you go. I’m a liberal who supports the death penalty. You’re a conservative who opposes it. Life is funny.
And many aren’t. There are lots of churches with lots of doctrines. Or they might be interpreting the doctrine differently. Nevertheless, they’re still Christians whose moral values differ greatly from yours. You cannot deny it without resorting to the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
Yet they use the same Bible as you and your morality is different. Thank you for making my point for me.
Ah, I wish I could. Obviously, you would be at a disadvantage on this forum, just as I would be on a Christian forum.
Like that’s a big deal? Look at LifeCreatedLife and his self-titled thread. The boy ain’t right. It is obvious to everybody in the thread (take a look if you doubt me) but he pops up like a whack-a-mole. There is no way to make anybody “stay down” on a forum like this. A person can continue to post no matter how discombobulated they are.
Still, I don’t want you to “stay down”. The forums wouldn’t be fun without moles to whack.
No, but some would infer that you will lose your eternal soul. Soul extortion is a common practice in some Christian circles.
No, and I will not criticize your child-raising. It sounds as if you have done well. I only point out that you cannot be sure of what is going on in their heads. From what I have heard, your children can surprise you sometimes.
I’ll chance it.
I can have both too. It’s just that one is so much better than the other that I almost always choose evidence over faith when they conflict. (Dang. I violated my rule.)
Yep. There are many people who have a basic instruction in science. For some, it is so basic that they don’t even recognize when science is being raped. In my experience, most of those are people who try to force-fit science into their faith, like people who try to defend the “Great Flood” myth. Still, if they have made any sort of valid scientific point, it must be credited.
Methinks what “glares at you” is greatly influenced by your religious beliefs.
That’s good. I don’t want to turn this thread into another of those endless threads about evolution, but I wouldn’t mind hearing your take on it, especially the defenses of “intelligent design” that some Christians put forth. Not here though. The thread is too damn long already. Must be those idiots who make page-long posts.
Because it’s not true. Darwin was not a priest. He cannot become one posthumously. Like I say, point out where someone has misinterpreted Darwin, and you have a case. Call them “disciples of Darwin” and you’re just throwing out ad homs.Huntster;2075182 said:
That the monotheists were wrong about Darwin.
No, how about the definition of secular, like I asked. It means non-religious. You just called evolution a non-religious religion. Yeah, you stepped in it there, Hunny. Wipe your foot off and keep going.
Here’s the thing, Huntster. In the context of a single discussion, you have to pick one of those definitions and use it consistently. You can’t keep jumping from one to another. If you want to say religion is anything a person believe devotedly, that’s fine, but don’t then claim (in the same discussion) that it has anything to do with God. And vice versa.
That’s bullspit (as you like to say). What is the opposite of gravity?
And if God didn’t create Evil directly, then it appeared without His knowledge and consent. I’ve heard all of these attempts to explain the paradox before. None of them have any substance or logic. They are wordy rationalizations that are used to change the meaning of “omnipotent” and “creator” in midstream. Yours are no exception.
On second thought, you might think LightCreatedLife is a genius. You’re starting to sound like him. What is the opposing and balancing force of the Big Bang? You’re talking gibberish. Stop it before I bitch-slap you back to reality. I want the THINKING Huntster here, the one who understands science, not the drooling loony.
They could be if your God wanted them to be. What God wants, God gets. Otherwise, He wouldn’t be God. He would be just another player. Maybe not a pawn, but not the King either.
I have knowledge of the way it has been described, and almost every description includes a phrase like “it exists apart from science”. That means it has no rules that we, as denizens of our physical universe, can determine.
Of course, if you have some description of the metaphysical that does not include that phrase, I’d love to hear it.
it is not a theory. It is logic. In logic, consequences must not violate the assumptions. Yours do. It is simple. So I can understand why you prefer not to consider about it. It’s called “cognitive dissonance”.
Uh huh. I’m guessing that if it challenges your faith, then it doesn’t “interest” you. Is homosexuality outside the choice of the individual? There’s lots of evidence for it. Thus, evidence suggests that gayness can’t be a sin, since it is not “free will”.
There is evidence to suggest that your need for God may indeed be a biological situation. Not overwhelming, but enough to consider it.
So the evidence that not one person that you know has ever made verifiable contact with you or others is not significant to you?
Yeah, there were lots of religious schools, but in public schools, religion wasn’t a major issue, though often the school reflected the makeup of the community. Most kids went to public schools. My grandparents, who were teachers, told me this.
You may be right that religion will gain power in the government. I wouldn’t call it “balance” though. In fact, I think if that happens, it will mean the beginning of the end for the power of the US. Countries that don’t let superstition control science will out-compete us. I dread that possibility. And I already see it happening. We need to catch up, not take a nap.
They weren’t religious like you are. Many were Deists. And they definitely had different moral values. Not surprising. Morality depends on society, and society changes all the time.
Look at your beloved RCC. How many times have they changed the “rules”? When I was growing up, it was immoral for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. Now its not. Did God change His mind?
Funny though. Fundamentalist atheist doesn’t really mean anything. Fundamental to what? We don’t have a bible. We don’t have churches. We barely have groups. How dangerous can we be?
Christians have enormous power and money and the verbal approval of almost every politician in the US. Also, they have been very successful in demonizing atheists. So who is more dangerous?
Look at the evidence. Look at the logic. Please.
Last edited:
I took your advice and read about it here. That's interesting. I'll keep paying attention to it.
It is. Tough love. Discipline for a wayward soul.
I'm as thankful as can be for it, too.
Nope.
Like the movie quote said, the law is made by the lawmakers. There was no national election referendum on slavery ever. There was no national balloting on the Great Compromise. There was no democratic vote when South Carolina seceeded after Lincoln's election. There was no election regarding Galileo or Scopes.
Different faces (some are the same), but the same culture.
I correct people who misrepresent me because I like to oppose their manipulations, misrepresentations, lies, insults, derogatory statements, and falsehoods.
In other words, I like to fight.
I'm not playing a poor little anything.
And some of the people participating in this forum are idiots.
Maybe. But, frankly, Jesse Jackson isn't known much anymore as a Reverend, but as a politician.
I'm not sure. RCC doctrine reserves the death penalty for cases where it is necessary for the defense of society. An argument can be made that Saddam remaining alive in a society engaged in civil war poses a great danger to that society.
I generally oppose it because I cannot trust the courts to impose it properly, and the chances of it being administered to an innocent party is too great. However, I find that people who commit murders within correction facilities have used up their chances. Others in prison deserve protection from such animals, too. Also, those who kill law enforcement officers, showing no respect for society's representatives of the law, are good candidates for it, too.
Your quite welcome, but your point is not binding to me. I find it invalid, and have no responsibility to accept it as my principle.
Yup. And any judgement rendered here can be cheerfully dismissed by me.
Fun, isn't it?
That's not the circle I'm in.
My daughters can (to some extent). They're females. Who knows what's going on with those folks?
But Mrs. Huntster? Nope. She knows all. And her children worship the ground she walks on.
"Great Flood Myth"? Such a universal myth, too. It includes science.
Beringia? "Land Bridge"? Remember?
That's true. It's also greatly influenced by common sense and previous experience.
I'll keep my eyes peeled. It probably won't be long.
Who are the monotheists, and what did they say that was incorrect?
I know what secular means. And I did call evolution a secular religion. I meant every word.
Religion isn't confined to the God of Abraham. It is how it is defined, some secular people treat certain subjects like a religion, and Darwinism is one of them.
We don't know yet:
It occurred because of free will. It was inevitable, and God knew it.
I have no idea who you're talking about.
God as a creating force? Hell, I don't know. Neither does anybody else. Astro-physics is nothing but theory.
Ooooh! Then I can demonstrate inevitable opposing force in a way you'd understand very well, and likely never forget.
Look, physical theory is really neat stuff, but it is nonetheless primarily theory until unified. And how it relates to God and the supernatural is way beyond that.
Don't make yourself God yet, Tricky. You just aren't tricky enough.
Then we wouldn't have free will, would we?
He got what He wants: Love. Attraction. More spiritual entities who love Him and unite with Him. Not all, (some are repelled) but that was their choice.
It doesn't exist "apart from science." It exists and science cannot grasp it, define it, or manipulate it. And maybe never will. Science doesn't even have the physical figured out yet.
Hahaha!
Okay, point out were my "beliefs violate their own assumptions."
Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah; like your "God gene." You wouldn't deny homosexuality exists, do you?
Likewise, the evidence suggests that those who reject God violate their own genetic makeup. So, athiests are as queer as homosexuals, right?
Think you can have it all your way?
Unify your theories/evidence, or it's all as "religious" as my faith in God.
No, because the terms of your "verifiable" scenario prevent verification.
Again, that depends on where your "most kids" were.
Many believe that has already happened, and it isn't because religion has somehow infected government in the U.S. In fact, many believe it is because of he opposite. I'm one of them.
Indeed, radical Islamists use the mantra of "the Great Satan" to describe the U.S. not because of the religious people here, but because of the moral decline we flaunt and export.
What an exaggeration! Religion isn't controling science in the least! And, in my opinion, I want to see another power begin to "rule the world", especially if that means taking over police duties on this sorry planet.
Your posts are really wandering now. Deists believe in God. The writings of the American founders who were Deists are very well recorded, and I'm especially fond of Paine's writings. His writings were extremely centered on God, and I'd like to remind you that he had a very appropriate position on "national sin" (with regard to both England as well as slavery in the Colonies) that the current nation/culture needs to be reminded of.
Every time evidence or revelation dictated.
Nope. Obligatory fasting from meat on Friday during Lent wasn't God's rule. It was the Church's. Now fasting is suggested, and those who wish to do so in glory to God do so with free will.
Depends. "Can be"? I guess there's no limit.
The atheists. Why? Because I'm not among them, and the ones on this forum demonstrate vitriole for my religion and me personally.
The evidence is all over this forum. I've seen lots.
Indeed, check this out.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Me too. But there’s not much work being done on it, since it is of questionable utility.
Well, yes there was. Maybe not an election on those specific issues, but whoever was brought to power, either in the government or the church, ended the practice of teaching incorrect science or forbidding the teaching of evolution. We’ve seen it here too. They recently kicked out (via election) all the Kansas City school board members who were ramrodding “intelligent design” in the schools there. It takes time, but laws do change as a result of public demand.
Why would you do that unless you cared what people thought?
Really? I hadn’t noticed.
(Derogatory statements? I thought you were against those.)
Not all people who argue with you are idiots. Not even all the ones you call idiots.
I despair of ever making you into a master debater.
Nevertheless, he is an ordained minister and some people do use him as an authority on Christianity. Let me guess. You think they are idiots.
As far as I have been able to determine, the RCC opposes ALL executions, even Saddam’s. Actually, I oppose Saddam’s execution too, but for different reasons.
My support for the death penalty is conditional too. I want to try to have the best evidence possible that the person committed the crime and will always be a danger to society. We aren’t very good at that now, but we can and should try to be better. Science helps there too.
LOL. I didn’t expect you to accept my point. But this isn’t just about you. It is about the fact that Christians and even RCs may be very devout and yet have vastly different moral positions. Thus, morality does not come from the church/Bible. It comes from the person, and the church/Bible is simply the way they justify it.
Maybe not your inner circle, but you are indeed within the “big circle” of those who say they are Christians. Whether you like it or not and no matter how vehemently you deny it, their actions reflect on you. That’s just part of accepting the mantle of Christianity.
The same is true for me. I wish Michael Newdow would STFU, but I cannot deny that how I am perceived as an atheist is influenced by his actions.
The flood myth is far from universal. But I’d love to see you make a scientific defense of it. As a geologist and biologist, I can tell you that evidence against a global flood is so overwhelming that it makes the theory of gravity look like some crackpot scheme.
Don’t place too much store in “common sense”. It has led us astray many times. Back it up with some evidence.
I tremble with antici……
pation.
The ones you brought up. The ones you said opposed Darwin.
Then you are an oxymoron writer.
Do I have to remind you of the “religion” of changing your oil (and filter)? You can’t keep flip-flopping definitions like this, Huntster.
So there is evidence everywhere for gravity, but anti-gravity is only hypothetical and has never been shown to exist. That ain’t balance, Hunny, so there is some pretty strong evidence against your claim that everything needs balance. Really, Huntster, as a friend, I advise don’t take this tack. It is too easy to refute.
Nope. Still doesn’t work. The way your God is described, nothing is inevitable if He doesn’t want it to happen. He makes the rules.
Look here.
Then it seems wrong for you to make sweeping statements about “balance” when you admit you don’t know. BTW, as was explained earlier, ALL of science is “nothing but theory”.
You’ll have to do it with words. That’s all we have here. You may not realize this, but you are getting a verbal Bitch-Slapping right now. Of course, you probably think you’re BS-ing me too.
At least theories are based on evidence. Your statements about God and how He relates to the physical are based on none.
LOL. I don’t believe in God, and I certainly don’t try to make vacuous philosophical statements about His nature as you just did.
That’s what “apart from science” means. A realm where science cannot touch it.
You keep supporting me with your disagreements.
Okay, I’ll try to make a simple syllogism for you.
Major Premise: God created everything
Minor Premise: God hates Evil
Conclusion: God would not create Evil
Now you see, the conclusion violates one of the premises. EITHER god did not create everything (meaning He did not create Evil), OR God doesn’t hate Evil.
This is the theodicy paradox. Which of those premises would you change to allow for the creation of Evil?
In a sense, yes. They are unusual in the population, but certainly not unnatural. Our genetic code allows for a lot of variability, but being different from the norm is in no way wrong. But even if a “God gene” does exist, that far from validates the existence of God. Just the opposite. It only says that humans somehow evolved a need to believe in myths. History seems to confirm this. Christ was not the first myth humans believed in, and probably won’t be the last.
Physical science fits in quite well with biology and all the other sciences, thank you. Indeed, they all overlap greatly.
No, I can think of a number of pieces of evidence that would verify the existence of an afterlife. Christian charlatans like Sylvia Browne fake them all the time, but for some reason, they can’t seem to do so when under scrutiny. Why do you suppose that is?
And yet, religion’s power over elected officials is greater than at any time in US history, IMO.
Actually, they mostly hate us because we support Israel. And they hate Israel more than us. You think it’s because of their “moral decline”?
Religion is often the excuse for war. It is rarely the reason.
My statement was that they do/did not believe in God the way you do. They didn’t believe in the importance of Christ. As far as I can tell, they didn’t believe in heaven or any sort of afterlife. Indeed, they believed that Natural Law (not supernatural) is the source of morality.
Still, they were wrong, and they have admitted it. Why would anyone continue to give moral authority to a group that has been wrong so many times?
Some do, some don’t. Certainly you cannot claim innocence in the vitriol-dispensing department, nor can I.
You have said it earlier. You like to fight. Apparently, you’re not alone in that.
Oh no! Cartoons insulting God! Quick! Organize a Jihad!
If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out, Hunny.
In contrast, behold the gay marriage issue. As of today, and in historical short order, we now have 27 states with constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage (including Hawaii, which spurred this movement). This was initiated by attempted judicial lawmaking in both Massachusetts and Hawaii. It happened quickly, most by ballot initiative started at the grass roots level. These constitutional amendments are essentially liberal-judge-proof.
That's lawmaking by the people, not "lawmakers."
I'm fighting the lie, not the liar. The liar continues. The lie is exposed for the just to see.
And some are.
You should. You aren't a qualified instructor.
Some are. Most are propagandists.
You have determined incorrectly. Again.
Or, the church/bible is the foundation of their personal morality.
Correct, and I accept being in that community.
It beats a whole bunch of other communities, including this one.
The Christian community beats the Newdow community, too. By a long shot. Before Newdow was born, and long after he will be gone.
Do you deny the Siberian/Alaskan land bridge appearing and disappearing?
Yup, because those who adhere to science as a religion that I refer to live an oxymoronic life.
It is not a flip flop. Some people do religiously change their oil. You appear to be one of them. You don't do so in accordance with your owner's manual, but do so religiously.
It's really quite foolish. You're wasting money, oil, and contributing to environmental degradation because of your religious tenets.
You really should consider science in that regard.
Just like religion. It's easy to refute.
That's why you do it.
But that doesn't mean you're correct, especially when the jury is clearly still out.
He made the rules, and the universe is bound by them unless He chooses to transcend them.
And so are my opinions. And so are yours. Etc.
I'm not much for recognizing "verbal Bitch-Slapping." I've never even participated in physical Bitch-Slapping. I don't slap.
This is a practice in which I'm inexperienced. Please excuse my ignorance.
Correct. They are based on the spiritual theory and revelation of theologians, and are considered in faith, because there is little physical evidence, being a non-physical phenomenon.
You think so, because you refuse to grasp the obvious. And that's fine. It's your right. But it still doesn't make you correct.
Your major premise: God created everything.
God created Lucifer, and Lucifer created evil, through his own free will.
So, it isn't a God gene, is it? It's a myth gene.
That sounds like a line of BS propaganda to me.
Me, too, yet when presented, the "terms of verifiable" on this forum prevent it from being accepted as "evidence."
I believe you're wrong, and historical writings support me.
Nope. I think that's because they hate Jews.
I agree.
And I still say that it's a damned good excuse, and it resonates with those within Islam who aren't radical terrorists.
And that Natural Law was established by God.
For the same reason why we continue to elect governments to manage physical life: because we need them, despite them being humans like the rest of us.
Yup. And the beat goes on.............
I can take it. And I love dishing it back.
No Jihad needed. Just pointing out the truth will work.