774 replies to this topic

[Pham Nuwen]

I can't be responsible or anyone's reactions. Should theists just shut up while Atheists rave on?

The past several thousand years of human history at the very least would have turned out far more felicitously for the human race if theists had done just that instead of shoving their version of "Teh Ultimate Truth" and "The Real Holy Book" - always dictated, as Christopher Hitchens so adroitly pointed out, to disturbed epileptics in violent Middle-Eastern Bronze-Age pastoral cultures - at spear/knife/gun-point down everyone's throat and burning at the stake or dismembering everyone who disagreed on minor doctrinal points, like whether the wafer and wine of the eucharist actually turn into Jesus's corpse in one's digestive system.

[Pham Nuwen]

If the thought ever crossed your mind, I am by no means religious. The lone reason for which I used the term 'god' is I had trouble finding another name to describe the ever-speculated phenomenon.

Be that as it may, I think it wise and judicious for all responsible and intelligent non-theists to avoid the term "God" altogether, so as not to perpetuate the very unfortunate, but also very common misconception that scientific findings confirm the claims made by various religious texts and groups - they most certainly do not - and the equally unfortunate theist tendency to take figures of speech like "looking into the mind of God" out of context and twist them into "evidence" confirming the aforementioned claims. Perhaps more importantly, using terms that are as parsimoniously and cogently defined as possible and applying them properly is a healthy habit that supports good mental/logical hygiene. The crux of my problem with your use of the word "God", then, is that there simply is no way that the concept you describe could, by any stretch of the imagination, be identified with the allegedly personal, self-aware, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, (never mind the ubiquitous contradictions in the definition) being-concept of which theologians, and common people as well, almost invariably speak when they use the term "God". As so many introductory atheist texts are so inveterate in pointing out, when you define God as whatever you want (or as vaguely as you want), proving his/its existence becomes trivial and the concept unfalsifiable.

Edited by Pham Nuwen, 24 November 2010 - 06:48 AM.

[Pham Nuwen]

Duplicate post, mods please delete.

Edited by Pham Nuwen, 24 November 2010 - 06:49 AM.

[Cameron]

If Mind can scale up indefinitely in capability, say via attaining infinite computational resources. Then godlike entities can exist. But it is extremely unlikely that such gods would resemble the fabrications of earthly religions. In this universe many a religious oppose evolution, because the way the world operates with its uncaring, unflinching allowance of rape, torture, survival of the fittest is against their fabricated idea of a false god. But is the operation of the world not the very essence the very writing of whatever process generated the universe be it via a mind or mindless? We know that evolution at least operates mindlessly and so too do the laws of physics.

The religious tend to detest the material world, and yet dream of a monotonous kid-safe recreation of the material world with pets and all in their dead and false idea of heaven.... a heaven trapped in the mundane wrappings of small primitive minds, a heaven that is even more primitive than the ideas transhumanist have grasped regarding the future of earth...

Beings closer to the divine nature, to the absolute truth underlying reality, can be viewed as beyond good and evil. Thus it is likely any godlike being might be quite alien in its workings as viewed from simpleton insects contemplating the light of absolute truth.

Edited by Cameron, 01 February 2011 - 09:30 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

I feel like someone is trying to sell me a pencil in an airport.

[mikeinnaples]

Since we are discussing mythological creatures, perhaps we should bring the tooth fairy or maybe ...unicorns into the conversation and talk about whether or not they are theoretically possible.

[Rational Madman]

Since we are discussing mythological creatures, perhaps we should bring the tooth fairy or maybe ...unicorns into the conversation and talk about whether or not they are theoretically possible.

Be careful, you may incur the wrath of the handful of evangelicals (and their sock puppets) that wandered into this forum, and decided to stick around for some reason.

[Tet Omeg]

Since we are discussing mythological creatures, perhaps we should bring the tooth fairy or maybe ...unicorns into the conversation and talk about whether or not they are theoretically possible.

Be careful, you may incur the wrath of the handful of evangelicals (and their sock puppets) that wandered into this forum, and decided to stick around for some reason.

Yes, those atheist evangelists do often get quite hateful, as the fairly recent experiences with Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia demonstrated. But I can handle them--after all, unlike them, I'm immortal, so there's nothing they can do to stop me.

That which kills me only makes me stronger.

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God--of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause):

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.e...feverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

[mikeinnaples]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics.

This is pure garbage.

[maxwatt]

[shadowhawk]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics.

This is pure garbage.

Not an answer to Tipler. Come on, you can do better than that!

[Rational Madman]

Do you really have to start contributing again, because I was quite enjoying your absence.

[shadowhawk]

Here are a couple of additional sources on The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have more.

http://www.answersin...aghetti-monster

[Tet Omeg]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics.

This is pure garbage.

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theorem is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T.

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://www.webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://www.webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY13xRip Full proceedings volume: http://www.webcitation.org/5nwu4fT31

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://www.webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://math.tulane.e...feverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:

"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics", TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.co...libertyandtruth

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing fundamentally wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[brokenportal]

Its important that these kinds of discussions go on, if we realize that endless speculation and half proof and trying to find ever more clever proof is probably not going to reach the true answer. Of course, evidence in this endlessness can be found in the reality of the age of this debate. Its not a bad discussion and debate. I think its one of the most healthy things that a person can do to hone their thinking skills, but I want to stress that we must realize that, seemingly, the best way to approach this is to think about all of the impactful things that we could know as a whole.

I sum that up this way for convenience. Then with that as the aim, do what it takes to acquire the resources that will take us in the direction of the potential to open up the doors that can give us the answers. In other words, if for example we want to know what is buried in a hidden egyptian tomb, endless speculation (though important) can only take us so far. We should collect and arrange for the archeology resources, the transportation, and the time to go there and find out.

In the case of the big 8 things to know about existence, some of the resources that we need to accumulate are indefinite life extension, liberated space mobility, singularity, and a host of other things.

Edited by brokenportal, 09 February 2011 - 07:22 AM.

[BlueCloud]

I find all these discussions about whether God exists or not pretty absurd...

Can't "God" take just a nano-second of his very busy schedule to step up and clarify this whole mess ? Is it so hard to register in this forum and just drop a line or two "Hey folks , just wanted to drop by and say i'm real, so stop these ramblings about me. You can go back now to your regular Resveratrol Vs Curcumin threads" ?

Does "God" suffer from Social Anxiety ? If he/she/it exists and truly omnipotent as theists says , why do we have to play these childish guessing games ? Why would he stubbornely refuse to communicate with "his" creatures ? Come on , we're big boys , we can handle it if he suddenly appears over the Eiffel Tower or Central Park and just communicate directly with us ( well ok , i predict mass panic , but he is omnipotent enough to inject the equivalent of 2mg xanax in every one of us before appearing)...

Come on God ! Don't be shy, come down and have a chat with us ! Read the Social Anxiety forums if you need any help ! We've came a long way since the cavemen , we're pretty understanding folks now, we can handle it !

Edited by BlueCloud, 11 February 2011 - 01:57 PM.

[chris w]

Since we are discussing mythological creatures, perhaps we should bring the tooth fairy or maybe ...unicorns into the conversation and talk about whether or not they are theoretically possible.

Be careful, you may incur the wrath of the handful of evangelicals (and their sock puppets) that wandered into this forum, and decided to stick around for some reason.

Yes, those atheist evangelists do often get quite hateful, as the fairly recent experiences with Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia demonstrated. But I can handle them--after all, unlike them, I'm immortal, so there's nothing they can do to stop me.

I'm kind of used to Christians playing this card and trying to slip the Nazis smoothly in this context, but every once in a while I still feel the urge. Dude, use the eternity you have to learn a bit deeper about the ideological undercurrents of National Socialism, like this little something called Ariosophy. The fact thay they disliked the Church(es) and persecuted them to an extent doesn't mean they were anti - religious in the end, "religion" doesn't equate to Christianity. Hitler believed in and often referred to some kind of Higher Force which he thought bestowed the political mission upon him, Himmler, Borman and Walter Darre were outright neo-pagans (Adolf dissed that one 'though), the head of SS also liked to read from Bhagawadgita as an example of "Aryan spirituality", believed the legend of the Grail was real, and kept his own psychic/racial mistic (K.M. Willigut), SS men often described themselves with the special non-denominational category "Gottglaubig", "Atheist" was actually seen as innapropriate, and for a little time in the very beggining Nazis wanted to keep the Christian faith in some form, only dejudaise it (so called Positive Christianity), claiming the historical Jesus and apostoles were for ex Celts, and believe me there's more of such stuff. Rant mode off.

Edited by chris w, 12 February 2011 - 02:00 PM.

[Cameron]

I find all these discussions about whether God exists or not pretty absurd...

Can't "God" take just a nano-second of his very busy schedule to step up and clarify this whole mess ? Is it so hard to register in this forum and just drop a line or two "Hey folks , just wanted to drop by and say i'm real, so stop these ramblings about me. You can go back now to your regular Resveratrol Vs Curcumin threads" ?

Does "God" suffer from Social Anxiety ? If he/she/it exists and truly omnipotent as theists says , why do we have to play these childish guessing games ? Why would he stubbornely refuse to communicate with "his" creatures ? Come on , we're big boys , we can handle it if he suddenly appears over the Eiffel Tower or Central Park and just communicate directly with us ( well ok , i predict mass panic , but he is omnipotent enough to inject the equivalent of 2mg xanax in every one of us before appearing)...

Come on God ! Don't be shy, come down and have a chat with us ! Read the Social Anxiety forums if you need any help ! We've came a long way since the cavemen , we're pretty understanding folks now, we can handle it !

Even if that happens how do we know it ain't aliens or some time traveller from the far off future?

[BlueCloud]

Even if that happens how do we know it ain't aliens or some time traveller from the far off future?

I don't know... if "it" pretends to be God , you could ask it to perform some precise "miracles" maybe ?

Anyway , i was just commenting on the silly idea of a "God" that only communicates when he feels like it , and only through very cryptic and obscure holy books and convoluted and bizarre rituals that only make sense to him . The fact that no religious person would ever ask himself this question is even more puzzling.

Edited by BlueCloud, 13 February 2011 - 06:49 PM.

[drus]

yes, god is theoretically possible according to the omega point theory, which is based on our current understanding of physics. however our current understanding of physics is likely incomplete and flawed. what was the first cause of everything? (universe, multiverse, space-time, reality, all possible realities etc?)

[Cameron]

Even if that happens how do we know it ain't aliens or some time traveller from the far off future?

I don't know... if "it" pretends to be God , you could ask it to perform some precise "miracles" maybe ?

Anyway , i was just commenting on the silly idea of a "God" that only communicates when he feels like it , and only through very cryptic and obscure holy books and convoluted and bizarre rituals that only make sense to him . The fact that no religious person would ever ask himself this question is even more puzzling.

How would you explain something like that to someone like lain(wired religion)?

The dream of schala, colonization of the cosmos(chrono cross), the dream of alice, seems similar to omega point.

Edited by Cameron, 17 February 2011 - 08:25 AM.

[Destiny's Equation]

No, God is not theoretically possible. Omnipotence and omniscience are properties which can not possibly occur.

Perhaps they occur in euclidean space.

[drus]

quote by chris w, "I'm kind of used to Christians playing this card and trying to slip the Nazis smoothly in this context, but every once in a while I still feel the urge. Dude, use the eternity you have to learn a bit deeper about the ideological undercurrents of National Socialism, like this little something called Ariosophy. The fact thay they disliked the Church(es) and persecuted them to an extent doesn't mean they were anti - religious in the end, "religion" doesn't equate to Christianity. Hitler believed in and often referred to some kind of Higher Force which he thought bestowed the political mission upon him, Himmler, Borman and Walter Darre were outright neo-pagans (Adolf dissed that one 'though), the head of SS also liked to read from Bhagawadgita as an example of "Aryan spirituality", believed the legend of the Grail was real, and kept his own psychic/racial mistic (K.M. Willigut), SS men often described themselves with the special non-denominational category "Gottglaubig", "Atheist" was actually seen as innapropriate, and for a little time in the very beggining Nazis wanted to keep the Christian faith in some form, only dejudaise it (so called Positive Christianity), claiming the historical Jesus and apostoles were for ex Celts, and believe me there's more of such stuff. Rant mode off."


very true, Chris. good post, the only change i'd make to it is in your first sentence. "those claiming to be christian" as opposed to actual christians. it's good to read people who know what they're talking about.

[AstralProjectee]

If you ask anyone from a eastern religion if they know where God exists. They will say he is in the unmanifest. You can find a part of God that is manifest too, he is called Atman (that is you). In the unmanifest he is called Brahman, father, wu chi. Even Jesus says we are Gods. Who says God does not evolve.

Regards, AP

[budha]

I can easily see that all respondents are ignorant of god. Its not an insult, most ppl are. UR trying to discuss a topic you all have no references for. You dont even have the appropriate language. F'rinstance, I saw the question "who created god?" I have your answer, no one. That makes no sense does it? Oh yes, about gods' existence being possible, how about mandatory. Do you get that one? Then there's the proverbial "why" -- answer "why not".
All I can say of any real meaning is, I hope some of you, or all of you find god before you die.

[mikeinnaples]

I can easily see that all respondents are ignorant of god. Its not an insult, most ppl are. UR trying to discuss a topic you all have no references for. You dont even have the appropriate language. F'rinstance, I saw the question "who created god?" I have your answer, no one. That makes no sense does it? Oh yes, about gods' existence being possible, how about mandatory. Do you get that one? Then there's the proverbial "why" -- answer "why not".
All I can say of any real meaning is, I hope some of you, or all of you find god before you die.

Discussing appropriate language is laughable giving that you forgot to use actual words in part of your response. I am willing to overlook that if you can tell me which 'god' I should find before I die.

[Mishael]

I think for the people defending God one truth you got to realize people who show skepticism are only so because they do not want to change and be obedient to the truth they want to continue in their crooked ways, they want to steal and lie and covet and murder and commit adultery and break all of the commandments and their theories allow them to do that, to forget God and to create their own gods allows for this but in the end it will not be well for them, being ignorant will not save them or help them...most of these people are fornicators and drug users and sensualists and who knows what else they are filthy and self-righteous and have no idea of what the gospel is about. These people are all about one of several things all summed up in one word vanity. They are greedy for money or honor or pleasure or ease. They are inherently selfish.

[mikeinnaples]

I think for the people defending God one truth you got to realize people who show skepticism are only so because they do not want to change and be obedient to the truth they want to continue in their crooked ways, they want to steal and lie and covet and murder and commit adultery and break all of the commandments and their theories allow them to do that, to forget God and to create their own gods allows for this but in the end it will not be well for them, being ignorant will not save them or help them...most of these people are fornicators and drug users and sensualists and who knows what else they are filthy and self-righteous and have no idea of what the gospel is about. These people are all about one of several things all summed up in one word vanity. They are greedy for money or honor or pleasure or ease. They are inherently selfish.

So if you don't believe in 'god' (which god by the way, you didnt specify) you are automatically crooked, you steal, you lie, you covet (covet? wtf ...REALLY?! lol), you commit adultry, etc. I hate to break it to you, but more crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religious ideologies than anything else.

Anyways, what god am I forgetting? Given the complete and total lack of evidence and proof, it seems as though your god as forgetten us ...not the other way around. I would be happy to believe in a god that actually exists, but I refuse to believe in the garbage quack jobs like you preach. The only evidence christianity has is the image of a bearded guy burnt into toast or pancakes ...or maybe a water stain on the side of a building. Outside of that, religion is a form of mind control .... 'non believers' show skepticism because they are not brain washed and have opened thier eyes to reality, not because they are crooked. You religious nuts make me laugh ...and I feel sorry for how brainwashed you are.

[shadowhawk]

I think for the people defending God one truth you got to realize people who show skepticism are only so because they do not want to change and be obedient to the truth they want to continue in their crooked ways, they want to steal and lie and covet and murder and commit adultery and break all of the commandments and their theories allow them to do that, to forget God and to create their own gods allows for this but in the end it will not be well for them, being ignorant will not save them or help them...most of these people are fornicators and drug users and sensualists and who knows what else they are filthy and self-righteous and have no idea of what the gospel is about. These people are all about one of several things all summed up in one word vanity. They are greedy for money or honor or pleasure or ease. They are inherently selfish.

I don’t believe that people who show skepticism do so only because they don’t want to change or be obedient to God. Some do, but you can tell them from those, by the way they deal with the subject. In my atheist days I was quite nasty but was serious in my search for truth. (God found me.) I went from atheist to agnostic to theist, Christian. Some non religious people can be quite moral: I have meet quite a few of them. There are scoundrels of course but just look at how we are accused of all the sins of past Christians. Someway they think they are moral accusing Christians of every sin of the past thousands of years but point out some of their own, as you have done, and you are being judgmental.

When you add it all up theists have not come close to being the great killers of history (see Rummel, “Death by Government”). However the real question is, is there a God?

[mikeinnaples]

I don’t believe that people who show skepticism do so only because they don’t want to change or be obedient to God. Some do, but you can tell them from those, by the way they deal with the subject. In my atheist days I was quite nasty but was serious in my search for truth. (God found me.) I went from atheist to agnostic to theist, Christian. Some non religious people can be quite moral: I have meet quite a few of them. There are scoundrels of course but just look at how we are accused of all the sins of past Christians. Someway they think they are moral accusing Christians of every sin of the past thousands of years but point out some of their own, as you have done, and you are being judgmental.

It nice to see someone who is reasonable with thier beliefs.

Believe it or not, I am not against people practicing religion or spirituality. What I am against is people cramming it down my throat or using it as an excuse for deplorable actions (see radical religious elements for reference). In other words, if you want to believe in a god or some other supernatural being, more power to you. Just don't preach it to me... otherwise I tend to preach back just as aggressively (and rightfully so).