View Full Version : God is the worlds most prolific Abortionist
50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing she was pregnant.
20% of all Pregnancy's end in miscarrages.
God is obviously the most prolific Abortionist of all.
9sublime
04-27-2007, 11:40 AM
Yes, but its "all part of his great plan", the biggest cop out for any religious person.
Coyote
04-27-2007, 07:11 PM
The way I look at it...God gave us a start. That kick-in-the-butt that says your alive, make the best of it and try not to fark it up too much. And then she left us to fark it up or love it up. Our choice. Abortions aren't her business. She just started the ball rolling. Rest is up to us.
50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing she was pregnant.
20% of all Pregnancy's end in miscarrages.
God is obviously the most prolific Abortionist of all.
Funny how non-Christians always find a way to tell Christians should and should not believe according to their religion.
My 84 year old granddad died 2 years ago of natural causes, that must mean God murdered him! Come on man, people die. Sometimes for no reason. Thats just the way things work. It doesn't mean God was at work in every death.
Funny how non-Christians always find a way to tell Christians should and should not believe according to their religion.
My 84 year old granddad died 2 years ago of natural causes, that must mean God murdered him! Come on man, people die. Sometimes for no reason. Thats just the way things work. It doesn't mean God was at work in every death.
So then your saying he either doesn't have the power to stop babies from being naturally aborted, or he doesn't care.
interesting God.
Whats funny, is that people still believe in this nonsense.
So then your saying he either doesn't have the power to stop babies from being naturally aborted, or he doesn't care.
interesting God.
Whats funny, is that people still believe in this nonsense.
The old problem of evil dilemma....
There have been hundreds of theodicies written by many different religions. If you really care, just do a google search, but my first impression is that you don't, so I'm not going to waste my time doing the research for you. I would like to ask you why you think you have some understanding of what a religious person's view of God is.
The old problem of evil dilemma....
There have been hundreds of theodicies written by many different religions. If you really care, just do a google search, but my first impression is that you don't, so I'm not going to waste my time doing the research for you. I would like to ask you why you think you have some understanding of what a religious person's view of God is.
The problem of theodicy is insurmountable. There is no retort to it.
The problem of theodicy is insurmountable. There is no retort to it.
A "theodicy" is a retort to the problem you posed. Just shows that you haven't looked into this in the first bit.
palerider
04-27-2007, 11:47 PM
50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing she was pregnant.
20% of all Pregnancy's end in miscarrages.
God is obviously the most prolific Abortionist of all.
Please explain the logic by which you equate natural death to deliberate killing and if you are genuinely able to make such a connection in your mind, whether or not you belive that all laws concerning one human being killing another should be stricken from the books since all of us will eventually die anyway.
A "theodicy" is a retort to the problem you posed. Just shows that you haven't looked into this in the first bit.
I know exactly what it is.
Its a genuine statement. Used by many authors in many books. You sound uneducated.
Please explain the logic by which you equate natural death to deliberate killing and if you are genuinely able to make such a connection in your mind, whether or not you belive that all laws concerning one human being killing another should be stricken from the books since all of us will eventually die anyway.
Thats my entire point. There is absolutely no logic or reason to what most people believe God to be.
Thanks.
I know exactly what it is.
Its a genuine statement. Used by many authors in many books. You sound uneducated.
You are the one that used the term incorrectly, not me.
You are the one that used the term incorrectly, not me.
You know, because I'm a nice guy I'll give you the chance to actually get informed on the subject before I tear into your ignorance.
Why don't you go do a google search or something, maybe read a book or two and then come back and we can debate this once you know what your talking about.
you said:
The problem of theodicy is insurmountable. There is no retort to it.
My point is that a theodicy IS a retort to the problem of evil that you proposed. Here, you are using the word theodicy as interchangable with the "problem of evil dilemma." Therefore you are misusing the term.
you said:
My point is that a theodicy IS a retort to the problem of evil that you proposed. Here, you are using the word theodicy as interchangable with the "problem of evil dilemma." Therefore you are misusing the term.
Theodicy is an argument and question in itself, how a good and all-powerful God can allow so much suffering. There is no reasonable retort to this question.
By the way, your continual arguing of semantics leads me to believe that you don't really have anything actually to say on the subject.
Theodicy is an argument and question in itself, how a good and all-powerful God can allow so much suffering. There is no reasonable retort to this question.
By the way, your continual arguing of semantics leads me to believe that you don't really have anything actually to say on the subject.
Like I said, there have been thousands of different answers given to your question, but you have already made up your mind on what you want to believe. Its useless to debate religion since we clearly have two very different definitions of what God is, or could be. All I ask is that you stop pushing your stereotypes of religion.
Like I said, there have been thousands of different answers given to your question, but you have already made up your mind on what you want to believe. Its useless to debate religion since we clearly have two very different definitions of what God is, or could be. All I ask is that you stop pushing your stereotypes of religion.
I will not. I'm openly intolerant of religion. There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin.
Its the same irrationality and ignorance. I don't see religion or faith any differently than I see any other issue. You would rightly so, ridicule anyone that told you the Earth was flat, religious beliefs are just as irrational and just as unjustifiable. Neither position deserves any respect.
vyo476
04-28-2007, 12:20 PM
I will not. I'm openly intolerant of religion. There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin.
Its the same irrationality and ignorance. I don't see religion or faith any differently than I see any other issue. You would rightly so, ridicule anyone that told you the Earth was flat, religious beliefs are just as irrational and just as unjustifiable. Neither position deserves any respect.
They are justifiable in that they give people a sense of balance and order. There are a lot of things left in the world and the universe that, at present, we just can't explain. That can be pretty scary for some people and the idea, the belief, that there is something definable in all that unknown is comforting.
Sometimes religions do get out of control, but I think that you'll find that most people who are religious are not primarily religious; they think about other things and perform other tasks that are more important to them than their religion. Until someone can prove their beliefs wrong they'll keep them. They needn't prove anything because their beliefs center on something (God) that currently cannot be proven or disproved.
You challenge those of faith to prove that God exists. They can't. For them it isn't about proof, it's about belief, because proof one way or the other just doesn't exist yet.
I will not. I'm openly intolerant of religion. There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin.
Its the same irrationality and ignorance. I don't see religion or faith any differently than I see any other issue. You would rightly so, ridicule anyone that told you the Earth was flat, religious beliefs are just as irrational and just as unjustifiable. Neither position deserves any respect.
Well, at least youre a bigot who admits he is a bigot.
Well, at least youre a bigot who admits he is a bigot.
and your still an ignorant fool.
Here we go with the childish name calling again. I call you a bigot because you openly admit to being one. Calling me an ignorant fool is simply uncalled for. What is it with you people that you can't debate an issue seriousely without resorting to offensive personal attacks?
Here we go with the childish name calling again. I call you a bigot because you openly admit to being one. Calling me an ignorant fool is simply uncalled for. What is it with you people that you can't debate an issue seriousely without resorting to offensive personal attacks?
I called you an ignorant fool because its obvious from your posts that you are one.
I nowhere admitted to being a Bigot. Stop lying.
This is how it always ends up when I express my intolerance of irrational beliefs. The fundies can't handle it and resort to insults. And when I defend myself they get their panties in a wad and cry.
Grow up.
I called you an ignorant fool because its obvious from your posts that you are one.
I nowhere admitted to being a Bigot. Stop lying.
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
You have openly admitted to everything in this definition.
There is a line of common courtesy that we clearly do not have on this board. When you intentionally make offensive statements toward a particular group, you can't really get upset when they get offended. We would not tolerate it if someone started using racial slurs on this board, so I don't feel it should be tolerated for you to use the kind of hate speech that you are using.
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
You have openly admitted to everything in this definition.
There is a line of common courtesy that we clearly do not have on this board. When you intentionally make offensive statements toward a particular group, you can't really get upset when they get offended. We would not tolerate it if someone started using racial slurs on this board, so I don't feel it should be tolerated for you to use the kind of hate speech that you are using.
Wrong. There is nothing bigoted about expressing intolerance for irrational beliefs. I hold no ill will against you because your an ignorant fool. But I see no reason to not point out the irrationality and ignorance of your beliefs.
If that makes me a bigot in your twisted world, so be it. I've been called worse by the supposed compassionate Christians in this nation.
The definition I posted was straight out of Websters dictionary. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. You admitted to everything in that definition, therefore, you are a bigot.
You are making assumptions again that I am a Christian. I am merely a theist. I simply have a hatred for people that spread hatred against religions where it is not deserved, and you clearly fit that bill.
The definition I posted was straight out of Websters dictionary. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. You admitted to everything in that definition, therefore, you are a bigot.
You are making assumptions again that I am a Christian. I am merely a theist. I simply have a hatred for people that spread hatred against religions where it is not deserved, and you clearly fit that bill.
It doesn't matter what you are, you clearly have irrational beliefs, and you clearly defend the fundamentalists.
If spreading the truth about religion creates hatred of it, then thats an objectionably good thing in my opinion.
If you knew how to comprehend English then you could see the difference between the definition of the word 'bigot' and what my views are.
vyo476
04-28-2007, 05:04 PM
It doesn't matter what you are, you clearly have irrational beliefs, and you clearly defend the fundamentalists.
If spreading the truth about religion creates hatred of it, then thats an objectionably good thing in my opinion.
If you knew how to comprehend English then you could see the difference between the definition of the word 'bigot' and what my views are.
Yes, your belief is that since religion is irrational, you can't be bigoted against it. Historically speaking that kind of argument usually has some pretty scary results.
Koios
04-29-2007, 01:42 AM
Guys come on... no need for the name calling.
9sublime
04-29-2007, 05:26 AM
Its so obvious religion is an irrational belief in a God people have never met to help them through their darkest hours. Religion changes with the times, so people can deal with new struggles in the period they are living in by turning to a higher being for help.
And the reason that religion is in decline in the west is because of the great advances in the standard of living. People are generally happy in the west, they do not have lots of troubles compared to 300 years ago, and so people have less and less need for the comfort of God in their life. But in the poorer parts of the world, people do rely on a God, because it gives them hope, even if it is so very, very irrational.
And their are Christians now who barely follow the Bible, because it doesn't fit into anything anymore unless its symbolic. This just shows Christianity is another cult that just got lucky and big and has survived, along with Islam etc. Jesus disciples would have been seen along the lines of Phelps etc. (but peaceful), just some bizzare people who were trying to get people to follow them.
I am anti-religion, because its so clear to me religion has been used all through the ages to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and to comfort our fears.
vyo476
04-29-2007, 07:06 AM
...religion has been used all through the ages to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and to comfort our fears.
Do you want to explain to me what is inherently bad about that?
9sublime
04-29-2007, 07:57 AM
Nothing, but it doesn't make it in itself any more rational or true. And religion has done so much bad to cancel that out.
vyo476
04-29-2007, 09:18 AM
Nothing, but it doesn't make it in itself any more rational or true. And religion has done so much bad to cancel that out.
It isn't about physical, tangible truth, it's about personal truth, which has nothing to do with rationality. Religion has done a lot of bad, but it's also done a lot of good. The idea of an ever-present uplifting force in peoples' lives has had a positive impact on how they view themselves and the world.
9sublime
04-29-2007, 11:27 AM
But its so clear that religion is made up. Get some kid, clone him (don't agree with that!), and put one of him in an actively believing Muslim family and one of him in a actively believeing (or should I say following) Christian family. Chances are one will turn out a Muslim, and one will turn out as a Christian, and they will both think they've got it made and that they have the right path laid out for them.
One will think he will get to see Jesus God sitting side by side, and one will think he gets to have a go with some virgins.
vyo476
04-29-2007, 01:44 PM
That's why its about personal truth. You're getting into the whole nature vs. nurture argument there. Just because two people are cloned from the same DNA doesn't necessarily mean they'll turn out to have all the same values. Many of the same perhaps but there will always be the impact of different things in a person's upbringing. In the end, the two clones may have identical DNA but they are two different people. Two different people follow two different religions (which are, in the end, very similar themselves by the way). There's no surprise there.
Is it anymore rational to believe that the universe was created from nothingness without any outside influence? Science clearly states that is an impossibility, so why to athiest believe that it happened without help from something more powerful? Science has also said that it is a statistical improbability, if not a statistical impossibility, for life to be created, and the odds are even less for life as complex as humans, yet atheist believe it happened all on its own without any outside influence. To me, that seems pretty irrational.
RadicalActor
04-29-2007, 02:08 PM
Is it anymore rational to believe that the universe was created from nothingness without any outside influence? Science clearly states that is an impossibility, so why to athiest believe that it happened without help from something more powerful? Science has also said that it is a statistical improbability, if not a statistical impossibility, for life to be created, and the odds are even less for life as complex as humans, yet atheist believe it happened all on its own without any outside influence. To me, that seems pretty irrational.
Our science is just not yet advanced enough to fully understand the beginning of the universe.
Is it anymore rational to believe that the universe was created from nothingness without any outside influence? Science clearly states that is an impossibility, so why to athiest believe that it happened without help from something more powerful? Science has also said that it is a statistical improbability, if not a statistical impossibility, for life to be created, and the odds are even less for life as complex as humans, yet atheist believe it happened all on its own without any outside influence. To me, that seems pretty irrational.
the atheist you have conjured is an utter straw man. Atheism does not assert that it is all made by chance. No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not.
the atheist you have conjured is an utter straw man. Atheism does not assert that it is all made by chance. No one knows why the universe came into being. Most scientists readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not.
If it is not by chance, they what else is there other than a higher being?
If it is not by chance, they what else is there other than a higher being?
I don't Know.
But just because we don't have the answer for why, doesn't mean we should just make up an answer. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know yet.
I don't Know.
But just because we don't have the answer for why, doesn't mean we should just make up an answer. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know yet.
So basicly, you have no clue what the answer is, yet you see fit to dismiss theories that could explain it simply because they are outside your scope of the plausable.
Either come up with the answer or stop calling people ignorant for suggesting their answers.
So basicly, you have no clue what the answer is, yet you see fit to dismiss theories that could explain it simply because they are outside your scope of the plausable.
It has to do with this little thing called evidence. You either have good reasons for your beliefs or you don't.
You suggest that the existence of the universe demonstrates the existence of God. Why?
Why should I accept this unjustified and unjustifiable belief?
Either come up with the answer or stop calling people ignorant for suggesting their answers.
Yah, except thats not how it works.
If you have an answer you should expect to have to prove it if you actually want people to take you seriously.
vyo476
04-29-2007, 03:11 PM
There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know yet.
Congratulations, you are officially an agnostic!
The reason you should leave people to their beliefs is because you can't prove them wrong. If they start trying to prove that their religion is the utter "truth" and not a personal truth then by all means, jump all over them and show them how idiotic they're being.
Personally, I think most organized religions are BS because they profess a very strict view of something that, if it existed, would be so large and powerful that we probably wouldn't be able to understand it or even describe it using limited human language.
I happen to think my view's a pretty good one. Still, I can't prove it to a Christian, and until I can I'm perfectly content to let them go on worshiping - so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me.
vyo476
04-29-2007, 03:15 PM
You suggest that the existence of the universe demonstrates the existence of God. Why?
It demonstrates the possibility of the existence of God.
Why should I accept this unjustified and unjustifiable belief?
You don't have to accept it as your own; you just have to acknowledge the possibility and let other people do as they will until actual empirical evidence to the contrary pops up.
If you have an answer you should expect to have to prove it if you actually want people to take you seriously.
And since you can't prove things one way or the other, isn't a better idea to just let people have their beliefs? Think of religious beliefs as being rather far-fetched theories. No way to prove them wrong. Probably not right either, but you just can't offer them proof that they're wrong. So leave them to it until you can.
Congratulations, you are officially an agnostic!
The reason you should leave people to their beliefs is because you can't prove them wrong. If they start trying to prove that their religion is the utter "truth" and not a personal truth then by all means, jump all over them and show them how idiotic they're being.
Personally, I think most organized religions are BS because they profess a very strict view of something that, if it existed, would be so large and powerful that we probably wouldn't be able to understand it or even describe it using limited human language.
I happen to think my view's a pretty good one. Still, I can't prove it to a Christian, and until I can I'm perfectly content to let them go on worshiping - so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me.
Everyone is an Atheist in regards to Zues and all the other Gods that now lie upon the scrapheap of mythology.
Its not up to me to prove them wrong. Its up to them to prove their beliefs. If they can't, then why should they be respected?
I really don't understand why you guys will tolerate irrationality? Why is the subject of religion so taboo to you people?
It demonstrates the possibility of the existence of God.How? Because everything that exists must have a cause? It is amazing how many people find this argument compelling.
If God created the universe, what created God?
You don't have to accept it as your own; you just have to acknowledge the possibility and let other people do as they will until actual empirical evidence to the contrary pops up.I will not acknowledge ludicrous claims about the universe. Whats the intellectual justification for tolerating the stupid beliefs that people hold?
And since you can't prove things one way or the other, isn't a better idea to just let people have their beliefs? Think of religious beliefs as being rather far-fetched theories. No way to prove them wrong. Probably not right either, but you just can't offer them proof that they're wrong. So leave them to it until you can.ONce again, its not my job to disprove. Its their job to prove. If they can't prove it, then why should they be taken seriously. Thats how things work.
Making ludicrous statements about the nature of the universe does not deserve anyones respect.
How? Because everything that exists must have a cause? It is amazing how many people find this argument compelling.
If God created the universe, what created God?
I will not acknowledge ludicrous claims about the universe. Whats the intellectual justification for tolerating the stupid beliefs that people hold?
ONce again, its not my job to disprove. Its their job to prove. If they can't prove it, then why should they be taken seriously. Thats how things work.
Making ludicrous statements about the nature of the universe does not deserve anyones respect.
I can understand why and agnostic would make the statement that he has nothing to prove, since an agnostic is admitting that he does not know the answers about God and religion. You, on the other hand, as an atheist, claim to know that there is no God. You are making claims that need to be backed up by evidence. If there is no God, prove it by showing what is the truth. I have shown you statistical scientific evidence for my beliefs. Show me some evidence for yours. Saying that something is silly does not constitute a valid argument.
vyo476
04-29-2007, 08:00 PM
It must really be nice to sit and say "I don't have to prove my point but you have to prove yours."
I can understand why and agnostic would make the statement that he has nothing to prove, since an agnostic is admitting that he does not know the answers about God and religion. You, on the other hand, as an atheist, claim to know that there is no God. You are making claims that need to be backed up by evidence. If there is no God, prove it by showing what is the truth. You rather frequently, ignore the plain meaning of words. Creating Strawmen is rather intellectually dishonest of you, don't you think Dave?
Once again, I did not say that I "know" that there is no God. I do know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God, and that you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence to back up the claim that there is a God.
Since you are making the claim that there is a God, the Burden of proof lies on you to prove it.
I have shown you statistical scientific evidence for my beliefs. Show me some evidence for yours. Saying that something is silly does not constitute a valid argument.Where is this statistical scientific evidence? Please re-post it or perhaps link it for me.
What exactly do I need to provide evidence of?
It must really be nice to sit and say "I don't have to prove my point but you have to prove yours."
I trust that the actual attentive readers will notice where my words are being misconstrued.
This just sums it up, but I can come up with more links if you really think its necessary.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html
This just sums it up, but I can come up with more links if you really think its necessary.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html
Wow...excuse me while I laugh out loud for a few minutes first.
ok, i've controlled myself.
said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing,
You know Dave, I'm not a statistician, so maybe you can explain to me how 'god' automatically has a 50/50 chance of existing?
Don't ya think that this guys science might be just a little flawed? maybe?
The Rogue Semiotician (http://www.rereviewed.com/roguesemiotics/?p=465) punctures the balloon with characteristic acuity:
The calculation starts with an assumption that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence. In terms of the Bayes calculation, this means that there is a one in two chance that God "will happen".
This, I'm afraid, is the category mistake. God is not a contingent event. God is, depending on your viewpoint, a necessary and permanent fixture, or a phantasm. In other words, God is either necessary or impossible. The only contingent is the amount of certainty you, as an individual, have in either direction.
The real flaw in that article is the highly subjective nature of the decisions the guy made assigning what is good/evil and weighting things up.
I am simply amazed that the complete lunacy this guy is sprouting hasn't been explained completely out in the article, which instead gives this ridiculousness a flavor of seriousness, when it actually is utter crap.
Please Dave, if the rest of your 'statistical evidence' is as much crap as that one is, then don't even bother wasting my time.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says man, "the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't, q.e.d."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
From a scientific standpoint, everything starts out with a 50/50 chance, so if you want to make a scientific study, that is where one would naturally begin. Starting anywhere else would be beginning with a bias. All I was trying to point out is that statisticly, it is much more likely that God exists, than not existing. If you have a problem with the subjectivity of what is good and evil, thats fine. Try this one.
http://www.halozone.com/appologetics/god_big_bang.shtml
I would just like to add that Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies has been quoted as saying:
"All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."
Likewise, British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle comments:
"I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents."
These are educated professional people operating on evidence they have seen in their studies, not some crazy crackpots. How do you dismiss the belief of God expressed by Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton, and many of the most important scientific minds in human history?
vyo476
04-29-2007, 09:17 PM
Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.
Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.
Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.
I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.
Interesting, no?
vyo476, thank you for being a voice of reason.
9sublime
04-29-2007, 10:47 PM
The religious people on here seem to have come to the conclusion that there is a god, because something kickstarted the universe.
I admit, there could be a higher being. But how do you know you've picked the right one? I'm agnostic, but at the same time anti - religion. People just make up a God, and people follow. Theres no proof that any of the world religions are definetly right and they are all just as convinced as each other.
If you say atheism is impossible because we just don't know, then your grounds on belief are pretty poor as well because you don't know whats out there scientifically after death.
If you reject atheism, you have to reject religion too and be agnostic.
From a scientific standpoint, everything starts out with a 50/50 chance, so if you want to make a scientific study, that is where one would naturally begin. Starting anywhere else would be beginning with a bias.that is an incredibly ludicrous statement. So your saying that Michael Jackson has a 50/50 shot at becoming President of the US in 2008?
All I was trying to point out is that statisticly, it is much more likely that God exists, than not existing.Dave, is this another example of your intellectual sophistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism)?
If you have a problem with the subjectivity of what is good and evil, thats fine. Try this one.
http://www.halozone.com/appologetics/god_big_bang.shtml
I would just like to add that Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies has been quoted as saying:
"All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."
Likewise, British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle comments:
"I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents."First of all, I hope you realize that citing such good company doesn't amount to an argument. This is called an Appeal to Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority), logical fallacy. But I will address it nonetheless.
First of all, Hoyle, was an Athiest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) Secondly, neither one of these people are saying that they know a Personal God is out their. Just because they see some evidence of some sort of guiding hand does not mean they believe in God. Why is the only thing that could have given rise to the universe a personal God? Even if I agree with you that our universe simply had to be designed by a designer, this would not mean that this designer is the God of Abraham, or that He approves of Judaism or Christianity. If intelligently designed, our universe could be running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer. Or any one of a number other possibilities.
Thirdly, Intelligent people can have stupid ideas.
I would say that the reason that science (especially in America) doesn’t do a better job of immunizing its practitioners against religious faith is because (as I've been saying) it is taboo to seriously challenge a person’s religious faith in our society. I wonder what you make of the fact that there are Hindu scientists who believe in a plurality of gods. Does this suggest to you that polytheism has been borne out by dispassionate scientific research?
There is also little question that exposure to scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God.
Tell me why it is more reasonable to believe in your version of God than in Zeus?
These are educated professional people operating on evidence they have seen in their studies, not some crazy crackpots. How do you dismiss the belief of God expressed by Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton, and many of the most important scientific minds in human history?First of all,Stephen Hawking does not believe in a Personal God. And has even argued against the creator argument in his books. So I'm not really sure where your getting that idea from. Perhaps taken from out of context quotes or something.
Furthermore the fact that intelligent people believe in God does not indicate that there are good reasons to believe in God. Their faith is no doubt propped up by the same terrible arguments that you use to defend your faith.
And you, however would do well to observe that there is an enormous difference between (1) acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study, and (2) acquiring it through emotionality and wishful thinking, then looking to see if can survive contact with science.
Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.
Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.
Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.
I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.
Interesting, no?
Its somewhat annoying, having to repeat myself over and over again to defend myself from these baseless accusations your making. You know nothing of science or philosophy.
Furthermore the atheist you have created, once again, is an utter strawman.
palerider
04-30-2007, 01:43 AM
I will not. I'm openly intolerant of religion. There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin.
Its the same irrationality and ignorance. I don't see religion or faith any differently than I see any other issue. You would rightly so, ridicule anyone that told you the Earth was flat, religious beliefs are just as irrational and just as unjustifiable. Neither position deserves any respect.
This is what you end up with when you are a relativist. You see no difference between a muslim flying a plane into an occupied building killing thousands, and an old lady kneeling in church on saturday evening saying hail marys?
Do you see any differece between muslims killing in the name of their religion and the same old lady working in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless in the name of hers?
palerider
04-30-2007, 01:47 AM
Guys come on... no need for the name calling.
Agreed. There is an ever growing group here that believes that calling names is an acceptable alternative for actual debate.
palerider
04-30-2007, 01:50 AM
Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.
Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.
Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.
I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.
Interesting, no?
Verry well said. To be an athiest requires exactly as much faith as to be a religious sort since both believe in a thing that can not be proven.
palerider
04-30-2007, 01:53 AM
Is it anymore rational to believe that the universe was created from nothingness without any outside influence? Science clearly states that is an impossibility, so why to athiest believe that it happened without help from something more powerful? Science has also said that it is a statistical improbability, if not a statistical impossibility, for life to be created, and the odds are even less for life as complex as humans, yet atheist believe it happened all on its own without any outside influence. To me, that seems pretty irrational.
For one to accept the big bang theory, one must accept miracles. One must accept that the laws of physics were suspended for a time and that indeed constitutes a miracle.
palerider
04-30-2007, 01:55 AM
Furthermore the atheist you have created, once again, is an utter strawman.
He made an observation. That does not constitute a strawman. He observed that it reqires as much faith to be an athiest as it does to be a religious person.
vyo476
04-30-2007, 05:15 AM
No, the atheist I created was an atheist. The atheist you're trying to create is an agnostic who is angry at organized religion. I can empathize with that but if you want to talk about "rationality" and all that then the first stop ought to be asking yourself if you can show people why their beliefs are irrational.
You haven't done that yet; you keep saying they are but you never back it up.
The sad thing is that I don't think our two personal philosophies are all that different, Fonz. I highly doubt that if a higher being does exist that He (or She, or as is more likely It) conforms to any set of earthly principles. In short - "God" would be on a level that we just wouldn't be able to understand, meaning that most religions on Earth would be complete BS.
So why am I not an atheist? Because I can't prove them wrong and that bothers me just enough to say that yeah, maybe there's a chance they're right - and in the mean time there is no reason to try to get them to halt their beliefs.
vyo476
04-30-2007, 05:20 AM
The religious people on here seem to have come to the conclusion that there is a god, because something kickstarted the universe.
I admit, there could be a higher being. But how do you know you've picked the right one? I'm agnostic, but at the same time anti - religion. People just make up a God, and people follow. Theres no proof that any of the world religions are definetly right and they are all just as convinced as each other.
If you say atheism is impossible because we just don't know, then your grounds on belief are pretty poor as well because you don't know whats out there scientifically after death.
If you reject atheism, you have to reject religion too and be agnostic.
I'm not saying that atheism is impossible, just that the idea that atheism is the only rational belief system is not very fair.
It's good to see a fellow agnostic - we're rather few on the ground, but I think that's only because people don't really know what the term means. I had a conversation with one of my professors about religion the other day and when I told her I was an agnostic she called me a "wimp."
This is what you end up with when you are a relativist. You see no difference between a muslim flying a plane into an occupied building killing thousands, and an old lady kneeling in church on saturday evening saying hail marys?
Sorry I'm not a relativist. Nice strawman though.
Verry well said. To be an athiest requires exactly as much faith as to be a religious sort since both believe in a thing that can not be proven.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
He made an observation. That does not constitute a strawman. He observed that it reqires as much faith to be an athiest as it does to be a religious person.
Thats simply not true. You sound uneducated.
9sublime
04-30-2007, 06:40 AM
Ha, a wimp because your agnostic. I think its her who is a wimp because she isnt willing to accept she doesn't know what there is after death and instead makes up something to comfort her in her darkest hours.
Secondly, why is it more likely a she and not a he who created the universe?
And why do you have to accept that the big bang is a miracle? All through history anything people can't explain they turn to religion and/or miracles. We don't understand enough about the big bang to start making claims like that.
No, the atheist I created was an atheist.
IM sorry but you are wrong. As I said you know not what you are talking about.
vyo476
04-30-2007, 07:24 AM
Ha, a wimp because your agnostic. I think its her who is a wimp because she isnt willing to accept she doesn't know what there is after death and instead makes up something to comfort her in her darkest hours.
Secondly, why is it more likely a she and not a he who created the universe?
And why do you have to accept that the big bang is a miracle? All through history anything people can't explain they turn to religion and/or miracles. We don't understand enough about the big bang to start making claims like that.
Actually, she's an atheist like Fonz here. Ironic, huh?
The more likely name that I indicated was "It." Sorry, that wasn't terribly clear - I meant that it would be "He," "She," or "It," and "It" would most likely be the best identifier for a higher being - as a being of such immense power and scope probably doesn't conform to any standard of gender we could understand.
As for the miracle thing, that was pale rider's point, not mine. Still, I understand where he's coming from. Scientists are working on explaining the Big Bang. The common people aren't; instead, they have to make an incomplete scenario fit in their heads. The two of us, as agnostics, are cool with the idea that the explanation is out there and we'll get there someday; others turn to religion to explain things that they don't know yet. That's just how they deal. Most of them just need that little reassurance so that they can go about their daily lives; its the ones who get so obsessed with the questions that turn into extremists.
vyo476
04-30-2007, 07:29 AM
According to dictionary.com:
Atheist - Someone who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods.
That is what an atheist is. If you wish to deny that a God or gods exist than you must provide some form of tangible proof; if you simply don't believe that a God or gods exist than you are putting stock in an unsubstantiated belief, much in the way those religious people you despise are.
On the flipside, if a Christian made the assertion that God does factually exist, he/she would then have to factually prove it; if he/she simply stated that he/she believes that God exists than he/she is putting stock in an unsubstantiated belief - a little something they call "faith."
Just for your brain to munch on a bit, here's the definition of agnostic:
Agnostic - A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Bottom line? As far as logic is concerned there is presently no way to know whether or not there is a God. The sad thing, Fonz, is that the only theological difference between us is that I'm willing to admit that it is still possible - unlikely, but possible.
palerider
04-30-2007, 07:48 AM
Sorry I'm not a relativist. Nice strawman though.
You said:
"There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin."
Clearly a relativist statement. So you hold relativist views and positions but are not a relativist. OK.
palerider
04-30-2007, 07:50 AM
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course I do. That you are unprepared to argue the point with nothing more than an impotent insult is evidence of that. An athiest can no more prove that there is no God than a religious sort can prove that there is. Both are working entirely from faith and the more they believe in their postion, the greater their faith.
palerider
04-30-2007, 07:55 AM
Thats simply not true. You sound uneducated.
He said:
"Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.
Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.
Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.
I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.
Interesting, no?"
That is an observation. The fact that you are unable to recognize it as such, and the fact that you once more resort to impotent insult reflects badly on your own intellect.
palerider
04-30-2007, 08:05 AM
And why do you have to accept that the big bang is a miracle? All through history anything people can't explain they turn to religion and/or miracles. We don't understand enough about the big bang to start making claims like that.
I don't know who the rest of your post was directed towards, but I will gladly tell you why one must accept miracles in order to accept the big bang theory.
To begin with, modern day scientists have interpereted data gathered from our instruments, both land and space based to form a theory that states that the universe is expanding at a very rapid rate and that the further a thing is away from us, the more quickly it is moving away from us. This is an uneasy and fragile attempt to explain the fact that the further a thing is away from us, the more of its spectrum is shifted to red.
Modern science theorizes that the universe as we see it is the debris of a fabulous explosion with the fragments of that explosion still flying away in every direction. We have all heard it, and on the surface it makes sense and it is very easy to see how so many could be drawn into it. Lift up the corner and look underneath (so to speak) and there are some terrible problems with the big bang theory that no one in the scientific community even wants to begin to try to answer. In fact, if you ask questions about these problems, you will be immediately dismissed and no further discussion is possible.
Imagine that we are seeing the universe as it exists today as a film. A film that we can run in reverse. OK. Lets reverse it way backt to just a few frames after the big bang happened. As we ran the film back, we saw all of the fragments of the big bang moving back together. Closer and closer until all that is visible is a very bright light. The "big bang".
OK. Start the film backwards again. The light gets smaller and smaller until we reach the birth frame of the big bang. Stop the film. Here, according to modern science, we see a very small something. It is an infinitely hot, and infinitely small (zero diameter) and infinitely curved (round) pointlike dimension and it contains all of the matter and energy in the universe. In fact, it is the universe. This is what we are told by modern science.
Now, we have an infinitely small (zero diameter) spherical point and the big bang takes place. If that point expands a trillion bazillion times, what would it's diameter be? What is a trillion bazillion times zero? The answer is zero no matter how many times you figure it. If the temperature of that infinitely small, infinitely hot point were to drop by a trillion billion times, what would the temperature be? Infinity divided by anything is still infinity so no matter how much you cooled it off, it would still be infinitely hot.
Do you see a trend here? If the universe existed as the scientists say that it did, it isn't getting any bigger and isn't getting any cooler no matter how many frames we move forward. Now. This is where faith enters the religion of the big bang. Lets look at the birth frame of the big bang again. Now ask to see the frame of the film that is just before that one. As soon as you ask to see that frame or that what it is be described to you, the conversation is over and a veritable army of the faithful will come to the defense of their theory.
They will tell you that the question has no meaning. They will suggest that it is like asking who lives a few miles east or west of the equator. There will be talk of singularities that involve incredibly large amounts of mass that come from something like a black hole…but not, where the rules of light and energy don’t exist and a thing like time has no meaning. They will tell you flatly, with a straight face that in an environment that has no passage of time, a word like before has no meaning.
To that, a thinking person should reply that if there is no passage of time, and words like before have no meaning, how can words like after have any meaning either. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is the passage of time and there was a before, or there is no passage of time in which case, there can be no after.
If, as modern science tells us that everything is energy, and energy is mass, and everything was compressed into an infinitely small point, then you would have nothing but a single black hole and as science tells us, you can not big bang your way out of a black hole. If time can’t move, then we would find ourselves completely unable to run our film in either direction; and if they tell you that the energy = mass equation didn’t apply then, it stands to reason that there could be no black hole and in that case, one couldn’t claim the time suspension rules and the word before would have just as much meaning as the word after.
This being said, the big bang happening would have been as big a miracle as God saying “let there be light”.
As our instruments grow more sensitive, we can see more, and see further than we have ever been able to before and the more we see, the less likely the big bang becomes.
We have known for some time about the existence of background radiation in the universe. It is uniform in all directions. Some scientists at the Bell laboratories got a Nobel Prize for discovering that this background radiation was absolutely uniform in every direction. No matter which direction one looks in space, there it was and it was exactly the same. A dead flat, constant 3 degree Kelvin cold. They said that the fact that it was uniform in every direction was the final nail in the creationist coffin. It was proof of the big bang.
A few years later, some super detectors that we placed in orbit that were more sensitive than those used by the Bell laboratory scientists by orders of magnitude found that the flat background radiation wasn’t really flat at all but had some significant undulations and unevenness. It was then determined that the fact that the radiation was uneven and variable was the ultimate proof of the big bang.
In 1995, or maybe 1996 some findings were made with the Hubble telescope that if they are accepted as being correct, deal a major blow to the big bang theory. The pitiful dishonesty of the big bang scientific community was pretty well summed up in a single paragraph from the report.
“The basic theory of cosmology,that the universe burst forth in a big bang from a tiny volume long ago remains intact. But the details must be revised, ore explanations of stallar physics changed, to get stars older than the universe”
In short, with the Hubble telescope, the astronomers were finding 16 billion year old globular clusters in an 8 billion year old universe.
In order to maintain the big bang theory, scientists theorized inflation. They claim that if the could ignore the laws of physics for a millionth of a millionth, of a millionth of a second (I am not kidding) right after the incredibly hot and incredibly dense big bang went off and you allow the explosion to expand at 10 to the 25 times the speed of light and some suggest as much as 10 to the 50 the speed of light, we will have enough velocity to achieve the distribution and organization of matter to put the stars and galaxys in the positions in which we see them today. By ignoring the laws of physics for that wee bit of time, atomic ratios once again makes sense, and some of the questions about anti-matter, and one is excused from answering questions about what the universe looked like in that frame just before the birth frame since all of the echoes of it would have been lost.
Another miracle. Imagine that.. Now we have the anti creationists claiming two miracles in the process of the big bang. First, a small dense hot point that came from nowhere and started everything in motion, and in order to explain it, a magical suspension of the laws of physics for “just a little while” so that everything can expand at a zillion times the speed of light. I am all for science, but the claim of two miracles is just one two many for any scientific theory to hold water with me.
You said:
"There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin."
Clearly a relativist statement. So you hold relativist views and positions but are not a relativist. OK.
no you misunderstand the statement. IN terms of rationality, they are both the same. One proposition isn't anymore logical than the other.
I wasn't comparing it in terms of morality.
Of course I do. That you are unprepared to argue the point with nothing more than an impotent insult is evidence of that. An athiest can no more prove that there is no God than a religious sort can prove that there is. Both are working entirely from faith and the more they believe in their postion, the greater their faith.
actually i've been arguing the point for a few days now on here. IN a couple different threads. I dont like to repeat myself, however I do have other responsibilities to take care of, so you'll have to wait for a more lengthy response.
Stating the truth isn't an insult.
9sublime
04-30-2007, 08:17 AM
Palerider, you have completley missed my point. Sure, the physics of the big bang are completley astounding with the science we have at the moment, because we have a very limited knowledge of anything outside this world.
And when scientists didn't know the earth was round, they said it was flat, because it seemed likely to them with their knowledge and surroundings. However, now we have seen the earth from the outside and fully understand the concept of gravity, we know it is not flat. When our knowledge of the big bang or whatever else stared the universe improves we will see it from a different angle and gain a better understanding of it. People who don't know the answers however, turn to religion.
Palerider, you have completley missed my point. Sure, the physics of the big bang are completley astounding with the science we have at the moment, because we have a very limited knowledge of anything outside this world.
And when scientists didn't know the earth was round, they said it was flat, because it seemed likely to them with their knowledge and surroundings. However, now we have seen the earth from the outside and fully understand the concept of gravity, we know it is not flat. When our knowledge of the big bang or whatever else stared the universe improves we will see it from a different angle and gain a better understanding of it. People who don't know the answers however, turn to religion.
I believe what Palerider was saying is that people are not using the big bang as evidence of God simply due to a lack of information, but as a result of scientific discovery. Science today tells us that the events that formed the universe could not happen by chance. As I asked Fonz earlier, if its not by chance, what else is there except God? And he could not give me an answer. All we know of science at this point suggests there is an outside force at work in creation, therefore, that is what I believe. A black hole would be a good analogy. Everything we know about science suggests that they exist, but no one has ever seen a black hole. Yet there is no one that claims it is idiotic to believe in black holes, or that black holes are simply a myth that people created to explain why light and matter is disappearing.
9sublime
04-30-2007, 08:57 AM
No. but black holes have a considerable amount of proof. A God creating the universe is a theory with only 'personal truth' and proof. Sure, a God may have created the universe, but we can only speculate on what that God is like in my opinion rather than making up a load of drivel that is attractive to follow for the common man.
No. but black holes have a considerable amount of proof. A God creating the universe is a theory with only 'personal truth' and proof. Sure, a God may have created the universe, but we can only speculate on what that God is like in my opinion rather than making up a load of drivel that is attractive to follow for the common man.
No, there is evidence for black holes. Not proof. Just like the unliklihood of the universe forming, life forming, or humans reaching the level of intelligence to even ask questions about their creation is evidence that there is some kind of outside force at work in the universe.
Coyote
04-30-2007, 11:11 AM
No, there is evidence for black holes. Not proof. Just like the unliklihood of the universe forming, life forming, or humans reaching the level of intelligence to even ask questions about their creation is evidence that there is some kind of outside force at work in the universe.
Not really. Negative evidence is not scientific evidence. Just because something is "unlikely" does not equal evidence of something else.
Scientific theories are not "just theories" - they are supported by a great deal of evidence which in turn proves the theory - such as that for black holes.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. However - before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." The proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. I have yet to see any theory for an outside force in the universe subject to this kind of review.
9sublime
04-30-2007, 11:28 AM
Black holes could one day be proved as things stand (rapid technological advance). However, there is no indication that anything will ever be in the pipline to discover what God is.
Look, I'm not out to prove God exists. Believe what you want, I really don't care. I am simply asking that we drop the name calling and stereotypes about religion. Is tolerance too much to ask?
9sublime
04-30-2007, 10:38 PM
I havn't been intolerant, I've just debaited.
That comment was more directed at Fonz. Sorry for the mixup.
KeepOurFreedoms
05-01-2007, 06:05 PM
50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing she was pregnant.
20% of all Pregnancy's end in miscarrages.
God is obviously the most prolific Abortionist of all.
Did you just make this up?
mr universe
05-01-2007, 06:07 PM
Did you just make this up?
why would you assume that, he'll cite it
KeepOurFreedoms
05-03-2007, 06:34 PM
why would you assume that, he'll cite it
Did you see that my post was a Question?
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.