lmao yeah. i don't believe it was God's judgment or punishment on a wicked city.

but it was a pretty "wicked" city so to speak, and there's plenty of people that do believe it was God's judgment. and if they believe in that sort of vengeful God, well, they would have very much reason to believe that God turns cities into dust all the time. case in point...New Orleans.

4/30/2008 11:38:31 PM

Who the fuck believes in any of that?^^

[Edited on April 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM. Reason : ,]

4/30/2008 11:38:35 PM

AINTCHA EVER SEEN DA GOHSTHUNTERZ!?

4/30/2008 11:39:22 PM

Belief in that other stuff is really silly but at least it doesn't form peoples' voting behaviors.

4/30/2008 11:41:24 PM

i think people's irrational fears in a hire being striking down on them is good for those educated b.c it keeps the poor ignorant masses in control

4/30/2008 11:47:08 PM

i say fire that being

4/30/2008 11:51:16 PM

Would those here that call Obama their candidate also like to take this opportunity to call him "ignorant" or some such for believing in an invisible sky daddy? No?



[Edited on April 30, 2008 at 11:54 PM. Reason : WTF--"hire being"? ]

4/30/2008 11:52:36 PM

Yeah it's pretty stupid.

4/30/2008 11:54:33 PM

i call him irrational for believing, and pandering for continuing to talk about it.

Be sure to let us know, hooksaw, the next time you find a good candidate who is willing to admit he is not only not a Christian, but not religious at all. Now that's a guy that will go far, i'm sure.

4/30/2008 11:56:37 PM

Q: So what position would you think a ghost would take on Abortion?

A: Definately not Pro-life


---

What if there was a new ghost protection law about to get passed through Congress that said, you couldn't tear down your old house and build a new one if there were known paranormal activities in it. There would be two opposing sides:

Ghost believers vs. Other

Ghost believers don't believe in ghosts just for the sake of just beleiving. They may really care about ghosts. There's no need to tear down an old home just to build a new one. There are many ghost lovers who would buy the old home.

And on the other hand. Don't make the person sell his old home. Maybe he likes the plot of land he's on. Maybe he doesn't give a care about ghosts. He should have the right to do what he wants, right?

Side A says, ghosts are a pot of crock. No such thing. Side B says ghosts exist because of this, this, and that. Side A counters with, there's no imperical evidence for that. As a matter of fact, here is some evidence against it. Side B says, no no no, our evidence is based on years and years of research. Side A counters with some ad-hominems and Side B with a few curse words.

Isn't this always the paradoxical issue? Haha

---

Sorry, I went way off topic, but not too far off. It has it's use.

5/1/2008 12:13:51 AM

Yes wouldn't that be funny if ghost-belief caused shitty public policy, voting behaviors, and bigotry like religion?

Wait, it doesn't? Well have you examined my highly unlikely thought experiment?...

5/1/2008 12:23:52 AM

Quote :

"i call him irrational for believing, and pandering for continuing to talk about it. Be sure to let us know, hooksaw, the next time you find a good candidate who is willing to admit he is not only not a Christian, but not religious at all. Now that's a guy that will go far, i'm sure."

agentlion

So you want an "irrational" person leading the most powerful nation in the world? Care to rephrase?

I think a candidate could say the he or she believes in God/god and leave it at that. If pressed as to what God/god, the candidate could simply say, "The Almighty."

A number of presidents, though Christian, were nondenominational. And some did not appear to be devout.

An atheist would be a hard sell, I grant you. Despite the fact that so many of you think atheism and even antitheism is so darned smart, you've yet to be able to convince the masses. Let me guess, because they're "irrational" or worse, am I right?

[Edited on May 1, 2008 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2008 12:24:53 AM

Quote :

" So you want an "irrational" person leading the most powerful nation in the world? Care to rephrase? "

He said "irrational for believing" I think.

It's possible to have irrational behaviors (this is called being human) while being an overall rational thinker.

5/1/2008 12:35:06 AM

^ Good thing you don't get to vote here, am I right, commie?

5/1/2008 12:37:41 AM

How about you address what I said?

5/1/2008 12:38:54 AM

Quote :

"Would those here that call Obama their candidate also like to take this opportunity to call him "ignorant" or some such for believing in an invisible sky daddy? No? "

I haven't been following this discussion, but i'll take this opportunity to do so. He's as ignorant about that as you are about not recognizing that open-mindedness and intelligence go hand-in-hand.

He is less ignorant that McCain though, who not only believes in imaginary sky fairy, buy paradoxically has a mania for lucky charms:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/19/067r-021900-idx.html

Quote :

"[Mccain] keeps on his person a lucky compass, a lucky feather, a lucky penny and, at times, a lucky rock. He assigns Weaver to carry his lucky pen--a Zebra Jimnie Gel Rollerball (medium, blue)--at all times. For added luck, he wears his magical L.L. Bean rubber-soled dress shoes. ... "I'm wearing my lucky shoes from today till Sunday," McCain says from his bus on Wednesday. At the moment, his pockets contain the compass, feather (from a tribal leader) and penny (flattened, in his wallet). When McCain once misplaced his feather, there was momentary panic in the campaign, until his wife found it in one of his suits. When the compass went missing once, McCain assigned his political director to hunt it down. Weaver found it, and it remains safe, knock wood. ... Steve Dart, McCain's lucky friend, should have arrived in South Carolina from California. He has been present with McCain for every Election Day since McCain first won a seat in Congress. McCain must sleep on a certain side of the bed, particularly before an election (and he never puts a hat on a bed--bad luck). Rain is good for Election Day, as are motion pictures. McCain requires himself to view a movie before the vote is counted. He fell asleep in his hotel room in New Hampshire before he watched a movie on primary day, but his staff didn't panic. "We have superstition fire walls," says Todd Harris, a spokesman. That's for sure. Even some foods carry special powers. McCain insists that he and his staff eat barbecue--"our lucky food," says Cindy McCain, the candidate's wife--before each debate, sending Wiles out to find ribs or pulled pork even in New Hampshire or Michigan."

So between Obama and McCain, Obama is by far the less ignorant of the two.

5/1/2008 12:40:59 AM

Well this thread took a sharp fucking nosedive as soon as I left to take my exam.

5/1/2008 2:33:47 AM

Quote :

"So you want an "irrational" person leading the most powerful nation in the world? Care to rephrase?"

ooohhhhh, you got me hooksaw! your logic is inescapable!!

I am willing to accept that for the foreseeable future, we will have Christian presidents. Therefore, on some level, all of our presidents will be irrational. By definition, all Christians are irrational - that's not meant as an insult - it's just a fact. You/They have an belief in something that cannot be proven and has no evidence, which is what is called an irrational belief.

So getting beyond that, I realize and am willing (or have to) accept that one some level Obama and every presidential candidate is irrational. I also know, though, that it is extremely difficult or impossible for people, especially politicians, to maintain rational viewpoints at all time, while staying self-consistent.

It is true, though, that even highly rational people often have a "sacred cow" - an irrational belief that they cling to for some personal reason. Sometimes it's a doctor who believes in acupuncture, or a biologist who believes in bigfoot, or an astronomer who believes in UFOs. More often than not, though, it's otherwise smart and rational people who are faithful Christians, mostly I think because Christianity is such a widely accepted and exalted practice in the US, despite its logical or rational shortcomings. If we can find a president who, while being a faithful Christian, is otherwise clearheaded and rational to make good decisions without letting the voices in his head steer national policy, then I'm fine with that. I'm not saying Obama is that person, i don't know. But as it always does in US elections, you have to pick someone our of the available choices.

Quote :

"I think a candidate could say the he or she believes in God/god and leave it at that. If pressed as to what God/god, the candidate could simply say, "The Almighty.""

and I think this is politically untenable, unfortunately. In today's political climate, the opponent of such a candidate would use that as an attack strategy until he gave more details about what he believed.

Quote :

"A number of presidents, though Christian, were nondenominational. And some did not appear to be devout."

again, i don't know if that would hold up today. Our country is going in a weird direction - there is a growing number of non-religious people, but the evangelicals and fundamentalists on the other side are getting louder and more influential, and it seems impossible now to get elected without at least claiming you're a devout something. It seems very weird to me that Christians are willing to accept devout Mormons and Jews as leaders, but not atheists. It would seem to me the belief in a god or prophet or ideology that directly opposed Christianity would be more threatening than no belief in dogma at all, but Christians just can't seem to get away from "well, at least as long as he has faith in something, i'll support him"

5/1/2008 8:30:33 AM

^^^ Pilots are notoriously superstitious. I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Relying on Luck
Superstitions have given servicemembers comfort in hard times.

http://www.moaa.org/magazine/November2002/f_luck.asp

^ Once again, I'm not a Christian. FYI.

5/1/2008 12:01:26 PM

i know a Hornet pilot who won't kill anything that flies if it's in his cockpit

mosquitos, gnats, flies.....HORNETS...

"if he takes off with me, he's gonna land with me, too!"

Quote :

"Yes wouldn't that be funny if ghost-belief caused shitty public policy, voting behaviors, and bigotry like religion? "

While I, too, grow frustrated by dumbass policy enacted by uber-Christians, I frankly have to roll my eyes when you, LiusClues, are bitching about shitty public policy, voting behaviors, and bigotry. I mean, fuck, you obviously don't need religion to be guilty of all of the above, and religion in and of itself is not what causes those problems, anyway.

5/2/2008 4:10:37 AM

why is it because then happened, now isn't?

what if Christ is already here? what if he is with you all the time, examining your vitality. not just in your mind, but as a person next to you. would you know it? obviously not. i wouldn't. it doesn't take a whole day to recognize sunshine, but we don't seem to understand that.

ff to about 3 minutes in:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wT4TCQsDWLM

[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 10:17 AM. Reason : link]

5/2/2008 10:16:53 AM

Quote :

"While I, too, grow frustrated by dumbass policy enacted by uber-Christians, I frankly have to roll my eyes when you, LiusClues, are bitching about shitty public policy, voting behaviors, and bigotry. I mean, fuck, you obviously don't need religion to be guilty of all of the above, and religion in and of itself is not what causes those problems, anyway."

This is like saying stink is independent of shit.

Sure, other things can stink too. But the fact that shit stinks is a good enough reason to avoid it altogether.

5/2/2008 12:39:55 PM

So, you folks that will accept a presidential candidate having the "irrational" belief in an invisible sky daddy, how many such irrational beliefs will you tolerate before you decide the individual is, well, irrational? One, two, three or more?

Just asking.

5/2/2008 1:00:57 PM

Seeing as how every presidential candidate for the next few decades will likely at least claim belief in God, we have to select based on other criteria.

If they all share the same undesirable trait, then you select based on the differences. Do I really have to explain this to you? Are you really this fucking dumb?

5/2/2008 1:03:32 PM

^

Quote :

"So, you folks that will accept a presidential candidate having the "irrational" belief in an invisible sky daddy, how many such irrational beliefs will you tolerate before you decide the individual is, well, irrational? One, two, three or more?"

BTW, die in a fire, commie scum.

5/2/2008 1:10:44 PM

you can quit putting "irrational" in quotes. It's not a misuse of the term to call a belief in God irrational. In fact, it's practically the definition of the term. Any self-aware or educated Christian would agree with that.

5/2/2008 1:27:56 PM

Quote :

"you folks that will accept a presidential candidate having the "irrational" belief in an invisible sky daddy"

What about GOP socially conservative candidates that want to act like my serogate daddy from Washington DC by making sure i don't smoke pot, drink before i'm 21, don't gamble online, see a booby on regular cable TV even if its 2am, ensure i buckle up, etc

5/2/2008 1:33:21 PM

5/2/2008 1:46:39 PM

i wonder if hooksaw is a christian

5/2/2008 6:18:13 PM

^ No--for about the 1000th fucking time--but that doesn't mean the Christians are necessarily wrong. And please remove any thoughts or images of me from your mind, such as it is.

Quote :

"you can quit putting 'irrational' in quotes. It's not a misuse of the term to call a belief in God irrational. In fact, it's practically the definition of the term. Any self-aware or educated Christian would agree with that."

agentlion

Yet, it's completely "rational" for you and others to believe that the vast universe and everything in it exploded forth from nothingness and life itself on our planet was "animated" by lightning--all without the involvement of an omnipotent entity? Seriously?!

I think anyone can debate over this religion or that. But to claim that this is all one giant fucking accident is the most irrational shit I've ever heard.

5/4/2008 8:04:05 AM

Quote :

"But to claim that this is all one giant fucking accident is the most irrational shit I've ever heard."

Why is it irrational? Why must there be a creator (ethereal or otherwise)?

5/4/2008 9:07:51 AM

Quote :

"Yet, it's completely 'rational' for you and others to believe that the vast universe and everything in it exploded forth from nothingness and life itself on our planet was 'animated' by lightning--all without the involvement of an omnipotent entity? Seriously?!"

5/4/2008 9:52:44 AM

Great answer.

By that, I mean no answer.

Answer the question, please. Why is it irrational? Or, at least, why is it less rational to believe there is no creator than to believe there is a creator? Why must there be a creator?

[Edited on May 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ]

5/4/2008 9:57:35 AM

Here's one argument for the irrationality of disbelief in theism:

Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Lets take the big bang, for instance. Quantum physics gives strong support to the assertion that quantum fluctuations occur (matter and antimatter spontaneously come into existance from nothing). This is a phenomenon allowed by the physical laws of our universe. But did the laws of science predate the universe they govern? Also, cause and effect are always separated by time. Did the flow of time also exist before the big bang? I didn't come up with these points, so I'm sure there are good rebuttals for them. I just haven't ever heard any.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 4:46:08 PM

why couldnt it always have existed? just because people can't accurately grasp the concept of infinity?

5/7/2008 4:47:35 PM

Quote :

"why couldnt it always have existed? just because people can't accurately grasp the concept of infinity?"

Modern science seems pretty keen on the concept of a beginning. That is, since the mid 20th century.

I have no problem believing in a real eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, infinitely just and loving God. I'm just answering a question that was posed earlier.


I also want to refute a statement from page 1:

Quote :

""Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?""

This argument begins by asserting that such a thing as evil exists. If we assume a purely scientific/naturalistic worldview (nothing exists outside of or beyond the physical realm), then there is no such thing as evil. If we are all random accidents, who are you to assume that something is good or bad.

If we begin with the assumption that the God of the Bible is real, we will have a standard we can use to judge between good and evil. But we must remember that a God who is all-powerful, perfect and infinitely wise will have act in ways that defy our understanding. We are limited in our knowledge, so how can we objectively judge an infinite being?

I hope the responses are civil.

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 4:57:28 PM

Heck, I'll bump it once in hope of a reply.

5/9/2008 10:52:19 AM

How about we stop posting "proofs" which in reality prove nothing, K?

5/9/2008 11:59:48 AM

^How about you use logic, rather than insults.

5/9/2008 12:25:36 PM

The problem of evil applies if you take the God of the Bible to exist -- that's why it's a problem for that view. Assuming such a being existed, a bunch of evil (according to his definition) would exist. And thus, theodicy as you normally think of it.

5/9/2008 12:32:52 PM

Thanks for the serious response. I guess I have some reading to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

5/9/2008 12:40:06 PM

lol at people who think Jesus is going to return.

5/9/2008 12:59:26 PM

5/9/2008 1:00:06 PM

I tried to return Jesus, but I didn't have a receipt.
Sold him on eBay instead.

5/9/2008 2:27:43 PM