Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:35 pm**

It's not saying we don't like the world and that's why there is no God (tho I've never seen a satisfactory answer for the problem of evil/suffering/whatnot) - this is different Player, we're saying that the moral viewpoint of "everything God does is good because God done it" is seriously messed up, especially when, if we are to believe the Bible because God wrote it and therefore it must be true story yeah, God doesn't exactly look like a particularly moral individual.

Now you can try and claim (like J9B does) that God has perfect knowledge, and therefore is allowed to sail closer to the wind than us, and has to give us rules to act as limits for our moral behaviour but not his, as he can do things like warn the righteous people to flee cities before he orders his followers to massacre everyone else and is therefore just exercising the same kind of divine judgement logic as we'd see on the "yes" side of a moral debate about "is it right to kill a murderer if that is the only way to stop him killing someone else?" He simply made the rules stricter for us to give us a kind of margin for error before we actually sinned.

But if it is OK for God to do something, then under some circumstances it is right also for us to do that thing. If you truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that you are inspired by God's divine hand, just like the Jews were when they conducted the slaughter of those entire cities (less the righteous), then you are capable of literally anything (for example flying passenger planes into office buildings - not just talking Christians here). Abrhamic religion allows, and indeed fundamentally supports, the killing of your enemies. And it can go right down to the individual level - if I truly believed that God told me to kill Dave down the road becuase he was a satanist and was going to rape, torture and sell drugs to the neighbourhood kids if I didn't then by definition there is nothing you can say that makes that act immoral. If every test you can devise shows that I am honestly 100% convinced, and every test you can devise shows that I am an honest and devout follower of any of the Abrahamic religions, then by your standards that act is also moral.

show

UC - I know you won't read this, but do you think it might be possible in the 8 centuries between the first known writings in hebrew (and that's ignoring up to another 2000 years of written language, and who knows how many years of oral tradition) and the Torah being written some knowledge may have been accumulated and the Torah might just be based on observable wisdom like "if you're going to cut bits off your kid, we've found that if you do it on the 8th day after birth there seems to be the least amount of blood"

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:28 pm**

I'm going to skip over a few things because I find this to be so important.

john9blue wrote:not impossible to define: "good" just means doing whatever a being with perfect knowledge would do.

Exactly. By putting God above morality, saying that God is good is the same as saying God is Godish. Note, this would be true whether we are putting God above our morality or God's morality. Unless some form of morality could be considered to be above God then we can never say that an act is good or evil. Good and evil would be nebulous terms.

We (sort of) already agree, but I thought of another example of this after I logged off last night. Feel free to skip over it if you want, it is more illustrative than anything else.

Let us say that we knew a god who was, among other things, defined as being perfectly green. If we wanted we could go and look at this god if we ever wanted to see how green something was in comparison to him. Then one day we walk up to god and discover that he is orange. So we question this god.

"Why are you not green? One of the few things we thought we knew about for sure is that you were perfectly green!"

"Oh, but I am perfectly green", replies the god. "Who are you to say define what green is?"

So we leave, having reconsidered what me mean when we say that things are green. We discuss whether orange is also green. We discuss what we used to call green is now. We discuss what conditions we should use the word green under and the conditions we should use the word orange.

The next day we show up again and the god is changing colors so quickly that we can barely keep up. He turns from red to brown to purple to yellow to white in one second and carries on like that in a completely random manner.

Now, would you ever feel justified in this scenario with calling something green? In fact, would you feel justified with describing anything as being a certain color? If green can mean anything at any given moment, why would other colors be different?

The only reason that this scenario seems silly (perhaps I am presuming to think that everyone finds it silly?) is because we all agree on what green is. It would be preposterous to say that something that is green is a different color because God has changed his mind about what the word means. The word is representative of a concept. As long as the object is green it will remain green, because green is a set term. Words hold meaning because they represent set ideas or concepts. Any word that tells us nothing has no purpose.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:28 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:To pick a nicer example, it is not "moral" in most cultures to kill oneself. However, if you do something, say run into a burning building to get a child out a window too small for you to exit or whatever, then it is generally justified, even if you know you will die.

Sure, but that is because most moral codes place value in the idea of selflessness. Suicide, when you get down to it, is all about yourself. You are unhappy in some way and you are taking actions to alleviate that. On the other hand, taking an action that saves someone at the expense of your life benefited society while being obviously unideal for you. Your actions were deemed to be making your life worse while making others lives better. This is why you would be viewed in a very different light if you threw someone else into the burning building to save the child.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't justify genocide of the Native Americans, but it was done in ignorance and is in the past.

Sure, but what if God were to have enacted that genocide? Would his actions be made pure by default? I wouldn't necessarily give those that took part in genocide a pass on ignorance, but it would be silly to hold the ancestors of one group responsible and to treat the ancestors of the other group like it happened to them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Rarely in real life are things absolute. When it comes to God, folks here often want to go to absolutes.. but that is not the world as it exists, as Christians believe God made the world. Essentially, you are saying that you don't like the way the world is.

I wouldn't say that. I think the world is what me make of it, and while I can be quite cynical at times it is only because I see potential that we constantly squander. Either way, I'd say my view of the world is irrelevant to the current thought experiment. I am saying that if there is a God it makes no sense to say that he is both good and above any code of morality that we might posit.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:21 pm**

Crispy; You are just babbling nonsense about things that you simply do not understand at all...

crispybits wrote:It's not saying we don't like the world and that's why there is no God (tho I've never seen a satisfactory answer for the problem of evil/suffering/whatnot) - this is different Player, we're saying that the moral viewpoint of "everything God does is good because God done it" is seriously messed up, especially when, if we are to believe the Bible because God wrote it and therefore it must be true story yeah, God doesn't exactly look like a particularly moral individual.

A satisfactory answer that allows for suffering was provided several times by several people, myself included, from different perspective and points of view, yet it is you who refuse it. And as for morality, That is your opinion. Perhaps you should strive to define what morality means to you, for us? Hmmm?

crispybits wrote:Now you can try and claim (like J9B does) that God has perfect knowledge, and therefore is allowed to sail closer to the wind than us, and has to give us rules to act as limits for our moral behaviour but not his, as he can do things like warn the righteous people to flee cities before he orders his followers to massacre everyone else and is therefore just exercising the same kind of divine judgement logic as we'd see on the "yes" side of a moral debate about "is it right to kill a murderer if that is the only way to stop him killing someone else?" He simply made the rules stricter for us to give us a kind of margin for error before we actually sinned.

God commanded King Saul to kill all of the Amalekites.

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"
I Samuel 15:3

Yet you make it sound like God is commanding all of his people at all times, to do the same for what ever reason when this simply is not so. it was just with the Amalekites and no one else as far as I understand it and the reason was very clear as to why commanded this. Please show me where it is written as you are obviously misleading people to believe that God is as you said... " as he can do things like warn the righteous people to flee cities before he orders his followers to massacre everyone else..." God simply does not work that way but in every case has stepped in Himself and "DESTROYED" His own creation. Not Murdered.

If you notice that this was a special situation as even all the cattle was to be put to death and (in another verse), everything burned down to the ground, down to even the last blade of grass. This was a very special situation and should not be confused with religious wars or Catholic persecutions of other Christians down through history. God is not in any of that. So just where do you get this idea from? That God orders his people to kill other people when the Holy Bible is most specific, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Exodus 20:13.

Also you can not call the Creator of Life a murderer because then what is it that he is supposedly murdering but his own creation. If God created it then it is his and he has every right to do with what's His. If I create a work of art for myself and it is mine and I then desire to destroy the work of art that I made for myself, What crime do I commit against anyone. Even if the work of art is valued by others as priceless, it is not theirs but mines to do with what I desire. So is the situation with God and men. God does not belong to us but we are his property to do with as He pleases.

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
-Isaiah 46:10

"And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"
-Daniel 4:35

The True God of the Universe answers to no man and does not fit in one's pocket.

crispybits wrote:But if it is OK for God to do something, then under some circumstances it is right also for us to do that thing. If you truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that you are inspired by God's divine hand, just like the Jews were when they conducted the slaughter of those entire cities (less the righteous), then you are capable of literally anything (for example flying passenger planes into office buildings - not just talking Christians here). Abrhamic religion allows, and indeed fundamentally supports, the killing of your enemies. And it can go right down to the individual level - if I truly believed that God told me to kill Dave down the road becuase he was a satanist and was going to rape, torture and sell drugs to the neighbourhood kids if I didn't then by definition there is nothing you can say that makes that act immoral. If every test you can devise shows that I am honestly 100% convinced, and every test you can devise shows that I am an honest and devout follower of any of the Abrahamic religions, then by your standards that act is also moral.

Can you create life? Then how can you compare yourself to God. Again the Word of God is very clear and provides no situation for killing another human being. It did once (the death penalty and that was only for Israelites who broke God's Holy Laws), when Israel was to become a Holy Nation of God but they chose not to become what God had wanted them to be at that time. So God allowed King Saul to form an Army because the people had already rejected God.

In rejecting God they also rejected God's laws. But before then and as is the intention now, even now; There is no reason for a nation that calls itself a so called, "Christian Nation" to take up arms and build armies and weapons of mass destruction and to kill anyone. Even Prisoners for the crime of Murder. All nations have rejected God including the Jewish Nation of Modern day Israel and none have ever returned to God. So to confuse what some Muslims did with the world trade center is absolutely disproportionate to the facts.

crispybits wrote:UC - I know you won't read this, but do you think it might be possible in the 8 centuries between the first known writings in hebrew (and that's ignoring up to another 2000 years of written language, and who knows how many years of oral tradition) and the Torah being written some knowledge may have been accumulated and the Torah might just be based on observable wisdom like "if you're going to cut bits off your kid, we've found that if you do it on the 8th day after birth there seems to be the least amount of blood"

I'll let UC take this one. I made my point.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:57 pm**

As a quick preface, I find it amusing how quickly we've managed to get people to conditionally accept mass murder. It reminds me of the time I got somebody (I think it was NightStike) to say that banning interracial marriage on a state level is OK.

Viceroy63 wrote:God commanded King Saul to kill all of the Amalekites.

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"
I Samuel 15:3

Yet you make it sound like God is commanding all of his people at all times, to do the same for what ever reason when this simply is not so. it was just with the Amalekites and no one else as far as I understand it and the reason was very clear as to why commanded this.

First, does it really matter who the target is? Let's say that God appears before the assembled leaders of the United States and commands them to fire all of our nuclear weapons at every major population center on the planet. Should they listen? Second, does it really matter whether he commands someone to do it or does it himself? For instance, imagine that God decides he's had it with humanity and kills everyone in a flood again, this time with no survivors. He then goes on to throw everyone that has ever lived out of heaven and into hell. Then, as you're suffering unimaginable torture he appears in front of you with Satan and they high five each other and both point and laugh. He then continues to create unimaginable numbers of people for the sole purpose of throwing into hell for an eternity. Would this still be perfectly good in your mind?

Viceroy63 wrote:God simply does not work that way but in every case has stepped in Himself and "DESTROYED" His own creation. Not Murdered.

What is the difference between destroying people and murdering them?

Viceroy63 wrote:If you notice that this was a special situation as even all the cattle was to be put to death and (in another verse), everything burned down to the ground, down to even the last blade of grass. This was a very special situation and should not be confused with religious wars or Catholic persecutions of other Christians down through history. God is not in any of that. So just where do you get this idea from? That God orders his people to kill other people when the Holy Bible is most specific, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Exodus 20:13.

What reason, outside of you arbitrarily believing it to be true, do you have for feeling that God is associated with one and not the other? Did God just cease communication with people after the New Testament was written?

Viceroy63 wrote:Also you can not call the Creator of Life a murderer because then what is it that he is supposedly murdering but his own creation. If God created it then it is his and he has every right to do with what's His.

I am so convinced at this point that God loves us.

Viceroy63 wrote:Can you create life? Then how can you compare yourself to God.

1. Explain the substantive difference between your statement and this one: "Can you bench press 500 lbs? Then how can you compare yourself to Don Reinhoudt?"

2. When we inevitably reach the point where we can create life in a lab can we then compare ourselves to God?

3. Let's say crispy could create intelligent life and he then proceeded to torture the shit out of it in public. Would you shrug and say, "he can do whatever he wants with it"?

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:33 pm**

Frigidus wrote:I'm going to skip over a few things because I find this to be so important.

john9blue wrote:not impossible to define: "good" just means doing whatever a being with perfect knowledge would do.

Exactly. By putting God above morality, saying that God is good is the same as saying God is Godish. Note, this would be true whether we are putting God above our morality or God's morality. Unless some form of morality could be considered to be above God then we can never say that an act is good or evil. Good and evil would be nebulous terms.

We (sort of) already agree, but I thought of another example of this after I logged off last night. Feel free to skip over it if you want, it is more illustrative than anything else.

Let us say that we knew a god who was, among other things, defined as being perfectly green. If we wanted we could go and look at this god if we ever wanted to see how green something was in comparison to him. Then one day we walk up to god and discover that he is orange. So we question this god.

"Why are you not green? One of the few things we thought we knew about for sure is that you were perfectly green!"

"Oh, but I am perfectly green", replies the god. "Who are you to say define what green is?"

So we leave, having reconsidered what me mean when we say that things are green. We discuss whether orange is also green. We discuss what we used to call green is now. We discuss what conditions we should use the word green under and the conditions we should use the word orange.

The next day we show up again and the god is changing colors so quickly that we can barely keep up. He turns from red to brown to purple to yellow to white in one second and carries on like that in a completely random manner.

Now, would you ever feel justified in this scenario with calling something green? In fact, would you feel justified with describing anything as being a certain color? If green can mean anything at any given moment, why would other colors be different?

The only reason that this scenario seems silly (perhaps I am presuming to think that everyone finds it silly?) is because we all agree on what green is. It would be preposterous to say that something that is green is a different color because God has changed his mind about what the word means. The word is representative of a concept. As long as the object is green it will remain green, because green is a set term. Words hold meaning because they represent set ideas or concepts. Any word that tells us nothing has no purpose.

well, as you said, words mean whatever we want them to mean in order to ensure good communication. words and concepts don't directly correlate and never have.

if by "green" we mean "whatever color god is at this particular moment", then that's what green is. if we mean "the color of grass and trees" then green is that.

by "good" or "morally right" i mean whatever action produces the outcome with the most value. all i'm saying is that if i'm omniscient, that means that i know all the consequences of my actions, and i also know what makes things valuable, and therefore i can always make the morally right choice. so it's ridiculous for someone who isn't omniscient to claim that such a being is making a morally reprehensible choice.

Frigidus wrote:As a quick preface, I find it amusing how quickly we've managed to get people to conditionally accept mass murder. It reminds me of the time I got somebody (I think it was NightStike) to say that banning interracial marriage on a state level is OK.

if you think the government should be involved in marriage, and the decision is arrived at through the democratic process, then i think it's okay for a state to ban interracial marriage if they want.

Posted: **Sun Aug 18, 2013 11:33 pm**

john9blue wrote:by "good" or "morally right" i mean whatever action produces the outcome with the most value.

Just to clarify, you agree that there is a firm definition of good? In that case, would you agree that morality is not dependent on God's existence? It is probably more likely for you to agree with that statement as a non-believer (or at least an undecided), but you never know. This is more of a tangential argument than anything else, but it is one less thing we'd have to argue over.

Back to the main argument, if we agree that there are objectively morally right actions to be taken in any given situation, then would you agree that anything that we would say knows everything and is perfectly morally right would never take an action that is objectively bad? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about anything specific. I'm just saying that anything that meets those definitions, including God, would never willingly do something that is in any way morally wrong as there is no room for unintended consequences. They would not defining these boundaries, they would be operating within them.

john9blue wrote:all i'm saying is that if i'm omniscient, that means that i know all the consequences of my actions, and i also know what makes things valuable, and therefore i can always make the morally right choice. so it's ridiculous for someone who isn't omniscient to claim that such a being is making a morally reprehensible choice.

Someone that is omniscient certainly would know what is morally right and wrong, as they would have complete understanding of morality. That said, we wouldn't know for sure that they would always take the morally correct choice. Omniscience and omnipotence are ideas that place no limit on God's capabilities. He can do anything and know anything. This is not the case with omnibenevolence. An omnibenevolent being would not take an evil action. So all that is lacking for us to be able to objectively state whether or not something is omnibenevolent is our ability to say with certainly what is and isn't moral. I would guess that you are with me so far?

Now, let us just consider God's actions for a moment. If we are to take the events of the Bible literally we know that God ordered the death of children, so it is presumed that if God is perfectly good that his actions are morally the best available choice. But why, if God feels that these children's destruction is in the world's best interest, does he not simply have them die where they stand rather than force them to watch as everyone they love is butchered and then be subjected to death by the sword themselves? Even if there is some greater good being served by their death, why is it necessary to cause undue pain and suffering to them along the way? If he felt that the greater good would somehow be served by having the Hebrew soldiers living with the memories of their actions, why not simply have them hallucinate the whole experience? How can choosing to cause pain to innocents over not causing pain to innocents (with everything else being equal) possibly, no matter what version of morality you consider God to operate under, be considered to be in the interest of the greater universe?

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:22 am**

So I've just read the last few pages, and we seem at the moment to be debating whether (a) we can judge god, and (b) whether god, who is (according to some) perfect could ever do wrong.

Ok then: if the entire Bible was a lie, or a Divine April Fool's joke, would that be OK?
How do you know that god isn't just funning us? Because he says so? Haven't we just said that he can kill. main, torture, or anything he likes and still be beyond our judgement because he is after all divine?

Does he have a sense of humour?

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:35 pm**

CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Give glory to random chance for the accidental discovery of babies having 2 life saving involuntary reflexes. Involuntary means they don't chose to perform this reflex, it's built into their DNA to perform this task:

1. root reflex
This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his/her head and open his/her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast to begin feeding. Without this reflex, babies would not nourish properly and would be underdeveloped and susceptible to disease. By the way, this reflex is in all creatures that suckle the breast for milk.

Without this reflex, most animals would go extinct, for mom's would have a tough time licking their young onto the nipple.

2. suck reflex
Rooting helps the baby become ready to suck. When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin until about the 32nd week of pregnancy and is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Premature babies may have a weak or immature sucking ability because of this. Wow what an incredible stroke of luck for babies to also have a sucking reflex. Which causes them to suck in milk from the breast. Otherwise, babies would die. This is also in all animals that suckle the breast for nutrition.

Without this reflex, all creatures that rely on breast mild for survival would die. Remember, many creatures are born blind.

Believers know this is just one of the innumerable marvels of God and how He sustains His creation.
Evolutionist, think wow that was a nice natural process to evolve... But they never want to think, well how did the first billion newborn survive when these involuntary reflexes were not developed yet... Hokem

Let's not forget that newborns lack teeth. and boy that is a crucial element for the mother. wonder how long that took to evolve that idea? LOL

God sees all, hears all & knows all. He is most saddened by you taking away glory from Him and what He has done and attributed everything to the god of natural selection. You are only storing up wrath for yourselves and removing blessings that were intended for you while on earth to make life more enjoyable and meaningful.

Repent before it's too late.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:41 pm**

universalchiro wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Give glory to random chance for the accidental discovery of babies having 2 life saving involuntary reflexes. Involuntary means they don't chose to perform this reflex, it's built into their DNA to perform this task:

1. root reflex
This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his/her head and open his/her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast to begin feeding. Without this reflex, babies would not nourish properly and would be underdeveloped and susceptible to disease. By the way, this reflex is in all creatures that suckle the breast for milk.

Without this reflex, most animals would go extinct, for mom's would have a tough time licking their young onto the nipple.

2. suck reflex
Rooting helps the baby become ready to suck. When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin until about the 32nd week of pregnancy and is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Premature babies may have a weak or immature sucking ability because of this. Wow what an incredible stroke of luck for babies to also have a sucking reflex. Which causes them to suck in milk from the breast. Otherwise, babies would die. This is also in all animals that suckle the breast for nutrition.

Without this reflex, all creatures that rely on breast mild for survival would die. Remember, many creatures are born blind.

Believers know this is just one of the innumerable marvels of God and how He sustains His creation.
Evolutionist, think wow that was a nice natural process to evolve... But they never want to think, well how did the first billion newborn survive when these involuntary reflexes were not developed yet... Hokem

Let's not forget that newborns lack teeth. and boy that is a crucial element for the mother. wonder how long that took to evolve that idea? LOL

God sees all, hears all & knows all. He is most saddened by you taking away glory from Him and what He has done and attributed everything to the god of natural selection. You are only storing up wrath for yourselves and removing blessings that were intended for you while on earth to make life more enjoyable and meaningful.

Repent before it's too late.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:41 pm**

universalchiro wrote:Repent before it's too late.

Maybe we could have developed like Echnidas? Rather than extracting milk from a mother's nipple, baby echidnas (called "puggles") drink milk that is excreted from the mother's glands on her back.

Just imagine the mother's back instead of a human hand:

--Andy

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:09 pm**

The debate is over

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:58 pm**

Anyone can beat the computer, PS. But those Street Fighter Characters in the best hands (a la EVO), they would probably destroy.

--Andy

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:34 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:The debate is over

I wonder how many non-released videos there are of trolls infiltrating the church and just standing there loling when everyone gets "knocked down" by the power of jeebers

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:50 pm**

Seems like we have three religious nutjobs in this thread.

john9blue wrote:you really think it's out of the question that, say, 1% of all babies deserve to be killed, and the reason we humans don't kill them is because we are imperfect and don't know how to determine who belongs to the 1%?

Umm, yeah that's about as out of the question as anything I've ever heard.

universalchiro wrote:Genesis 17, God commands Abraham to circumcise his son on the 8th day. Why the 8th day, why not the 1st day or the 1 year? What is so special about the 8th day?

Fast forward 4,000 years, scientist have finally discerned that on the 8th day, there is a one time peek of coagulating proteins & Vitamin K, to decrease bleeding duration to the lowest point in a human's life.

"At birth a baby's intestines contain no bacteria, Between the fifth to seventh day of life, these bacteria begin to proliferate and produce the important vitamin K. This vitamin goes to the liver where it plays an important part in forming four different clotting proteins. If any one of these proteins are missing, serious bleeding may result . . . . One of the proteins dependent on vitamin K is called pro-thrombin . . . An average eight-day-old baby has more available prothrombin than on any other day of his life (McMillen, page 92)

This is not a coincidence. It is proof of the validity of the Gods laws.

Woah, stop right there, hold your horses. Have you considered the possibility that they tried cutting off the foreskin of babies at different times and by pure trial and error found the 8th day to be the best? Sounds more reasonable to me.

Viceroy63 wrote:The True God of the Universe answers to no man and does not fit in one's pocket.

So he's fat and unruly is that what you're saying? And how do you know this again? Read it in some book someone told you was written by god? Well call me difficult to convince but that's just not good enough. You can keep your god in your pocket, pet him when you feel sad and lonely if you like. Just don't spawn please.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:40 pm**

Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:you really think it's out of the question that, say, 1% of all babies deserve to be killed, and the reason we humans don't kill them is because we are imperfect and don't know how to determine who belongs to the 1%?

Umm, yeah that's about as out of the question as anything I've ever heard.

maybe for someone like you who doesn't question things.

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:10 pm**

Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The debate is over

I wonder how many non-released videos there are of trolls infiltrating the church and just standing there loling when everyone gets "knocked down" by the power of jeebers

I know where one like that is. My x's sister is supposedly an exorcist. I keep letting her think I will go check out her church cuz she's too hot to say no to any invitation. I'm not going though. If you ever come to America, we should go be those trolls. Actually, there is a chance I make it to Australia in 2014-15.

Set it up dude!

Posted: **Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:42 pm**

Gillipig wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:The True God of the Universe answers to no man and does not fit in one's pocket.

So he's fat and unruly is that what you're saying? And how do you know this again? Read it in some book someone told you was written by god? Well call me difficult to convince but that's just not good enough. You can keep your god in your pocket, pet him when you feel sad and lonely if you like. Just don't spawn please.

Oh, like a Tamagotchi! Hand-held God... not bad!

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:47 am**

CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

All hail the glory of natural selection. For "it" just happened to cause fetus' to have a foramen ovale and ductus arteriosus. What are these two odd sounding Latin words. Well they are describing where an opening in the fetal circulatory system is. Without these openings, the fetus will die of hypoxia. What do they do?

Foramen ovale: is an opening between the left & right atriums of the heart. This opening allows the mother's oxygenated blood to enter the fetus and keep it alive. Without this opening, the fetus will die. This opening, (all praise to natural selection for figuring this one out) closes when the neonate is born and laid on his/her right side down to breast feed on the left breast closest to the heart. Additional changes in lung pressure assist in this closure. If this stays open, then the circulatory system is not functioning properly, which results in early fatigue and weakness & increase susceptibility to sickness.

Ductus arteriosus: This opening allows blood from the mother to bypass the fetus' fluid filled, non-functioning lungs. This also closes at birth when the neonate takes it's first breath of air. If this stays open, then the neonate could die from hypertension, congestive heart failure or have cardiac arrhythmias.

Imagine how many trillions of fetus' of all the creatures on earth that natural selection had to go through (kill) to get this right. Or maybe it just got lucky, again... Hokem

Believers in God see this as one of the innumerable wonders of God and His creation.

Evolutionist, shrug their shoulders and say, well we evolved to this state of complexities... But with their own words they hang themselves. For all beginner physics students know that everything goes from order to disorder. And going from a single cell amoeba to the complexities of the Ductus arteriousus & Foramen Ovale is beyond calculable.

Repent while you still have a partially functioning brain. By rejecting what God has created and giving the glory of His creation to chance and natural selection, you are only storing up wrath for yourselves. And missing out on life's blessings that God has in store for you. God is a just judge, He will make sure that the crime is dealt with completely.

Would you like to know why you are on this earth?
Would you like to have a purpose for living?
Would you like to have freedom from guilt of sin?
Would you like to have freedom from the addictions that sap your health, money & joy?

You can be free from the penalty of sin and receive a peace & purpose of living that surpasses all understanding. What do you have to do? Confess that you have sinned against God. Jesus, God in the flesh, died on the cross for you. Believe in Jesus that He died on the cross, buried and rose from the grave and confess Jesus as Lord of your life and you will receive eternal life. You will be a changed creation.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:57 am**

Phatscotty wrote:The debate is over

Come on,,, that is too funny... I laughed hard at this...
His name is Benny Henn, and I think he is an alien. No just kidding, he believes he has some power from god. There is a cracked pot in every bunch.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:34 am**

universalchiro wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The debate is over

Come on,,, that is too funny... I laughed hard at this...
His name is Benny Henn, and I think he is an alien. No just kidding, he believes he has some power from god. There is a cracked pot in every bunch.

Oh the irony,it's just too much,please stop,it's not fair!!Cracked kettle calls cracked pot black arse, :lol:

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:05 am**

john9blue wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:you really think it's out of the question that, say, 1% of all babies deserve to be killed, and the reason we humans don't kill them is because we are imperfect and don't know how to determine who belongs to the 1%?

Umm, yeah that's about as out of the question as anything I've ever heard.

maybe for someone like you who doesn't question things.

Oh yes, I'm the type of guy who doesn't question things. Right, gotcha.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:56 pm**

Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:maybe for someone like you who doesn't question things.

Oh yes, I'm the type of guy who doesn't question things. Right, gotcha.

i apologize for so bluntly contradicting the unwritten doctrine of atheism which states that only people who subscribe to the principles of atheism are open-minded.

your deprogramming has just begun, gilly.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:38 pm**

What gusto!

Everybody, please:

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:25 pm**

john9blue wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:maybe for someone like you who doesn't question things.

Oh yes, I'm the type of guy who doesn't question things. Right, gotcha.

i apologize for so bluntly contradicting the unwritten doctrine of atheism which states that only people who subscribe to the principles of atheism are open-minded.

your deprogramming has just begun, gilly.

God you're an idiot. (pun intended)

Do you want me to compile a list of the threads I've started that questions commonly held beliefs? Or would you rather crawl out of the ring on all fours and change the subject?

Conquer Club

Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here