found out another good friend is NOT a CHRISTIAN!!!!

[Captain Equipoise]

Give five)))...

You are truly retard ²  , if you had actually READ the bible which you defend so valiantly you would know that your god ASKED Job to KILL HIS SON for him to show [god] that Job is his loyal servant.

This is the kind of demented god you worship, you fucking moron.

[Necrosis]

  as bishop George Berkely said
material does not exist

jesus, thats some foolish shit right there.

[theonlyone]

You are truly retard ²  , if you had actually READ the bible which you defend so valiantly you would know that your god ASKED Job to KILL HIS SON for him to show [god] that Job is his loyal servant.

This is the kind of demented god you worship, you fucking moron.

 Hi idiot. Do you know why your parents who have two degrees each, extremely well educated come from aristocratic families and an orthodox christian do not kill their beloved but stupid, arrogant, spoilt and one eyed son? Because their God Jesus Christ did not say to kill sons. As for the Bible it's a book for an intepretation. Hope this helps

[Captain Equipoise]

Hi idiot. Do you know why your parents who have two degrees each, extremely well educated come from aristocratic families and an orthodox christian do not kill their beloved but stupid, arrogant, spoilt and one eyed son? Because their God Jesus Christ did not say to kill sons. As for the Bible it's a book for an intepretation. Hope this helps

Dear pedarast retard, read the story of Job, maybe then you will have a more enlightened interpretation of your god who is a baby killing (exodus) and son killing (job) monster.

http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271901981&sr=1-1

Great book btw.

oh and theonlyone keep denying and selectively arguing for your child murdering god, post only the sections and passages that fit the message you're trying to spread, not the WHOLE truth of the matter, typical propaganda, Stalin taught you well.

[theonlyone]

Dear pedarast retard, read the story of Job, maybe then you will have a more enlightened interpretation of your god who is a baby killing (exodus) and son killing (job) monster.

http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271901981&sr=1-1

Great book btw.

oh and theonlyone keep denying and selectively arguing for your child murdering god, post only the sections and passages that fit the message you're trying to spread, not the WHOLE truth of the matter, typical propaganda, Stalin taught you well.

 An answer in the previous post if mine. No comment
 Something new?

[tbombz]

jesus, thats some foolish shit right there.

i take it that you have not read his philosophy. you should. heres a snippet:

    <Phil>. I say it is nothing to the purpose. Our discourse
proceeded altogether concerning sensible things, which you
defined to be, <the things we immediately perceive by our
senses>. Whatever other qualities, therefore, you speak of as
distinct from these, I know nothing of them, neither do they at
all belong to the point in dispute. You may, indeed, pretend to
have discovered certain qualities which you do not perceive, and
assert those insensible qualities exist in fire and sugar. But
what use can be made of this to your present purpose, I am at a
loss to conceive. Tell me then once more, do you acknowledge that
heat and cold, sweetness and bitterness (meaning those qualities
which are perceived by the senses), do not exist without the
mind?



and another



   <Phil>. Pray, is your corporeal substance either a sensible
quality, or made up of sensible qualities?

     <Hyl>. What a question that is! who ever thought it was?

     <Phil>. My reason for asking was, because in saying, <each
visible object hath that colour which we see in it>, you make
visible objects to be corporeal substances; which implies either
that corporeal substances are sensible qualities, or else that
there is something besides sensible qualities perceived by sight:
but, as this point was formerly agreed between us, and is still
maintained by you, it is a clear consequence, that your
<corporeal substance> is nothing distinct from <sensible
qualities>. {184}

[tbombz]

<Hyl>. And what will you conclude from all this? You cannot
argue that there are really and naturally no colours on objects:
because by artificial managements they may be altered, or made to
vanish.

     <Phil>. I think it may evidently be concluded from your own
concessions, that all the colours we see with our naked eyes are
only apparent as those on the clouds, since they vanish upon a
more close and accurate inspection which is afforded us by a
microscope. Then' as to what you say by way of prevention: {185}
I ask you whether the real and natural state of an object is
better discovered by a very sharp and piercing sight, or by one
which is less sharp?

     <Hyl>. By the former without doubt.

     <Phil>. Is it not plain from <Dioptrics> that microscopes
make the sight more penetrating, and represent objects as they
would appear to the eye in case it were naturally endowed with a
most exquisite sharpness?

     <Hyl>. It is.

     <Phil>. Consequently the microscopical representation is to
be thought that which best sets forth the real nature of the
thing, or what it is in itself. The colours, therefore, by it
perceived are more genuine and real than those perceived
otherwise.

     <Hyl>. I confess there is something in what you say.

     <Phil>. Besides, it is not only possible but manifest, that
there actually are animals whose eyes are by nature framed to
perceive those things which by reason of their minuteness escape
our sight. What think you of those inconceivably small animals
perceived by glasses? must we suppose they are all stark blind?
Or, in case they see, can it be imagined their sight hath not the
same use in preserving their bodies from injuries, which appears
in that of all other animals? And if it hath, is it not evident
they must see particles less than their own bodies; which will
present them with a far different view in each object from that
which strikes our senses? Even our own eyes do not always
represent objects to us after the same manner. In the jaundice
every one knows that all things seem yellow. Is it not therefore
highly probable those animals in whose eyes we discern a very
different texture from that of ours, and whose bodies abound with
different humours, do not see the same colours in every object
that we do? From all which, should it not seem to follow that all
colours are equally apparent, and that none of those which we
perceive are really inherent in any outward object?

[Captain Equipoise]

<Hyl>. And what will you conclude from all this? You cannot
argue that there are really and naturally no colours on objects:
because by artificial managements they may be altered, or made to
vanish.

     <Phil>. I think it may evidently be concluded from your own
concessions, that all the colours we see with our naked eyes are
only apparent as those on the clouds, since they vanish upon a
more close and accurate inspection which is afforded us by a
microscope. Then' as to what you say by way of prevention: {185}
I ask you whether the real and natural state of an object is
better discovered by a very sharp and piercing sight, or by one
which is less sharp?

     <Hyl>. By the former without doubt.

     <Phil>. Is it not plain from <Dioptrics> that microscopes
make the sight more penetrating, and represent objects as they
would appear to the eye in case it were naturally endowed with a
most exquisite sharpness?

     <Hyl>. It is.

     <Phil>. Consequently the microscopical representation is to
be thought that which best sets forth the real nature of the
thing, or what it is in itself. The colours, therefore, by it
perceived are more genuine and real than those perceived
otherwise.

     <Hyl>. I confess there is something in what you say.

     <Phil>. Besides, it is not only possible but manifest, that
there actually are animals whose eyes are by nature framed to
perceive those things which by reason of their minuteness escape
our sight. What think you of those inconceivably small animals
perceived by glasses? must we suppose they are all stark blind?
Or, in case they see, can it be imagined their sight hath not the
same use in preserving their bodies from injuries, which appears
in that of all other animals? And if it hath, is it not evident
they must see particles less than their own bodies; which will
present them with a far different view in each object from that
which strikes our senses? Even our own eyes do not always
represent objects to us after the same manner. In the jaundice
every one knows that all things seem yellow. Is it not therefore
highly probable those animals in whose eyes we discern a very
different texture from that of ours, and whose bodies abound with
different humours, do not see the same colours in every object
that we do? From all which, should it not seem to follow that all
colours are equally apparent, and that none of those which we
perceive are really inherent in any outward object?

Random gibberish, very eloquently put but really just a statement on our senses and colour study
doesn't really prove or disprove anything.

[Necrosis]

i take it that you have not read his philosophy. you should. heres a snippet:

    <Phil>. I say it is nothing to the purpose. Our discourse
proceeded altogether concerning sensible things, which you
defined to be, <the things we immediately perceive by our
senses>. Whatever other qualities, therefore, you speak of as
distinct from these, I know nothing of them, neither do they at
all belong to the point in dispute. You may, indeed, pretend to
have discovered certain qualities which you do not perceive, and
assert those insensible qualities exist in fire and sugar. But
what use can be made of this to your present purpose, I am at a
loss to conceive. Tell me then once more, do you acknowledge that
heat and cold, sweetness and bitterness (meaning those qualities
which are perceived by the senses), do not exist without the
mind?



and another



   <Phil>. Pray, is your corporeal substance either a sensible
quality, or made up of sensible qualities?

     <Hyl>. What a question that is! who ever thought it was?

     <Phil>. My reason for asking was, because in saying, <each
visible object hath that colour which we see in it>, you make
visible objects to be corporeal substances; which implies either
that corporeal substances are sensible qualities, or else that
there is something besides sensible qualities perceived by sight:
but, as this point was formerly agreed between us, and is still
maintained by you, it is a clear consequence, that your
<corporeal substance> is nothing distinct from <sensible
qualities>. {184}

what is so great about this? he is refering to the mind as some immaterial object? the mind or me is the brain, the sense organs are actually sensing the object, not the mind. Also, there are things we can detect that cannot be detected by our senses, like parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, this guy strikes me as a moron to be honest. The mind is the brain, without perception those things would still exist, if i lose my sight does color disappear? well to me they do but clearly they do not to other people, there goes his insight. We would have no way of saying anything existed if we had no perceptions, the point he is making, i see it as a meaningless point, obviously there may be things beyond our perception, but it is pure speculation and is a faith based stance to actively believe there is.

most of the things beyond our perception have been discovered in the universe, this is because they interact with matter, forces, energy, dark matter, all can be perceived via there effects and predictions made. Suggesting things may exist beyond our senses is fine, but it still has to fit the criteria of this material world, if not, you have to explain how and the mechanism. Dualism is dead.

[tbombz]

what is so great about this? he is refering to the mind as some immaterial object? the mind or me is the brain, the sense organs are actually sensing the object, not the mind. Also, there are things we can detect that cannot be detected by our senses, like parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, this guy strikes me as a moron to be honest. The mind is the brain, without perception those things would still exist, if i lose my sight does color disappear? well to me they do but clearly they do not to other people, there goes his insight. We would have no way of saying anything existed if we had no perceptions, the point he is making, i see it as a meaningless point, obviously there may be things beyond our perception, but it is pure speculation and is a faith based stance to actively believe there is.

most of the things beyond our perception have been discovered in the universe, this is because they interact with matter, forces, energy, dark matter, all can be perceived via there effects and predictions made. Suggesting things may exist beyond our senses is fine, but it still has to fit the criteria of this material world, if not, you have to explain how and the mechanism. Dualism is dead.

you percieve color, and if you dont, then someone else will.

but if you look at that same color under a microscope, there is no color at all.

atoms dont have colors. 

what exactly is color? it is something we see, light bounces off of an object to us and we see a certain color... every object absorbs certain colors and reflects certain colors of the light that hits it. what exactly is that object ? and if there are no eyes looking, then it is colorless...although it has properties inside of it that would make it appear to have color to a perciever if present. but the color itself doesnt exist, only within our minds does it.

and the same is true for all material.

[benchmstr]

you percieve color, and if you dont, then someone else will.

but if you look at that same color under a microscope, there is no color at all.

atoms dont have colors. 

what exactly is color? it is something we see, light bounces off of an object to us and we see a certain color... every object absorbs certain colors and reflects certain colors of the light that hits it. what exactly is that object ? and if there are no eyes looking, then it is colorless...although it has properties inside of it that would make it appear to have color to a perciever if present. but the color itself doesnt exist, only within our minds does it.

and the same is true for all material.

vagina is good....

bench

[tbombz]

vagina is good....

bench

indeed

[Necrosis]

you percieve color, and if you dont, then someone else will.

but if you look at that same color under a microscope, there is no color at all.

atoms dont have colors. 

what exactly is color? it is something we see, light bounces off of an object to us and we see a certain color... every object absorbs certain colors and reflects certain colors of the light that hits it. what exactly is that object ? and if there are no eyes looking, then it is colorless...although it has properties inside of it that would make it appear to have color to a perciever if present. but the color itself doesnt exist, only within our minds does it.

and the same is true for all material.

OMG LOLCAUST, how many molecules of H20 until they become wet?

logic falls apart at the quantum level, it is "spooky" it accounts for much of what you think needs explanation. Shifts in perception change just that, the perception, what is so hard to comprehend about that? Stuff under a microscope has color, not sure what you are referring to there, perhaps electron microscope.

the fact is its still material, the very hint of immaterial makes nosense. An immaterial thing, is a contradictory term, since thing is jargon for material. You cant even start taking about it, only about what it isnt, which makes in pointless.

I see rebuttals to all your arguments in these pages, why do you insist there is a god? is it for personal reasons?

[tbombz]

OMG LOLCAUST, how many molecules of H20 until they become wet?

logic falls apart at the quantum level, it is "spooky" it accounts for much of what you think needs explanation. Shifts in perception change just that, the perception, what is so hard to comprehend about that? Stuff under a microscope has color, not sure what you are referring to there, perhaps electron microscope.

the fact is its still material, the very hint of immaterial makes nosense. An immaterial thing, is a contradictory term, since thing is jargon for material. You cant even start taking about it, only about what it isnt, which makes in pointless.

I see rebuttals to all your arguments in these pages, why do you insist there is a god? is it for personal reasons?

thats just it.. there is no such thing as material. the idea of it is nonsensical. "solid" is an illusion.

are you familiar with e=mc2...?     material is just energy.. energy giving off signals for percievers who go where the energy is... there is no solid, only perceptions of solidness.  the idea of solid is implausible. by definition any solid thing is infinitely divisible. 

[phyxsius]

no.I'm asking...how about you?if your lord and Saviour told you to kill your own child would you?or would you go against your god's wishes?....

I don't believe God will ever going to say that.. He did asked me to break up with my girlfriend (now ex.) and I did... but never He will ask anyone to take another life.

It is not Biblical.. One thing, the Bible is complete and there is no need to add new things in the Bible..

There is absolutely no way a person would say "I received a revelation from God telling me to kill my children".. There can be only 2 things
1) That guy is delusional and used by Satan (which Jesus did say that in the Bible)
2) Does not believe in the God that I serve and love - The God in the Bible

[big L dawg]

I don't believe God will ever going to say that.. He did asked me to break up with my girlfriend (now ex.) and I did... but never He will ask anyone to take another life.

It is not Biblical.. One thing, the Bible is complete and there is no need to add new things in the Bible..

There is absolutely no way a person would say "I received a revelation from God telling me to kill my children".. There can be only 2 things
1) That guy is delusional and used by Satan (which Jesus did say that in the Bible)
2) Does not believe in the God that I serve and love - The God in the Bible

and yet what you dismiss "IS" in your bible

[James Blunt]

LOL @ jesus followers.

[#1 Klaus fan]

I don't believe God will ever going to say that.. He did asked me to break up with my girlfriend (now ex.) and I did... but never He will ask anyone to take another life.

It is not Biblical.. One thing, the Bible is complete and there is no need to add new things in the Bible..

There is absolutely no way a person would say "I received a revelation from God telling me to kill my children".. There can be only 2 things
1) That guy is delusional and used by Satan (which Jesus did say that in the Bible)
2) Does not believe in the God that I serve and love - The God in the Bible

How totally awesome that YOU out of all those people happen to believe in the right god. 

Kill yourself.

[tbombz]

LOL @ jesus followers.

Dude, read the new testament. find one with red highlighting for the words of Jesus.

[phyxsius]

Kill yourself.

why haven't you?

[big L dawg]

and yet a simple yes or no question cannot be answered...can't say I'm surprised...

[#1 Klaus fan]

why haven't you?

I have little sanity still left in me.

[YngiweRhoads]

thats just it.. there is no such thing as material. the idea of it is nonsensical. "solid" is an illusion.

are you familiar with e=mc2...?     material is just energy.. energy giving off signals for percievers who go where the energy is... there is no solid, only perceptions of solidness.  the idea of solid is implausible. by definition any solid thing is infinitely divisible. 

Do you make this up as you go along?

I honestly hope no one believes this sort of disingenuous misinformation.

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

Gotta fly, but you really need to catch up with the current state of quantum physics and learn what has been going on the last 25 years.

It really does appear Spinoza was correct, as corroborated with current scientific observation, when he stated

God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal

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

[pluck]

Tbombz...this is for you.

I'm not expecting a well balanced or coherent response from you, but I have some time to kill while smoking my cigar.

These are typical arguments from theists why god exists.
...from the God Delusion by Dawkins

The incomplete devastation argument:

"A plane crash where dozens of people die and one or 2 people survive with burns and injuries" ...therefore God must exist!

The emotional blackmail argument:

"God loves you! He does! How can you be so heartless to not believe?" ...therefore god exists!

The non belief argument:

"The majority of the world's population are non believers in Christ! This is what satan intended!" Therefore god exists

[YngiweRhoads]

He usually just quotes a few of these common arguments.


  

• The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
• The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
• The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.Avicenna, St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.
• The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.
• Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality (Argument from morality), Beauty (Argument from beauty), Love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.
• The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
• The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
• The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
• The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
• The Argument from Reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it — or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause — and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.
• Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory holds that the universe is bound to ultimately end in a Big Crunch, which will create a gravitational singularity that can be exploited to obtain practically infinite computational capacity; Tipler equates this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity to God