PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

It's about time that we stand up. The debate on Nightline shows Kurt Cameron to be a moron:

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/t ... _58859.asp

The Blasphemy Challenge:

http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/

I think it is a waste of time for an atheist to deny holy spirit if one does not believe it exists.
What I would like to see the Rational Squad do is scour the recently opended files of the Holy Office (LOL that sounds funny) of the Inquisition. What they may find are cooking recipes with live human beings....

This is an interesting doc The Secret Files of the Inquisition

Other interesting links:
Vatican (go to Focus)
Holy Terror of the Inquisition
Secrets of the Vatican

In 2000 pope John Paul appologized for "errors committed in the service of the truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods." LOL

Kirik Cameron IS a moron, and Ray Comfort is simply batshit insane.
They came to this debate to scientifically proove the existance of god, without faith or the bible, yet the fisrt thing Comfort brings up is the 10 commandments.
The whole Way of the Master thing (let ma ask you 3 questions.....) presupposes the god concept.,and thus is flawed from the inception. The argument from design that they rely on to back up the initial assertations is so silly, its hard to imagine why anyone takes any of it seriously. Even outside if The Way of the Master, there are many creationist groups, all of which are equally dumb.

It make sense to me for athiests to deny the holy spirit... I mean thats kinda the point .... they deny the existance of the holy spirit....I guess that what makes them an atheist.


On a brighter note tho Falwell is now dead, whilst Im alive to enjoty the fact., and even Hovind is in jail... everything is coming up Millhouse. Just waiting for Robertson to crash his plane into fred Phelps' place and the world will be a better place

what I find amusing is that the same people who refer to believers as "morons" are the same types of people who will be the first ones to accuse believers as being bigoted and/or intolerant.

I think we're all really agnostics, no matter what particular game of make-believe we get drawn into...

If tolerance means shutting your mouth while public officials and celebrities are constantly mentioning god in a matter of fact way as if the existence of god is a fact, then I am against tolerance in this case. You will notice when they do this they say "god" instead of "jesus". The reason why is they figure every religion has a god and atheists are so few in number that they don't need to consider their feelings. We know for the dominant christians god is a code word for jesus.

Most people have their minds made up about god but for the very few who don't, I think they ought to be given the chance to hear the other side instead constantly being bombarded by these archaic fantasy deities which are so pervasive in society.

"Most people have their minds made up about god but for the very few who don't, I think they ought to be given the chance to hear the other side instead constantly being bombarded by these archaic fantasy deities which are so pervasive in society."


What an ironic statement.

It's almost as if you were saying "I'm not sure if God exists or not, but you'd have to be a total moron to believe in God"

Amusing.

I have heard plenty of public officials invoke the generic "god", but I can't say that I have ever felt they were trying to convert, or preach at me.

We live in a society where information is readily available. There is no reason at all why someone who was interested could not hear both sides of the argument.

What you are really saying is that you want the side you disagree with to stop talking about their beliefs.
So much for being "given a chance to hear the other side".

And of course, that is another example of the hypocrisy of the "Angry Atheist".

As liquid Len pointed out, we are all agnostic really..
I certainly don't know what I believe about God or this Jesus fellow...

But those who describe themselves as "atheists" do tend to be rather hateful, and hypocritical. Almost laughably so.

I for one am 100% not an agnostic.

I for one am 100% not an agnostic.

No you aren't. YOu cant know for absolute 100% certain that there is no God.

lame.
like the creator of the world cares what anyone thinks.....

this is more like an attack on religion or the idea of god than god. the real god by definition would be beyond such nonsense discussions.

rings that Thomas Dolby tune
...They blinded me with... SCIENCE ! ...

doo doo doot doo doo...........

manfriday wrote:

I for one am 100% not an agnostic.

No you aren't. YOu cant know for absolute 100% certain that there is no God.

but he has right to believe that there is no God
prooving that something doesn't exist is a logical fallacy if memory serves me right

manfriday wrote:

I for one am 100% not an agnostic.

No you aren't. YOu cant know for absolute 100% certain that there is no God.

Indeed Tom, if scientific criteria come into the discussion, you get in trouble

Science can only speak about things that at least in theory could be prooven.
You can't proove the existence or non-existence of 'God'.
The term 'agnostic' therefor is a 'scientificly' correct attitude, it says, I can't say anything about it.
Sorry Manfriday, but it's even you who want us to believe it's possible anyway, as you use the prove thing as an arguement

An atheist however is 'just' convinced that god doesn't exist.
He will never say that he can proove it, he just believes that it's true.

Braincell is totally free to call himself an agnostic, explicitely according to fundamental (there, the word ) scientific principles.
And as long as any scientific claims aren't made, he may call himself even even an atheist, like I tend to do myself.
(as that was how I was reading Braincell's words).

- It could be I'm missing the point, but I had to interpret the quoted sentense.
To me, it looks like you say, one can't be an agnost, as you never can proove...etc.

Btw., I'm sure Braincell has a real point between the lines.
AFAIK in the States, specially in the south, state and church are not separated like it should be.
In public schools children have to pray, I'd hate that.
At the same time, a large part of the population doesn't want to change that.
Without any shame, they appeal to the existence of god, without taking into account that other people think different about it.
If you're looking for intolerant people, you would usually not search for atheists (or agnosts for that matter)...

Btw.2, at least there's one - recent - scientific experiment done which prooved god did not help people who prayed for one of their beloved but very sick relative.
One test group, one controller group, the usual stuff.
Statistically, praying didn't help for one bit, the results # of deads and recovered ones were equally spread
Surprise!
He still may exist, but during that experiment he's prooven then that he was not listening

whatchu talkin bout huub?

you can't be an athiest or an agnostic. you're always going to those pagan sun festivals!.....

oh my God...


You think this was me??

The only problem is when what is based on "faith", that by definition is something personal and out of any proof system, is forced to be a rule for everybody.

I think that a lot of anger and discussion comes from this violence based on a trivial and simplistic concept of "truth".

Those who can't stand a relativistic society are not really happy with their beliefs, fear is what drives them, not spirituality.
The problem is that such people is everywhere, always trying to condition everyone's life, without respect for different beliefs or the absence of any belief.

As a non believer i will always respect what others believe or, better, the right they have to believe what they want and I would never feel the urge to destroy what some people seem to need so much, but I will defend my freedom in any way. I think the real "war" is this one, against those who want religion to be the "law" for everybody.

A relativistic society is the safest place also for those who believe in god, any god.

manfriday wrote: But those who describe themselves as "atheists" do tend to be rather hateful, and hypocritical. Almost laughably so.

I find this coment extremely disgusting, baseless and inflammatory.

It is your hate for atheists that bleeds from your unconcious mind that surfaced in your comment, result of years of indoctrination and isolation from the real world.


Look at these pictures and tell me who advocates hate:

"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight, thou hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalm 5:5.

You probably noded like your other fellow worshipers hearing this phrase at the Sunday mass not realizing what it really meant but feeling in your heart that it sounded right. Now this is hate is burned into your subconscious, associated with a sense of righteousness that you feel it was bestowed to you from a higher power through your local priest.

Sorry Manfriday, but it's even you who want us to believe it's possible anyway, as you use the prove thing as an arguement

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here?
At this point I think it is about as probably that there is a God as it is that the universe sprang into existence out of nothing.
Either prospect is rather mind boggling, really.

AFAIK in the States, specially in the south, state and church are not separated like it should be.

I guess it depends on what you consider "separation".
I dont beleive our constitution was ever meant to mean that religion had to be eliminated from public view, as some of the "Angry Atheists" seem to believe.

In public schools children have to pray, I'd hate that.

LOL what news feeds are you watching man?
The view you have been shown is seriously distorted. Despite what some Angry Atheists might lead you to believe, we dont live in Pakistan, and we dont have anyone holding a gun to kids heads forcing them to pray in school.

If you're looking for intolerant people, you would usually not search for atheists

You typically don't have to, as they will come searching for you.

Btw.2, at least there's one - recent - scientific experiment done which prooved god did not help people who prayed for one of their beloved but very sick relative.[/quote

Yes, and another to show that people do recover more quickly when they are prayed for. Yay. people can take their pick on what to believe yet again.

A relativistic society is the safest place also for those who believe in god, any god.

Perhaps we have a differnet notion of relativism...
Objectivism doesn not require any belief in a deity.. Ayn Rand was an objectivist and she was an agnostic if I recal correctly..
The problem with relativism is that It's hard to argue a case for it as it pretty much defeats itself..

Wow Bingo.. that was amusing as well..

I never said believers couldn't be intolerant.. But gimmie a break.. who started this thread with words like "morons".

and I dont "hate" atheists.. I simply have a hard time with Angry Atheists who get a boner every time they see the opportunity to mock people of faith.

and what the hell was with the "unconscious mind" crap? Wow.. lay off the bong for a while there chief!

Thanks for the laughs, sporto.


By the way.. for the record..
Im not really a church go-er.