Upsidedown World

[splendor]

Written by a 15 yr. old School Kid in Ohio :

New Pledge of Allegiance
Since the Pledge of Allegiance & The Lords Prayer
Are not allowed in Schools anymore
Because the word 'God' is mentioned...
A Kid in Ohio wrote the attached...


NEW School prayer :


Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks..
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

[Nunyabiz]

Well sadly the Pledge is still allowed even though it has been bastardized.
The "lords prayer" thankfully never has been legally allowed nor should it ever be as it is clearly unconstitutional.

The Pledge was written in 1892 I believe it was by Francis Bellamy which was a "Socialist" and it was a socialist pledge and BTW was originally recited with right arm held straight out in the infamous "heil Hitler" fashion.
I can see those changes for obvious reasons and none were unconstitutional.
However in 1954 along with putting 'in god we trust" on paper money the Knights of Columbus (basically KKK lite) was responsible for bastardizing the Pledge also by "illegally" adding "under god" makign it unconstitutional.


Turning the country into a theocracy would make us exactly like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan with Sharia law.

which is utterly insane.

Keep religion out of politics.

[splendor]

Well sadly the Pledge is still allowed even though it has been bastardized.
The "lords prayer" thankfully never has been legally allowed nor should it ever be as it is clearly unconstitutional.

The Pledge was written in 1892 I believe it was by Francis Bellamy which was a "Socialist" and it was a socialist pledge and BTW was originally recited with right arm held straight out in the infamous "heil Hitler" fashion.
I can see those changes for obvious reasons and none were unconstitutional.
However in 1954 along with putting 'in god we trust" on paper money the Knights of Columbus (basically KKK lite) was responsible for bastardizing the Pledge also by "illegally" adding "under god" makign it unconstitutional.


Turning the country into a theocracy would make us exactly like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan with Sharia law.

which is utterly insane.

Keep religion out of politics.

We would be much better off if we could keep politics out of politics. If that is all you can get out that young man's composition; I feel very sorry for you.

[Nunyabiz]

We would be much better off if we could keep politics out of politics. If that is all you can get out that young man's composition; I feel very sorry for you.


Likewise, because what I stated was factual.

Religion & politics are like hot oil and cold water they do not mix AT ALL.

Religion does a good job of basically destroying all it touches, when it comes in contact with politics the affects are a million fold and it affects everybody.

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about in this case.

[splendor]

Likewise, because what I stated was factual.

Religion & politics are like hot oil and cold water they do not mix AT ALL.

Religion does a good job of basically destroying all it touches, when it comes in contact with politics the affects are a million fold and it affects everybody.

The founding fathers knew what they were talking about in this case.

I repeat; is that all you got out of that student's writing? Talk about tunnel vision! Our founding fathers?
Did you ever read the Declaration of Independence: ". . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable . . ."
How about the Gettysburg Address: ". . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That's Jefferson and Lincoln. I guess it's back to the drawing board for you.

[Nunyabiz]

I repeat; is that all you got out of that student's writing? Talk about tunnel vision! Our founding fathers?
Did you ever read the Declaration of Independence: ". . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable . . ."
How about the Gettysburg Address: ". . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That's Jefferson and Lincoln. I guess it's back to the drawing board for you.


Yes that is all I got out of that drivel.

Number one Lincoln is not a "founding father" and his religious affiliation is greatly disputed.
In his 1846 campaign he was called an atheist on several occasions by his rivals.

and the so called "creator" mentioned in the declaration refers to the freedom in which people will not be governed by a particular religion and especially the "divine right of kings".
The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
The Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods.

'History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


'Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


This time period was called the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason.
That is because intelligent human beings were throwing off the shackles & yolks of religious dogma in favor of scientific inquiry.

I can go on & on ad nauseam but it will of course fall on deaf ears.
no need for you to "go back to the drawing board" as you will refuse to listen to the lesson written on it.

[splendor]

I can go on & on ad nauseam but it will of course fall on deaf ears.no need for you to "go back to the drawing board" as you will refuse to listen to the lesson written on it.

Yes, Jefferson was a Deist. But he wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department.

In Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address of March 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." Even more to the point was his reply when a minister from the North told the president he "hoped the Lord is on our side." Responded Lincoln, "I am not at all concerned about that. . . . But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
By Dr. Mark A. Noll, professor of history at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

They still believed in God; just not organized religion; on the other hand, you believe in nothing that you cannot see with your own eyes. Bear in mind; you do not choose your beliefs; they choose you.

[Nunyabiz]

Yes, Jefferson was a Deist. But he wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department.

In Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address of March 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." Even more to the point was his reply when a minister from the North told the president he "hoped the Lord is on our side." Responded Lincoln, "I am not at all concerned about that. . . . But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
By Dr. Mark A. Noll, professor of history at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

They still believed in God; just not organized religion; on the other hand, you believe in nothing that you cannot see with your own eyes. Bear in mind; you do not choose your beliefs; they choose you.

If someone wants to call "nature" some form of "god" then oh well, but at least it isn't the sheer insanity of Christianity or any other organized religion which is simply ridiculous on every level.

A persons "beliefs" as far as religion goes is based about 95% on geographic location on the map and nothing else.

One thing for certain however is that this country was not founded on Christian dogma.
If anything it was founded to spite it.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to leave the christian god & dogma OUT of the founding documents.

and yes I do not believe in something that is easily proven to be false by the scientific method.
Religion fails any scientific scrutiny by an overwhelming margin.

[splendor]

If someone wants to call "nature" some form of "god" then oh well, but at least it isn't the sheer insanity of Christianity or any other organized religion which is simply ridiculous on every level.

A persons "beliefs" as far as religion goes is based about 95% on geographic location on the map and nothing else.

One thing for certain however is that this country was not founded on Christian dogma.
If anything it was founded to spite it.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to leave the christian god & dogma OUT of the founding documents.

and yes I do not believe in something that is easily proven to be false by the scientific method.
Religion fails any scientific scrutiny by an overwhelming margin.

The arrogance of your "scattergun" attacks on "all religion" both amazes and disgusts me. The world is more than your "scientific research" crutch. You conveniently chose to ignore the quotes in my post by Jefferson and Lincoln.
Like everything in life; there is good and bad in religion. You choose (like all demagogues) to ignore the good.

[Nunyabiz]

The arrogance of your "scattergun" attacks on "all religion" both amazes and disgusts me. The world is more than your "scientific research" crutch. You conveniently chose to ignore the quotes in my post by Jefferson and Lincoln.
Like everything in life; there is good and bad in religion. You choose (like all demagogues) to ignore the good.


Believing in something that is clearly not true is not good no matter how you spin it.
It is at best deception.
Human beings need to live in the real world, react to things based on reality and not belief.

Yeah I am sure at some point Hitler may have petted his dog and he was a very good artist, however I refuse to "ignore all the bad" in favor of "looking at what little good there may have been"
The bad FAR out weighs it.

Same for religion.

It is the worst thing that human beings have inflicted upon themselves and has been the leading cause of war, death, civil unrest, mass relocation's, destruction of whole civilizations, racism, sexism & genocide.
nothing else even comes close.

What little good religion has accomplished could have just as easily been done with community groups.

but nothing can compare to the evil it has wrought on mankind because nothing but the insanity of religion could justify atrocities.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg,

[splendor]

Believing in something that is clearly not true is not good no matter how you spin it.
It is at best deception.
Human beings need to live in the real world, react to things based on reality and not belief.

Yeah I am sure at some point Hitler may have petted his dog and he was a very good artist, however I refuse to "ignore all the bad" in favor of "looking at what little good there may have been"
The bad FAR out weighs it.

Same for religion.

It is the worst thing that human beings have inflicted upon themselves and has been the leading cause of war, death, civil unrest, mass relocation's, destruction of whole civilizations, racism, sexism & genocide.
nothing else even comes close.

What little good religion has accomplished could have just as easily been done with community groups.

but nothing can compare to the evil it has wrought on mankind because nothing but the insanity of religion could justify atrocities.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg,

How do you have such insight? You're absolutely certain about this? There are no absolutes in life! Why do you think we were put on this earth, to live, die and then cease to exist for eternity? You poor slob! You're all alone. When you go to your grave, there won't be anybody to pull the grass up over your head. Nobody to mourn you. Nobody to give a damn.
No, I take that back. Maybe a few of your revered scientists will climb down from their "meat for the worms" pedestal and try to dredge up a few words of comfort; though for life of me I don't see how there can be any comfort in oblivion.

[Nunyabiz]

How do you have such insight? You're absolutely certain about this? There are no absolutes in life! Why do you think we were put on this earth, to live, die and then cease to exist for eternity? You poor slob! You're all alone. When you go to your grave, there won't be anybody to pull the grass up over your head. Nobody to mourn you. Nobody to give a damn.
No, I take that back. Maybe a few of your revered scientists will climb down from their "meat for the worms" pedestal and try to dredge up a few words of comfort; though for life of me I don't see how there can be any comfort in oblivion.

I am every bit certain as I am about Leprechauns & Purple Flying Unicorns because there is exactly the same proof of those existing, so that is good enough for me.

I am not going to bother addressing the rest of your meaningless rant, does no good.
You are going to believe what you want to believe and I am going to KNOW what I can prove and nothing is ever going change that.

If you want to believe you are an Egyptian Pharaoh and coming back to life after death then nothing is stopping you, have at it.

I will stick to reality.

[splendor]

I am every bit certain as I am about Leprechauns & Purple Flying Unicorns because there is exactly the same proof of those existing, so that is good enough for me.

I am not going to bother addressing the rest of your meaningless rant, does no good.
You are going to believe what you want to believe and I am going to KNOW what I can prove and nothing is ever going change that.

If you want to believe you are an Egyptian Pharaoh and coming back to life after death then nothing is stopping you, have at it.

I will stick to reality.

To paraphrase the Great Bard: "Ah, my friend, therein lies the rub"!:(

[BUSHED]

My father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,
a place of peace with due respect given
Give us our daily bread
that which we rightfully earned
And forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors,
As we pay off debts, may they be rightous
And lead us not into temptation, but deliever us from evil,
fill needs not wants, be of wise choices of wants,
For thine is power and glory forever. AMEN
I may live with unwise choices forever, I agree.

[pearl-ivory]

First of all... region shouldn't be in politics, seen as politics are there to organize a country that has freedom of self governing..it was ment to give the people of that particular country a feeling of self control. Are we not over seas fighting for just that right..is not terrorism a form of control of others, the same as having a king or monarchy.. they have the final say, being able to vote on how things are run and money is spent is giving the people a sense of whole. But unfortuately religion does come into play when dealing with laws or morals involving laws, ie, it is against the law to kill, why is that! Religion had a hand in that..Thou shall not kill, bigamy is another, thou shall not cofit thy neighbor's wife, shall I go on... sure it shouldn't be involved in a country's politics, but without some moral reprocussions our children will grow up doing more of what we see...random shootings etc.

[BUSHED]

Unrightousness if they kill you, am I not next, should we join, form a union of strength, and restore civilty, or let your death be in vain.

In the cause may civilty be foremost, and guilty charged, and diplomacy with resolve and respect due all. Peace on Earth as Heaven.

[Nunyabiz]

First of all... region shouldn't be in politics, seen as politics are there to organize a country that has freedom of self governing..it was ment to give the people of that particular country a feeling of self control. Are we not over seas fighting for just that right..is not terrorism a form of control of others, the same as having a king or monarchy.. they have the final say, being able to vote on how things are run and money is spent is giving the people a sense of whole. But unfortuately religion does come into play when dealing with laws or morals involving laws, ie, it is against the law to kill, why is that! Religion had a hand in that..Thou shall not kill, bigamy is another, thou shall not cofit thy neighbor's wife, shall I go on... sure it shouldn't be involved in a country's politics, but without some moral reprocussions our children will grow up doing more of what we see...random shootings etc.

Sorry but the 10 commandments have absolutely NOTHING to do with US law.
Also religion in general is a very poor teacher of morality.

In fact if anything religion teaches virtually any atrocity can be justified.

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/americanlaw_2.htm

[BUSHED]

No taking content out of context like MORONS DO... AKA LIARS AND THIEVES !

So you saying ten comandents is lies, that Declaration of Independence is not our birth, U S CONSTITUTION not the spirit protecting WE THE PEOPLE WHICH IS GOVERNMENT IN ACTION...if you knew your history you'd know Andrew Jackson proved this point all ready !

athiest argueing with a God they say don't exist, OK....DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nomorehistory]

Believing in something that is clearly not true is not good no matter how you spin it.
It is at best deception.
Human beings need to live in the real world, react to things based on reality and not belief.

Yeah I am sure at some point Hitler may have petted his dog and he was a very good artist, however I refuse to "ignore all the bad" in favor of "looking at what little good there may have been"
The bad FAR out weighs it.

Same for religion.

It is the worst thing that human beings have inflicted upon themselves and has been the leading cause of war, death, civil unrest, mass relocation's, destruction of whole civilizations, racism, sexism & genocide.
nothing else even comes close.

What little good religion has accomplished could have just as easily been done with community groups.

but nothing can compare to the evil it has wrought on mankind because nothing but the insanity of religion could justify atrocities.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg,

First you say that the Republicans and the Bush Administration caused all the world's problems; now you are saying its Religion. Make up your mind or just go crawl in a hole cause you are STUCK!!

[HighlandWarrior]

Isn't it amazing and awesome can unite most of us who disagree quite often on politics ? Nunyabiz: I respect your right not to believe in a God, religion but that doesn't give you the right to condemn and denigrate our belief's.

The composition was awesome !!!!!!!

"It is better to have no opinion of God at all than such as one as is unworthy of him; for the one is only unbelief--the other is contempt." --Plutarch

[sallyanne]

Sorry but the 10 commandments have absolutely NOTHING to do with US law.
Also religion in general is a very poor teacher of morality.

In fact if anything religion teaches virtually any atrocity can be justified.

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/americanlaw_2.htm
Wrong , PEOPLE have taught us that any atrocity is justified. Religion or spirituality are just a crutch that people use to prop their need or desire for destruction and greed on. Anything can be used as an excuse to do wrong or harmful acts .I have heard of things that would be considered horrific done in the name of science as well . And I'm not actually sure where to find this scientific proof that there is no creator , while I'll concede there may be no proof that there was one , never saw 100% proof to the contrary .

[Nunyabiz]

Wrong , PEOPLE have taught us that any atrocity is justified. Religion or spirituality are just a crutch that people use to prop their need or desire for destruction and greed on. Anything can be used as an excuse to do wrong or harmful acts .I have heard of things that would be considered horrific done in the name of science as well . And I'm not actually sure where to find this scientific proof that there is no creator , while I'll concede there may be no proof that there was one , never saw 100% proof to the contrary .

There isn't 100% proof that Purple Flying Unicorns don't exist either.
So you believe in those too?
Exactly what is enough proof to not believe in something?

99.99% is way more than enough for me.

What justified burning witches at the stake?
What justifies some idiot strapping a bomb around their waist and walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up?
What justified Hitler murdering millions of Jews?
I can go on with 100s of "justifications" all attributed to religion.

[Nunyabiz]

First you say that the Republicans and the Bush Administration caused all the world's problems; now you are saying its Religion. Make up your mind or just go crawl in a hole cause you are STUCK!!

Rethugs, Bush , Religion can hardly separate one from the other.

[sallyanne]

There isn't 100% proof that Purple Flying Unicorns don't exist either.
So you believe in those too?
Exactly what is enough proof to not believe in something?

99.99% is way more than enough for me.

What justified burning witches at the stake?
What justifies some idiot strapping a bomb around their waist and walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up?
What justified Hitler murdering millions of Jews?
I can go on with 100s of "justifications" all attributed to religion.
As usual you have to make your point using something frivolous which denotes your clear distain for a differing opinion on this subject. Once again you use nut cases who USE spirituality as an EXCUSE to do wrong as your example. Like I said these people obviously did not believe in the true message , love , tolerance and good will towards their fellow man .I could use Mother Teresa to show the other extreme. Science , like religion , has it's extremes and nut cases who use it to further their own agenda .There have been some incredible advances using science and then there are people like Joseph Mengele and experiments like the Tuskegee study and the Willowbrook case. It is easy to distort the message by using extremes.

[Redv14]

As usual you have to make your point using something frivolous which denotes your clear distain for a differing opinion on this subject. Once again you use nut cases who USE spirituality as an EXCUSE to do wrong as your example. Like I said these people obviously did not believe in the true message , love , tolerance and good will towards their fellow man .I could use Mother Teresa to show the other extreme. Science , like religion , has it's extremes and nut cases who use it to further their own agenda .There have been some incredible advances using science and then there are people like Joseph Mengele and experiments like the Tuskegee study and the Willowbrook case. It is easy to distort the message by using extremes.

You seem to forget that along with messages of love and peace in the Bible, there are also passages that encourage believers to kill those others who do not go along with them. You can find such passages in the Old and New testament as well as the Koran according to Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who has written many books on various religions.

[Nunyabiz]

As usual you have to make your point using something frivolous which denotes your clear distain for a differing opinion on this subject. Once again you use nut cases who USE spirituality as an EXCUSE to do wrong as your example. Like I said these people obviously did not believe in the true message , love , tolerance and good will towards their fellow man .I could use Mother Teresa to show the other extreme. Science , like religion , has it's extremes and nut cases who use it to further their own agenda .There have been some incredible advances using science and then there are people like Joseph Mengele and experiments like the Tuskegee study and the Willowbrook case. It is easy to distort the message by using extremes.

Actually mother Teresa was a horrible little psychopathic witch that enjoyed watching others in pain and suffering.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Extremes in Science have been few and far between and science does a good job of policing itself and pointing out the frauds & nuts.
Religion on the other hand does not police itself at all if anything they try to cover up the atrocities.
Science goes out of its way to change, to get better.
Religion goes out of its way to remain exactly as it has been since the pre dark ages.

Cases like I listed are rampant in religion and have been for 1000s of years.
The "excuses" come from people making the claim that any and every Christian that has ever done anything wrong that they are not a "good christian".
Sorry that is utter BS, the very ones and there are millions upon millions of them that commit atrocities are the very ones that believe they are doing exactly "gods work" the very ones committing the worst crimes are the very ones that are the most religious that follow the dogma exactly as its written and interpreted by millions.

It is the fundamentalist that are the main problem, they represent about 25-30% of any given religion.
That is one hell of a lot of delusional psychotics spread around the world committing atrocities in the name of religion and fully believing they are 100% justified.

[Nunyabiz]

You seem to forget that along with messages of love and peace in the Bible, there are also passages that encourage believers to kill those others who do go along with them. You can find such passages in the Old and New testament as well as the Koran according to Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who has written many books on various religions.


Yes they always seems to selectively "forget" that little detail don't they?

[BUSHED]

OK, so nunyabiz as they got to crucify Christ, witch nine inch nail you driveing, think you better learn witch part of the hammer to use, the claw is for pulling nails, that was unrightously driven.


You forget before Christ became a Fisherman, he was a carpenter.

[Nunyabiz]

OK, so nunyabiz as they got to crucify Christ, witch nine inch nail you driveing, think you better learn witch part of the hammer to use, the claw is for pulling nails, that was unrightously driven.


You forget before Christ became a Fisherman, he was a carpenter.

You forget that Christ didn't exist.

[BUSHED]

No I say he did exist, I am a believer ! I also believe he was greatest romantic that ever lived... I also believe Roe VS Wade is correct as stands, I also very happy BUSHS stim cell got reversed !

[BUSHED]

No I say he did exist, I am a believer ! I also believe he was greatest romantic that ever lived... I also believe Roe VS Wade is correct as stands, I also very happy BUSHS stim cell got reversed !


maybe you should learn to use the alpha-bite !

[Redv14]

Actually mother Teresa was a horrible little psychopathic witch that enjoyed watching others in pain and suffering.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Extremes in Science have been few and far between and science does a good job of policing itself and pointing out the frauds & nuts.
Religion on the other hand does not police itself at all if anything they try to cover up the atrocities.
Science goes out of its way to change, to get better.
Religion goes out of its way to remain exactly as it has been since the pre dark ages.

Cases like I listed are rampant in religion and have been for 1000s of years.
The "excuses" come from people making the claim that any and every Christian that has ever done anything wrong that they are not a "good christian".
Sorry that is utter BS, the very ones and there are millions upon millions of them that commit atrocities are the very ones that believe they are doing exactly "gods work" the very ones committing the worst crimes are the very ones that are the most religious that follow the dogma exactly as its written and interpreted by millions.

It is the fundamentalist that are the main problem, they represent about 25-30% of any given religion.
That is one hell of a lot of delusional psychotics spread around the world committing atrocities in the name of religion and fully believing they are 100% justified.

Thanks for posting those links about Mother Teresa. Maybe folks will take the time to read Christopher Hitchens' book about MT; The Missionary Position. What an eye opener!

[BUSHED]

You morons, you low life morons, Mother Teresa loved people as Christ did, through the misgivings of deeds done by Catholic Church, rumored she lost faith in it, but continued her good works...

Now if you wanta to get rightously angry about something, I suggest you educaite yourselves. With something other than your ignorance.

[splendor]

You forget that Christ didn't exist.

Now, finally I realize what we are dealing with here. I am not going to waste any more words on you. From now on (as far I am concerned) you don't exist.

[sallyanne]

Thanks for posting those links about Mother Teresa. Maybe folks will take the time to read Christopher Hitchens' book about MT; The Missionary Position. What an eye opener!
Maybe they should also read his biography , it is a very interesting read and one that shows an alcoholic , racist who embraced the Iraq war and who wrote that he was " slightly for" George Bush .A guy who called Sid Blumenthal one of his best friends then tries to have him thrown in jail . This is also the same man who in an interview with journalist Johann Hari described himself as on the same side as the NEO CONS. This is not exactly someone who I would consider a reliable source of information.

[BUSHED]

What you can't believe in a believer ! :eek: The truth is Mother Teresea did loose faith with Catholic Church, she did continue her good works...

As Sister Dorothy was murdered in Brazile over trying to protect the Rain Forest, she was 73 years old from Akro Ohio, murdered on side of the road shot six times, as all she was guilty of was love of people as Christ was, as Sister Dorothy taught the people gardening skills, and helped them learn how to care for themselves.

Thank you knew sooner or later get unjustly nailed, you tell them the truth, they think it's hell...

[sallyanne]

You seem to forget that along with messages of love and peace in the Bible, there are also passages that encourage believers to kill those others who do go along with them. You can find such passages in the Old and New testament as well as the Koran according to Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who has written many books on various religions.
The bible , which I didn't mention by the way , is open to interpretation and was probably meant to be that way and the way I interpret it is a positive message .You can spin it whatever way you want , put whatever negative connotation on it you want but if a person choses to believe in something good , positive and helpful then explain to me how that can possibly can be misconstrued as a bad thing.

[sallyanne]

Actually mother Teresa was a horrible little psychopathic witch that enjoyed watching others in pain and suffering.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Extremes in Science have been few and far between and science does a good job of policing itself and pointing out the frauds & nuts.
Religion on the other hand does not police itself at all if anything they try to cover up the atrocities.
Science goes out of its way to change, to get better.
Religion goes out of its way to remain exactly as it has been since the pre dark ages.

Cases like I listed are rampant in religion and have been for 1000s of years.
The "excuses" come from people making the claim that any and every Christian that has ever done anything wrong that they are not a "good christian".
Sorry that is utter BS, the very ones and there are millions upon millions of them that commit atrocities are the very ones that believe they are doing exactly "gods work" the very ones committing the worst crimes are the very ones that are the most religious that follow the dogma exactly as its written and interpreted by millions.

It is the fundamentalist that are the main problem, they represent about 25-30% of any given religion.
That is one hell of a lot of delusional psychotics spread around the world committing atrocities in the name of religion and fully believing they are 100% justified.
Your first statement was just to ridiculous to even respond to , obviously the right winger Neo Cons are not the only ones susceptible to propaganda .The rest aside from the last statement is just another example of the party line , that excuses or ignores the atrocities done in the name of science but gladly parade out the ones done in the name of religion to promote your own personal beliefs. Obviously your problem is with Christians because unlike me, you constantly name , not to mention, malign them .Your last statement however is very true and very unfortunate .

[Nunyabiz]

Now, finally I realize what we are dealing with here. I am not going to waste any more words on you. From now on (as far I am concerned) you don't exist.

Great, thanks

I just tell it like it is, there is ZERO proof that any such entity ever existed.
Yes what you are dealing with here is FACTS & sanity.

[Nunyabiz]

The bible , which I didn't mention by the way , is open to interpretation and was probably meant to be that way and the way I interpret it is a positive message .You can spin it whatever way you want , put whatever negative connotation on it you want but if a person choses to believe in something good , positive and helpful then explain to me how that can possibly can be misconstrued as a bad thing.

There is nothing good and positive in the bible it is one of the most vile and hate filled books ever written.

[HighlandWarrior]

Actually mother Teresa was a horrible little psychopathic witch that enjoyed watching others in pain and suffering.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

Extremes in Science have been few and far between and science does a good job of policing itself and pointing out the frauds & nuts.
Religion on the other hand does not police itself at all if anything they try to cover up the atrocities.
Science goes out of its way to change, to get better.
Religion goes out of its way to remain exactly as it has been since the pre dark ages.

Cases like I listed are rampant in religion and have been for 1000s of years.
The "excuses" come from people making the claim that any and every Christian that has ever done anything wrong that they are not a "good christian".
Sorry that is utter BS, the very ones and there are millions upon millions of them that commit atrocities are the very ones that believe they are doing exactly "gods work" the very ones committing the worst crimes are the very ones that are the most religious that follow the dogma exactly as its written and interpreted by millions.

It is the fundamentalist that are the main problem, they represent about 25-30% of any given religion.
That is one hell of a lot of delusional psychotics spread around the world committing atrocities in the name of religion and fully believing they are 100% justified.

On 2 August 1939, Albert Einstein signed a letter to Pres Franklin D. Roosevelt, saying that recent work in France and the USA had indicated the possibility of setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium. This new phenomenon could ‘also lead to the construction of bombs and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove too heavy for transportation by air.’ He was wrong on the last point, and six years and four days later the US dropped the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the result of the Manhattan Project.

[Nunyabiz]

Your first statement was just to ridiculous to even respond to , obviously the right winger Neo Cons are not the only ones susceptible to propaganda .The rest aside from the last statement is just another example of the party line , that excuses or ignores the atrocities done in the name of science but gladly parade out the ones done in the name of religion to promote your own personal beliefs. Obviously your problem is with Christians because unlike me, you constantly name , not to mention, malign them .Your last statement however is very true and very unfortunate .

Again I just state facts backed up with proof, don't like it nothing I can do about it.

There is plenty of information that shows what Hitchens wrote is factual and can be cross referenced.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/prabir_news.htm


http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/259941/mother_teresa_not_as_good_as_you_think.html?cat=34

http://www.atheistperspective.com/mother-theresa-a-fraud/


Democracy Now audio Hitchens interview starts at 44mins in.

http://www.democracynow.org/1997/6/6/the_dark_side_mother_teresa


Yep I got a big problem with Christians and really all the big 3 religions for that matter because it is all based entirely on mythology & known lies.
It is nothing but pure deception.

[Nunyabiz]

On 2 August 1939, Albert Einstein signed a letter to Pres Franklin D. Roosevelt, saying that recent work in France and the USA had indicated the possibility of setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium. This new phenomenon could ‘also lead to the construction of bombs and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove too heavy for transportation by air.’ He was wrong on the last point, and six years and four days later the US dropped the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the result of the Manhattan Project.


Thank you for showing how a fellow Scientist tried his best to stop an atrocity that never should have happened.
Science does what it can to police itself.

the only problem with Nuclear weapons is once that cat was let out of the bag it was impossible to put back in.
That is when politicians & military took over possession of that knowledge and it was out of the hands of science.

http://www.sweseana.org/maine.htm

http://www.isanw.org/

http://inesap.org/node/98


Religion unfortunately does no such thing.

[sallyanne]

On 2 August 1939, Albert Einstein signed a letter to Pres Franklin D. Roosevelt, saying that recent work in France and the USA had indicated the possibility of setting up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium. This new phenomenon could ‘also lead to the construction of bombs and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove too heavy for transportation by air.’ He was wrong on the last point, and six years and four days later the US dropped the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the result of the Manhattan Project.
One of the more prominent and recognized atrocities of nuclear physics (science) where something was perverted for mans own agenda . Like I said anything, including science , can have its extremist and belief that they are doing right .

[sallyanne]

There is nothing good and positive in the bible it is one of the most vile and hate filled books ever written.
If you have actually read any of the new testament then you know that your statement is a blatant lie. Could debate the merits of parts of the bible all day but it would have to be with someone who while they may not be a believer in spirituality ,has the integrity to admit to positive passages written in it.

[HighlandWarrior]

One of the more prominent and recognized atrocities of nuclear physics (science) where something was perverted for mans own agenda . Like I said anything, including science , can have its extremist and belief that they are doing right .

That was exactly my point. Perversions are perversions. They occur in everything. People always like to point to the bad in religion when the bad is not in religion but in the weakness of the human. God is perfect and without flaw.

[Redv14]

Maybe they should also read his biography , it is a very interesting read and one that shows an alcoholic , racist who embraced the Iraq war and who wrote that he was " slightly for" George Bush .A guy who called Sid Blumenthal one of his best friends then tries to have him thrown in jail . This is also the same man who in an interview with journalist Johann Hari described himself as on the same side as the NEO CONS. This is not exactly someone who I would consider a reliable source of information.

It doesn't matter if Hitchens is an alcoholic or if he voted for Bush. What matters is whether what he said about Mother Teresa is factual or not. If you do some research you will find that she has other critics, not just Hitchens. I have a problem with someone who is praised for caring about the poor and can be quoted as saying, "The suffering of the poor is good for the world because their suffering brings them closer to Jesus".

[Redv14]

You morons, you low life morons, Mother Teresa loved people as Christ did, through the misgivings of deeds done by Catholic Church, rumored she lost faith in it, but continued her good works...

Now if you wanta to get rightously angry about something, I suggest you educaite yourselves. With something other than your ignorance.

Do some research on Mother Teresa. Find out about the "good works" you have been told she has done. Listen to what her critics have to say and you'll probably learn something .
Maybe you can find out how much money was contributed to her charity and what she did with the money, especially the money she got from Charles Keating and Jean-Claude Duvalier, the ruthless Haitian dictator.

[BUSHED]

Ok, so you don't like mother Tersea, how about Bush and Cheney ?

[splendor]

If you have actually read any of the new testament then you know that your statement is a blatant lie. Could debate the merits of parts of the bible all day but it would have to be with someone who while they may not be a believer in spirituality ,has the integrity to admit to positive passages written in it.

Sallyanne, your wasting your time and words on this miscreant (Nunyabiz). Give it up; it's soul sickening (something he would know nothing about).

[nomorehistory]

Now, finally I realize what we are dealing with here. I am not going to waste any more words on you. From now on (as far I am concerned) you don't exist.

DITTO!! It is very easy for me to ignore someone with their head in a hole.

[Nunyabiz]

Sallyanne, your wasting your time and words on this miscreant (Nunyabiz). Give it up; it's soul sickening (something he would know nothing about).



I just love it when the Christians start getting their panties in a bunch because it means their cognitive dissonance is kicking in to overdrive.
I know its hard to face the facts when you are so brain washed.

It always amazes me how little Christians really know about their so called religion.

[Nunyabiz]

It doesn't matter if Hitchens is an alcoholic or if he voted for Bush. What matters is whether what he said about Mother Teresa is factual or not. If you do some research you will find that she has other critics, not just Hitchens. I have a problem with someone who is praised for caring about the poor and can be quoted as saying, "The suffering of the poor is good for the world because their suffering brings them closer to Jesus".

Does no good I am afraid, the religious believe what they "want" to believe facts are just mere distractions.

[sallyanne]

Does no good I am afraid, the religious believe what they "want" to believe facts are just mere distractions.
Thank you for saying religious instead of your usual Christian criticism and when facts are produced by reliable sources instead of an atheist with his own agenda I will certainly not only digest but retain that knowledge . As for the quote , not only is it inaccurate but taken totally out of context .If you need to attack a little old lady who unfortunately followed the doctrine of her particular religion a little too stringently and had human faults like us all , then at least get these FACT correct.

[sallyanne]

It doesn't matter if Hitchens is an alcoholic or if he voted for Bush. What matters is whether what he said about Mother Teresa is factual or not. If you do some research you will find that she has other critics, not just Hitchens. I have a problem with someone who is praised for caring about the poor and can be quoted as saying, "The suffering of the poor is good for the world because their suffering brings them closer to Jesus".
It matters greatly the make up and the personal bias of this man because it has a huge influence on his particular slant when he is writing about someone pertaining to religion.He is like the male version of Ann Coulter , picking subjects he knows will stir up controversy for monetary rewards. His credentials are questionable therefor unreliable .AS for other critics there may be some ,though I personally have not heard of them but will research it. Mother Teresa was human ,therefor flawed and a deeply indoctrinated Catholic with stringent beliefs (which is greatly flawed) but as for the good she did that should not be hard to admit to anyone with integrity .

[Nunyabiz]

Thank you for saying religious instead of your usual Christian criticism and when facts are produced by reliable sources instead of an atheist with his own agenda I will certainly not only digest but retain that knowledge . As for the quote , not only is it inaccurate but taken totally out of context .If you need to attack a little old lady who unfortunately followed the doctrine of her particular religion a little too stringently and had human faults like us all , then at least get these FACT correct.

My facts are correct, the woman was a crook and basically a sadist.
She absconded with many millions of dollars and took pleasure in watching others suffer.

you can not disprove a single word Hitchens said about her because it is all factual information.
As usual you will believe what you WANT to believe, facts be damned.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnokUOnWRw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZdkbSMh1pE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKVXLa0AGE0&feature=related

http://www.vsubhash.com/writeups/peddlers_of_poverty.asp


I can cross reference every single allegation Hitchens levels at Mother Teresa and it all checks out.

[HighlandWarrior]

My facts are correct, the woman was a crook and basically a sadist.
She absconded with many millions of dollars and took pleasure in watching others suffer.

you can not disprove a single word Hitchens said about her because it is all factual information.
As usual you will believe what you WANT to believe, facts be damned.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnokUOnWRw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZdkbSMh1pE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKVXLa0AGE0&feature=related

http://www.vsubhash.com/writeups/peddlers_of_poverty.asp


I can cross reference every single allegation Hitchens levels at Mother Teresa and it all checks out.



I suspect that at some point in time if you are lucky, you will be brought to your knees.

[sallyanne]

My facts are correct, the woman was a crook and basically a sadist.
She absconded with many millions of dollars and took pleasure in watching others suffer.

you can not disprove a single word Hitchens said about her because it is all factual information.
As usual you will believe what you WANT to believe, facts be damned.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnokUOnWRw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZdkbSMh1pE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKVXLa0AGE0&feature=related

http://www.vsubhash.com/writeups/peddlers_of_poverty.asp


I can cross reference every single allegation Hitchens levels at Mother Teresa and it all checks out.
Definition of fact; a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred.
Definition of opinion;a subjective thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue.I watched the three videos and aside from the last one which might contain actual events then I would have to say that these are very long on personal opinion and very short on your beloved facts.If this woman had no religious affiliations at all then she would be touted by you and Hitchens as something great. Just my opinion here of course and I am neither uneducated , delusional ,brain washed or any of the other insulting names you have called people who differ with you . But one name you could call me would be respectful so I will respect you right to voice your opinion even if it always comes with condensation , arrogance and name calling .

[splendor]

Definition of fact; a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred.
Definition of opinion;a subjective thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue.I watched the three videos and aside from the last one which might contain actual events then I would have to say that these are very long on personal opinion and very short on your beloved facts.If this woman had no religious affiliations at all then she would be touted by you and Hitchens as something great. Just my opinion here of course and I am neither uneducated , delusional ,brain washed or any of the other insulting names you have called people who differ with you . But one name you could call me would be respectful so I will respect you right to voice your opinion even if it always comes with condensation , arrogance and name calling .

Right on target Sallyanne; Nunyabiz and Hitchens. Just imagine what the world be like if everyone thought as they do. A person who finds good in no one, and delights in shattering peoples' hope and faith; and the other, a yellow journalist who makes money doing it. A dynamic duo.

[Nunyabiz]

Right on target Sallyanne; Nunyabiz and Hitchens. Just imagine what the world be like if everyone thought as they do. A person who finds good in no one, and delights in shattering peoples' hope and faith; and the other, a yellow journalist who makes money doing it. A dynamic duo.


LOL

You know absolutely nothing about me obviously.
Just because I hate watching what religious insanity does to people doesn't mean I find no good in anyone, in fact just the opposite.

Yes just imagine if the whole world was rational , thinking and reasoning.
What a wonderful world it would be then.

Sadly there is zero hope for that in my lifetime and probably not for many more centuries.
Religious insanity will have to cease for the human race to survive for very much longer however.
So either human beings snap out of the pre dark ages or we go extinct like the other 95% of all animals before us.

With global warming and human population growing at its current rate that day may not be that far off.

[BUSHED]

as that is when revalations predicts the coming of christ again to world...
seems like RNC might get a early view...maybe, maybe not.


Four horsemen are diffinitely here...:confused:. be ok no worries be happy, for resurrection is in process :eek:, as neo cons, AIG's and Madoffs, suffer gnashing and gnawing of teeth, :).

[Redv14]

It matters greatly the make up and the personal bias of this man because it has a huge influence on his particular slant when he is writing about someone pertaining to religion.He is like the male version of Ann Coulter , picking subjects he knows will stir up controversy for monetary rewards. His credentials are questionable therefor unreliable .AS for other critics there may be some ,though I personally have not heard of them but will research it. Mother Teresa was human ,therefor flawed and a deeply indoctrinated Catholic with stringent beliefs (which is greatly flawed) but as for the good she did that should not be hard to admit to anyone with integrity .

It would be a good thing if believers would apply the same standards to the writing in the Bible that you want to impose on the writing of Hitchens. You say his credentials are questionable and unreliable. What do you know about the credentials of the people who wrote the Bible? Can anyone vouch for their veracity? The answer is no because not only can you not vouch for their veracity, you can't even identify them. Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.

[sallyanne]

LOL

You know absolutely nothing about me obviously.
Just because I hate watching what religious insanity does to people doesn't mean I find no good in anyone, in fact just the opposite.

Yes just imagine if the whole world was rational , thinking and reasoning.
What a wonderful world it would be then.

Sadly there is zero hope for that in my lifetime and probably not for many more centuries.
Religious insanity will have to cease for the human race to survive for very much longer however.
So either human beings snap out of the pre dark ages or we go extinct like the other 95% of all animals before us.

With global warming and human population growing at its current rate that day may not be that far off.
Oddly enough we agree on that religious insanity part but I don't think that that will be the reason for our extinction . More likely our greed and complete lack of concern for our planet will be the cause. Because of our tendency to isolate ourselves we do not see or want to see the global problems as ours unless it involves profit .I also don't believe that because you are an atheist you lack compassion , it is evident in many of your posts. Mostly it is the particular way in which you express your opinions that bothers concerns me . It expresses a distain for a differing opinion when I would have thought that the purpose for this forum was just that .

[BUSHED]

That's what revalations teachs, what caused down fall of Rome, etc etc etc... remember at Sodom Gomorha protestor was breaking empty vessels, what is empty vessels, but souless creatures ! It's not 666, but they are, sick sick sick ! ya know mark of the beast...

I gnawed there skulls, the taste was foul and spoiled !


In my opinion Kitchens is NUTS,,, I have no problem believeing he is godless athiest.

[sallyanne]

It would be a good thing if believers would apply the same standards to the writing in the Bible that you want to impose on the writing of Hitchens. You say his credentials are questionable and unreliable. What do you know about the credentials of the people who wrote the Bible? Can anyone vouch for their veracity? The answer is no because not only can you not vouch for their veracity, you can't even identify them. Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.
Once again it is you who mentions the bible and for the most part I totally agree with you . But as usual you have missed the point . I can only speak for myself here but what I take from the bible and the Christian religion is not the stories told by men who may or may not have lived but the message I have found there .It is one of love , tolerance and good will towards your fellow human. I have also found a like message in other religions but mostly Buddhism( debatable whether a lifestyle or religion). As for the rest of your post like I said when it comes from a source such as it has I find it totally unreliable ,just like I would if the report had come from the Vatican , it is bias and mostly opinion .As for first hand account , there was ONE . I'm not debating how these people received care but as a health care worker who has seen a lot here at home I'm no longer surprised by anything in that area . Walk into a crowded emergency room sometime , it can be brutal. But I do believe as far as Mother Teresa is concerned , that while her views are very old line Catholic and hopefully outdated , her intent was good and on the whole her works were good.

[BUSHED]

:D see bible is correct you must remember was mostly written originally in Greek, Hebrew and Aramic and transcribed from original scrolls, now KJV, is written way it is on purpose, spirit and context can not be taken out of context, what Andrew Jackson proved in debate long ago, bible does not teach bashing gays or denying them there rights, diversion of religion is caused by man, not God. The bible different books teachs different things, Some say 13 Corinthians is most beautifull, but 14 chorinthians starts with greater than those meaning Faith, Charity and hope, is greater to be a teacher. As you study deeper reveals stength of that so that ALL maybe able to care for themselves.

I Think individual homes need wind turbine generators to create power to be green, but power companies wouldn't like that.:D

[splendor]

It would be a good thing if believers would apply the same standards to the writing in the Bible that you want to impose on the writing of Hitchens. You say his credentials are questionable and unreliable. What do you know about the credentials of the people who wrote the Bible? Can anyone vouch for their veracity? The answer is no because not only can you not vouch for their veracity, you can't even identify them. Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.

Have you read Hitchens' "God is Not Great"? If not, do so; and then tell me that it's not one-sided and biased to reflect only the bad side of religion (Christianity in particular). Everyone acknowledges that throughout history, unscroupulous people have used religion as a tool to further their own ambitions. According to him he is only publishing "the truth." But truth is a moving target (remember Pilate's question?) To find the truth you cannot play the devil's advocate, you must show both sides of an issue. Obviously, Hitchens is only concerned with royalties from his book sales. Ask yourself, why does he only write about the negative things in life? Why does he like to tear down, rather than build up? Could it be the same reason that the scandal sheets thrive on the negative? There is one fundamental message in the Bible that Hitchens conveniently missed; "Love one another as I have loved you." If we all did that; everything else would fall into place.

[Redv14]

Once again it is you who mentions the bible and for the most part I totally agree with you . But as usual you have missed the point . I can only speak for myself here but what I take from the bible and the Christian religion is not the stories told by men who may or may not have lived but the message I have found there .It is one of love , tolerance and good will towards your fellow human. I have also found a like message in other religions but mostly Buddhism( debatable whether a lifestyle or religion). As for the rest of your post like I said when it comes from a source such as it has I find it totally unreliable ,just like I would if the report had come from the Vatican , it is bias and mostly opinion .As for first hand account , there was ONE . I'm not debating how these people received care but as a health care worker who has seen a lot here at home I'm no longer surprised by anything in that area . Walk into a crowded emergency room sometime , it can be brutal. But I do believe as far as Mother Teresa is concerned , that while her views are very old line Catholic and hopefully outdated , her intent was good and on the whole her works were good.

Her works would have been good if she had tried to help end the poverty with some of the donations that she received on behalf of those poor people. Just giving the sick a place to lie down and die is really not enough.

[BUSHED]

See Kitchens the basics values are embedded in our life, values of fair play, treat others as you want to be treated, to get respect give respect, so kitchens I'll respect you, I have no problem believeing, your a godless athiest, proofs in your book for all to read...

[sallyanne]

Her works would have been good if she had tried to help end the poverty with some of the donations that she received on behalf of those poor people. Just giving the sick a place to lie down and die is really not enough.
At the time of her death her Charity was operating 610 missions in 123 countries including hospices , homes for HIV/AIDS sufferers , leprosy and TB, soup kitchens , children and family counseling programs , orphanages and schools . Nearly 700 missions are pretty expensive to keep up and she took in people that society rejected . Why is it so hard to find the good here ?

[BUSHED]

Ok so you like sister Tereasa, what about Bush and Cheney ?

[Redv14]

Have you read Hitchens' "God is Not Great"? If not, do so; and then tell me that it's not one-sided and biased to reflect only the bad side of religion (Christianity in particular). Everyone acknowledges that throughout history, unscroupulous people have used religion as a tool to further their own ambitions. According to him he is only publishing "the truth." But truth is a moving target (remember Pilate's question?) To find the truth you cannot play the devil's advocate, you must show both sides of an issue. Obviously, Hitchens is only concerned with royalties from his book sales. Ask yourself, why does he only write about the negative things in life? Why does he like to tear down, rather than build up? Could it be the same reason that the scandal sheets thrive on the negative? There is one fundamental message in the Bible that Hitchens conveniently missed; "Love one another as I have loved you." If we all did that; everything else would fall into place.

I have read his book. The intent of the book is to make people think and question something that they were told to believe. I don't think Hitchens missed anything. Atheists are not opposed to the idea that we should love one another. We just believe that we can do this without belief in an invisible, imaginary God. I am an atheist and I believe that we should treat each other with respect, care about and help people in need and live in harmony with all people. I don't have to be frightened into doing this by stories about a gruesome torturer who lives underground. Likewise, I don't have to be bribed into doing this by being told I will be rewarded by God.

[splendor]

It would be a good thing if believers would apply the same standards to the writing in the Bible that you want to impose on the writing of Hitchens. You say his credentials are questionable and unreliable. What do you know about the credentials of the people who wrote the Bible? Can anyone vouch for their veracity? The answer is no because not only can you not vouch for their veracity, you can't even identify them. Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.

Have you read Hitchens' "God is Not Great"? If not, do so; and then tell me that it's not one-sided and biased to reflect only the bad side of religion (Christianity in particular). Everyone acknowledges that throughout history, unscroupulous people have used religion as a pretext to further their own ambitions. According to him he is only publishing "the truth." But truth is a moving target (remember Pilate's question?) To find the truth you cannot play the devil's advocate, you must show both sides of an issue. Obviously, Hitchens is only concerned with royalties from his book sales. Ask yourself, why does he only write about the negative things in life? Why does he like to tear down, rather than build up? Could it be the same reason that the scandal sheets thrive on the negative? There is one fundamental message in the Bible that Hitchens conveniently misses because he is so full of himself; "Love one another as I have loved you." If we all practiced that; everything else would fall into place. But then his book sales would plummet.

If you need assurances from "first hand accounts", and "primary sources", you are missing the point entirely. You are looking for clinical answers that can only be answered by faith; which you and Hitchens do not possess.

[Redv14]

Have you read Hitchens' "God is Not Great"? If not, do so; and then tell me that it's not one-sided and biased to reflect only the bad side of religion (Christianity in particular). Everyone acknowledges that throughout history, unscroupulous people have used religion as a pretext to further their own ambitions. According to him he is only publishing "the truth." But truth is a moving target (remember Pilate's question?) To find the truth you cannot play the devil's advocate, you must show both sides of an issue. Obviously, Hitchens is only concerned with royalties from his book sales. Ask yourself, why does he only write about the negative things in life? Why does he like to tear down, rather than build up? Could it be the same reason that the scandal sheets thrive on the negative? There is one fundamental message in the Bible that Hitchens conveniently misses because he is so full of himself; "Love one another as I have loved you." If we all practiced that; everything else would fall into place. But then his book sales would plummet.

If you need assurances from "first hand accounts", and "primary sources", you are missing the point entirely. You are looking for clinical answers that can only be answered by faith; which you and Hitchens do not possess.

The faith I have is defined as, "confidence or trust in a person or thing; loyalty; fidelity to a person, promise or commitment. So, I do have faith. I have faith in myself, my daughter, sisters, brother, other family members and friends. The faith you have is defined as,"belief not substantiated by proof; spiritual acceptance of truth or realities not certified by reason. I do not desire your kind of faith.

[splendor]

The faith I have is defined as, "confidence or trust in a person or thing; loyalty; fidelity to a person, promise or commitment. So, I do have faith. I have faith in my daughter, sisters, brother, other family members and friends. The faith you have is defined as,"belief not substantiated by proof; spiritual acceptance of truth or realities not certified by reason. I do not desire your kind of faith.

That's the rub, isn't it?

[HighlandWarrior]

My faith in Jesus Christ is also substantiated by proof. No difference.

If you are right and we all we do is go into a grave, then I have lost nothing by believing. Instead my life has been enhanced by believing.

[splendor]

My faith in Jesus Christ is also substantiated by proof. No difference.

If you are right and we all we do is go into a grave, then I have lost nothing by believing. Instead my life has been enhanced by believing.

Extremely well said.:)

[Nunyabiz]

My faith in Jesus Christ is also substantiated by proof. No difference.

If you are right and we all we do is go into a grave, then I have lost nothing by believing. Instead my life has been enhanced by believing.


Really? 'substantiated by proof" you say?

OK, I will personally write you a check for $1000 for each and every shred of empirical proof that you have that your mythical sun god exist.

You life has been wasted believing in something that doesn't exist. Depending on how far off the deep end you go religiously it could even be life threatening.

[splendor]

I have read his book. The intent of the book is to make people think and question something that they were told to believe. I don't think Hitchens missed anything. Atheists are not opposed to the idea that we should love one another. We just believe that we can do this without belief in an invisible, imaginary God. I am an atheist and I believe that we should treat each other with respect, care about and help people in need and live in harmony with all people. I don't have to be frightened into doing this by stories about a gruesome torturer who lives underground. Likewise, I don't have to be bribed into doing this by being told I will be rewarded by God.

Missed anything? Quite the contrary! He dredged up every conceivable negative aspect of religion that he could cram into that book. My problem (as I've stated in my post) is there is no balance in his assessment; no fairness. And what about my question of his "tearing down instead of build up"? Do you agree with that? By the way, we are not told to believe; we are taught. Then we decide for ourselves. I didn't find my faith; it found me.
If as you say, you're an atheist who cares about people, etc., my question to you is: Why Bother? If you believe that you don't have to answer for the life you have lived (rewarded by God, as you say); why make the effort? When you are dead; you are dead! Right?

[Redv14]

Missed anything? Quite the contrary! He dredged up every conceivable negative aspect of religion that he could cram into that book. My problem (as I've stated in my post) is there is no balance in his assessment; no fairness. And what about my question of his "tearing down instead of build up"? Do you agree with that? By the way, we are not told to believe; we are taught. Then we decide for ourselves. I didn't find my faith; it found me.
If as you say, you're an atheist who cares about people, etc., my question to you is: Why Bother? If you believe that you don't have to answer for the life you have lived (rewarded by God, as you say); why make the effort? When you are dead; you are dead! Right?

Hitchens didn't include the things you are complaining about because he was making a case against religion. Those of you who accept religion are well aware of those elements that enticed you to do so. He had no need to present that part in his book. As far as being told or being taught to believe, most of us experience this when we are quite young and not able to make important decisions for ourselves.
Your question is very telling. I bother because I don't want to see people suffer. I bother because I care. I bother because I would want someone to bother for me. Yes, when I'm dead, I 'm just dead. It's not a problem. So, am I to assume that if you were to find out for sure, beyond any doubt that God does not exist, that you would stop caring about people? Would you stop making the effort to live the kind of life you are living now? Would you become a murderer, liar, thief or rapist?

[nomorehistory]

Hebrews 11:1 ..Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Read the full chapter.

[splendor]

Your question is very telling. I bother because I don't want to see people suffer. I bother because I care. I bother because I would want someone to bother for me. Yes, when I'm dead, I 'm just dead. It's not a problem. So, am I to assume that if you were to find out for sure, beyond any doubt that God does not exist, that you would stop caring about people? Would you stop making the effort to live the kind of live you are living now? Would you become a murderer, liar, thief or rapist?

We are talking about you, not me. My life is centered. Nothing can change it or shake my faith. I was taught the difference between right and wrong; and that is faith based. My question was rhetorical; I didn't expect you to answer it. By answering it (whether you realize or not), you are making my point. Don't bother asking me for an explanation, because if you have to ask; you aren't ever going to know.

[HighlandWarrior]

Really? 'substantiated by proof" you say?

OK, I will personally write you a check for $1000 for each and every shred of empirical proof that you have that your mythical sun god exist.

You life has been wasted believing in something that doesn't exist. Depending on how far off the deep end you go religiously it could even be life threatening.

You expect people not to judge you for belief's but consistently do it to others. Saying I have wasted time is ridiculous because you don't know me from squat. My believe in Jesus Christ has enhanced my life and gotten me through through times that might have done in many. I think the fact that one has to wasted shows there is a void in their life.

[Redv14]

We are talking about you, not me. My life is centered. Nothing can change it or shake my faith. I was taught the difference between right and wrong; and that is faith based. My question was rhetorical; I didn't expect you to answer it. By answering it (whether you realize or not), you are making my point. Don't bother asking me for an explanation, because if you have to ask; you aren't ever going to know.

I will not ask you for an explanation because it is obvious that you don't have one. I think you are in a rather precarious position in that you say your knowledge of right and wrong is faith based. I hope you are the only person for whom this is so. It is possible to loose one's faith and if your sense of right and wrong is connected to faith then, it is also lost.

[HighlandWarrior]

People can loose faith without losing the sense of right and wrong they have gained from that faith.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest 1881 - 1955

[prsnlgrth]

Well sadly the Pledge is still allowed even though it has been bastardized.
The "lords prayer" thankfully never has been legally allowed nor should it ever be as it is clearly unconstitutional.

The Pledge was written in 1892 I believe it was by Francis Bellamy which was a "Socialist" and it was a socialist pledge and BTW was originally recited with right arm held straight out in the infamous "heil Hitler" fashion.
I can see those changes for obvious reasons and none were unconstitutional.
However in 1954 along with putting 'in god we trust" on paper money the Knights of Columbus (basically KKK lite) was responsible for bastardizing the Pledge also by "illegally" adding "under god" makign it unconstitutional.


Turning the country into a theocracy would make us exactly like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan with Sharia law.

which is utterly insane.

Keep religion out of politics.

What happened to freedom of speech? If someone wants to pray the constitution gives them that right....Anyone who doesn't want to hear or participate doesn't have to.
To make it illegal is unconstitutional and insane. In Dearborn Michigan they preach on loud speakers throughout the city....people are forced to hear...it's not Christianity. I think they're Muslim.

[prsnlgrth]

[QUOTE=Nunyabiz;17496]
Religion does a good job of basically destroying all it touches

How can you say that? You are a fact based opinionated person....where are your facts? Nun, I totally disagree with that. I'm not destroyed...I'm spiritual. I'm a Christian.

[prsnlgrth]

Yes that is all I got out of that drivel.

Number one Lincoln is not a "founding father" and his religious affiliation is greatly disputed.
In his 1846 campaign he was called an atheist on several occasions by his rivals.

and the so called "creator" mentioned in the declaration refers to the freedom in which people will not be governed by a particular religion and especially the "divine right of kings".
The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
The Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods.

'History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


'Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


This time period was called the Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason.
That is because intelligent human beings were throwing off the shackles & yolks of religious dogma in favor of scientific inquiry.

I can go on & on ad nauseam but it will of course fall on deaf ears.
no need for you to "go back to the drawing board" as you will refuse to listen to the lesson written on it.

Nun, I really don't think you could possibly know that what was written was different from the hearts and minds of those who wrote it. I'm hearing a lot of opinion rather than facts. If God wasn't being referred to or defined out right then there would be no need to add anything about the separation of church and state.

[prsnlgrth]

Yes, Jefferson was a Deist. But he wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department.

In Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address of March 1865: "Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." Even more to the point was his reply when a minister from the North told the president he "hoped the Lord is on our side." Responded Lincoln, "I am not at all concerned about that. . . . But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
By Dr. Mark A. Noll, professor of history at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

They still believed in God; just not organized religion; on the other hand, you believe in nothing that you cannot see with your own eyes. Bear in mind; you do not choose your beliefs; they choose you.
That's a good point...b/c God isn't about "religion" but spiritual and Biblical. A lot of organized religion is full of man's doctrine and has nothing to do with the word of God or the spirit within man.

[prsnlgrth]

If someone wants to call "nature" some form of "god" then oh well, but at least it isn't the sheer insanity of Christianity or any other organized religion which is simply ridiculous on every level.

A persons "beliefs" as far as religion goes is based about 95% on geographic location on the map and nothing else.

One thing for certain however is that this country was not founded on Christian dogma.
If anything it was founded to spite it.

The founding fathers went to great lengths to leave the christian god & dogma OUT of the founding documents.

and yes I do not believe in something that is easily proven to be false by the scientific method.
Religion fails any scientific scrutiny by an overwhelming margin.
How and when was it proven that God doesn't exist scientifically?

[prsnlgrth]

I am every bit certain as I am about Leprechauns & Purple Flying Unicorns because there is exactly the same proof of those existing, so that is good enough for me.

I am not going to bother addressing the rest of your meaningless rant, does no good.
You are going to believe what you want to believe and I am going to KNOW what I can prove and nothing is ever going change that.

If you want to believe you are an Egyptian Pharaoh and coming back to life after death then nothing is stopping you, have at it.

I will stick to reality.

Nun, I know I've probably said this b4 but ....what if you're wrong? What if the fire and brimstone exist? I don't want you to have to find out by spending eternity there.

[prsnlgrth]

First of all... region shouldn't be in politics, seen as politics are there to organize a country that has freedom of self governing..it was ment to give the people of that particular country a feeling of self control. Are we not over seas fighting for just that right..is not terrorism a form of control of others, the same as having a king or monarchy.. they have the final say, being able to vote on how things are run and money is spent is giving the people a sense of whole. But unfortuately religion does come into play when dealing with laws or morals involving laws, ie, it is against the law to kill, why is that! Religion had a hand in that..Thou shall not kill, bigamy is another, thou shall not cofit thy neighbor's wife, shall I go on... sure it shouldn't be involved in a country's politics, but without some moral reprocussions our children will grow up doing more of what we see...random shootings etc.

You know what pearl...we are suppose to have freedom of self governing...yet as you said terrorism is a form of control of others....what did our country do? We have always tried to control others. And use lies and deceit to control our own. You said a mouthful and I know it's a little off topic but all the underlined is what the USA is suppose to be but really it's all lies. We are not a democracy at all. That's why the US government wants God out of everything so they can do anything without any "legal" moral or ethical ramifications they just haven't mastered it yet.

[Sadanie]

Believing in something that is clearly not true is not good no matter how you spin it.
It is at best deception.
Human beings need to live in the real world, react to things based on reality and not belief.

Yeah I am sure at some point Hitler may have petted his dog and he was a very good artist, however I refuse to "ignore all the bad" in favor of "looking at what little good there may have been"
The bad FAR out weighs it.

Same for religion.

It is the worst thing that human beings have inflicted upon themselves and has been the leading cause of war, death, civil unrest, mass relocation's, destruction of whole civilizations, racism, sexism & genocide.
nothing else even comes close.


What little good religion has accomplished could have just as easily been done with community groups.

but nothing can compare to the evil it has wrought on mankind because nothing but the insanity of religion could justify atrocities.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg,

Nunyabiz, reading through all your posts, it seems to me that, in spite of your aggressive words against the existence of God, it is not so much the idea of a GOD that you reject, but all organized religions. I also have little faith in organized religions, or in the picture of God that they try so hard to impose on people. As I said before, I find that religions, all religions, are created by man, and not by God, and that they are divisive, bound by cultural factors, greed for power, money, and control over people.
For all this, I choose to stay away from religions, but I do respect the right of everyone to find comfort or a means to strengthen their belief in God through practicing an organized religion of their choosing.
But in all of this, the only thing that really matters is GOD. And in him/her/it/ I do believe. And, because I respect your intelligence and many of your opinions, and I value your inputs on many subjects, I am sorry that you seem to be so "stuck" in attacking organized religions that you don't seem to take the time to even consider what God would represent for you. Not everyone else's God, but your own.
Maybe you are right, and you will never find your God. But maybe, just maybe, you are so busy rejecting religion that you are also rejecting something much more important.
Okay. . .I know, you feel sorry for me too!
Still, I value your opinions and your postings.

[prsnlgrth]

No taking content out of context like MORONS DO... AKA LIARS AND THIEVES !

So you saying ten comandents is lies, that Declaration of Independence is not our birth, U S CONSTITUTION not the spirit protecting WE THE PEOPLE WHICH IS GOVERNMENT IN ACTION...if you knew your history you'd know Andrew Jackson proved this point all ready !

athiest argueing with a God they say don't exist, OK....DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bushed....right again...and funny too.

[Nunyabiz]

What happened to freedom of speech? If someone wants to pray the constitution gives them that right....Anyone who doesn't want to hear or participate doesn't have to.
To make it illegal is unconstitutional and insane. In Dearborn Michigan they preach on loud speakers throughout the city....people are forced to hear...it's not Christianity. I think they're Muslim.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can spew anything you damn well please any place you damn well please.
For instance yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.
Plus is is clearly unconstitutional for any public, state or federal institution to establish any religion.

That does not mean you can not "pray" where ever the hell you wish, nobody is stopping you.
However a state or federal institution can not initiate any religious dogma of any kind.
It IS unconstitutional and it is to "protect" religion as much as it is to protect us "from" religion.
You can not have one without the other.

Why is it exactly that Christians feel they absolutely MUST infiltrate state and federal institutions especially "schools"?
You have total carte blanche to spew what ever crap you wish all over the air waves, in every form of media be it magazines, papers, books you can preach what ever religious crap you wish 24/7/365, you have literally 100s of 1000s of churches all across the entire US you can hardly go more than a few miles in any direction without coming across a "our lady of perpetual sadness" church.

So why is it that Christians feel they must infiltrate that last remaining bastion of 'almost" religion free zone there is in the US?
Why not just simply abide by the constitution and leave state & federal institutions alone?
Remember it is to protect religious practices as much as it is anything else.

[Nunyabiz]

Nunyabiz, reading through all your posts, it seems to me that, in spite of your aggressive words against the existence of God, it is not so much the idea of a GOD that you reject, but all organized religions. I also have little faith in organized religions, or in the picture of God that they try so hard to impose on people. As I said before, I find that religions, all religions, are created by man, and not by God, and that they are divisive, bound by cultural factors, greed for power, money, and control over people.
For all this, I choose to stay away from religions, but I do respect the right of everyone to find comfort or a means to strengthen their belief in God through practicing an organized religion of their choosing.
But in all of this, the only thing that really matters is GOD. And in him/her/it/ I do believe. And, because I respect your intelligence and many of your opinions, and I value your inputs on many subjects, I am sorry that you seem to be so "stuck" in attacking organized religions that you don't seem to take the time to even consider what God would represent for you. Not everyone else's God, but your own.
Maybe you are right, and you will never find your God. But maybe, just maybe, you are so busy rejecting religion that you are also rejecting something much more important.
Okay. . .I know, you feel sorry for me too!
Still, I value your opinions and your postings.

Well thank you and for the most part you are correct.
I don't particularly care what anybody thinks about any so called god, no more than I care if people believe that chubracabra exist.

I do however absolutely despise organized religion because it is nothing but brain washing.
That brain washing results in much hatred through out the world.
True I will never find what does not exist, like that pot O gold and the end of the rainbow.

[Nunyabiz]

You know what pearl...we are suppose to have freedom of self governing...yet as you said terrorism is a form of control of others....what did our country do? We have always tried to control others. And use lies and deceit to control our own. You said a mouthful and I know it's a little off topic but all the underlined is what the USA is suppose to be but really it's all lies. We are not a democracy at all. That's why the US government wants God out of everything so they can do anything without any "legal" moral or ethical ramifications they just haven't mastered it yet.

You were correct up til the last sentence.

The US government has never had god in anything, it is unconstitutional and needs to stay that way.
The lies told by this government are for greed, power, money and in most cases it is ideology (namely Christofascism) that generates it all.

Belief in mythical beings have nothing to do with legal or moral ramifications.

[Nunyabiz]

Nun, I know I've probably said this b4 but ....what if you're wrong? What if the fire and brimstone exist? I don't want you to have to find out by spending eternity there.

What if Allah is the one true god?
What if Vishnu or Quetzalcoatl are that one true god?

You best get busy to cover all those bases because I wouldn't want you spend eternity in what ever mythical hell they have in mind for you.


Myself I will take my chances which BTW are pretty damn good.
If the chances of any god being real were the odds of winning the lottery then I could win the lottery every single day for the rest of my life, with only a 0.00000000001% chance of ever losing.

I'll take those odds.

[Nunyabiz]

How and when was it proven that God doesn't exist scientifically?

How and when was it proven that the flying sketti monster doesn't exist?
Tooth fairy?

When there is a complete and total lack of evidence for the existence of something that is a very good indication it does not exist except in the mind.

[sallyanne]

Nunyabiz, reading through all your posts, it seems to me that, in spite of your aggressive words against the existence of God, it is not so much the idea of a GOD that you reject, but all organized religions. I also have little faith in organized religions, or in the picture of God that they try so hard to impose on people. As I said before, I find that religions, all religions, are created by man, and not by God, and that they are divisive, bound by cultural factors, greed for power, money, and control over people.
For all this, I choose to stay away from religions, but I do respect the right of everyone to find comfort or a means to strengthen their belief in God through practicing an organized religion of their choosing.
But in all of this, the only thing that really matters is GOD. And in him/her/it/ I do believe. And, because I respect your intelligence and many of your opinions, and I value your inputs on many subjects, I am sorry that you seem to be so "stuck" in attacking organized religions that you don't seem to take the time to even consider what God would represent for you. Not everyone else's God, but your own.
Maybe you are right, and you will never find your God. But maybe, just maybe, you are so busy rejecting religion that you are also rejecting something much more important.
Okay. . .I know, you feel sorry for me too!
Still, I value your opinions and your postings.
I'm on par with you when it comes to organized religion but I have to disagree when it comes to Nunyabiz , it appears to me that he is not so much against religion as Christianity . Most of his attack post have been against them .I have respect for his position but not how he asserts it. I would never demean him of his belief or lack of it and I believe he should afford people the same courtesy.

[HighlandWarrior]

Well thank you and for the most part you are correct.
I don't particularly care what anybody thinks about any so called god, no more than I care if people believe that chubracabra exist.

I do however absolutely despise organized religion because it is nothing but brain washing.
That brain washing results in much hatred through out the world.
True I will never find what does not exist, like that pot O gold and the end of the rainbow.

That is absolute BS because you have absolutely attacked peoples personal beliefs many times.


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest 1881 - 1955

[BUSHED]

Yeah so back around 1500-1600 was Catholics caused the rise of Protestants as in Protesting the Catholics cause at time Catholics was acting like AIG taking context out of spirit so to speak...

research Gerald Casey, you'll find it entertaining, Presidents, investors, people all over world came to see this plain humble man from Kentucky... for revelations of the future he predicted, complete libriary on his predictions maintained by u s gov't, FACT.

[prsnlgrth]

Again I just state facts backed up with proof, don't like it nothing I can do about it.

There is plenty of information that shows what Hitchens wrote is factual and can be cross referenced.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/prabir_news.htm


http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/259941/mother_teresa_not_as_good_as_you_think.html?cat=34

http://www.atheistperspective.com/mother-theresa-a-fraud/


Democracy Now audio Hitchens interview starts at 44mins in.

http://www.democracynow.org/1997/6/6/the_dark_side_mother_teresa


Yep I got a big problem with Christians and really all the big 3 religions for that matter because it is all based entirely on mythology & known lies.
It is nothing but pure deception.

Nun, My question is why? Why do you have a problem with the people who believe in Christ? What effect does their(our) belief system (way of life) have on you at all? What difference does it make what we think or why we think it? It doesn't hurt nor help you. So why waste your time and energy having a problem with anyone who isn't bothering you at all.
I don't understand why fight against someone who believes in anything you think doesn't even exist....what's the point. What is it you wish to accomplish? What do you want to do to Christians?

[prsnlgrth]

I suspect that at some point in time if you are lucky, you will be brought to your knees.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess....that Jesus Christ is Lord. And it is so.....

[Redv14]

People can loose faith without losing the sense of right and wrong they have gained from that faith.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest 1881 - 1955

People can have a sense of right and wrong without ever having faith. Knowledge of right and wrong is not dependent on faith at all.

[prsnlgrth]

Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.

Redv14, That's really not a good point. First of all...Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are writing about a person who lived in their lifetime and has first hand accounts from their experiences. They too uses Jesus' own words to make their points. So, no! it isn't way more than the "anonymous" writers of the Bible.
As far as when the accounts were written "long after his death" every famous artist isn't recognized (nor art valued) until way after they are dead.....does that mean he/she didn't paint it?
After our lives are over and generations from now the very same things can be said....
Therefore, your point is totally invaild.

[prsnlgrth]

"Love one another as I have loved you." If we all did that; everything else would fall into place.

Just to pb on what you've just said.....If we all (because atheists do not believe in God(Jesus) as I loved you means nothing but LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.....THAT'S IT....IF WE COULD ALL JUST DO THAT!!!!!

[prsnlgrth]

Hitchens didn't include the things you are complaining about because he was making a case against religion. Those of you who accept religion are well aware of those elements that enticed you to do so. He had no need to present that part in his book. As far as being told or being taught to believe, most of us experience this when we are quite young and not able to make important decisions for ourselves.
Your question is very telling. I bother because I don't want to see people suffer. I bother because I care. I bother because I would want someone to bother for me. Yes, when I'm dead, I 'm just dead. It's not a problem. So, am I to assume that if you were to find out for sure, beyond any doubt that God does not exist, that you would stop caring about people? Would you stop making the effort to live the kind of life you are living now? Would you become a murderer, liar, thief or rapist?

That being said....do you really believe insulting and name calling reduces suffering and shows compassion or caring? I also humbly ask you what makes you believe that believers are suffering? Why would you think that? Because we love and pray for those who aren't aware that what they are doing and saying is hurtful, harmful and they will give an account if they don't repent? Because we don't seek vengeance? If that's the suffering you are referring to....then stop being so mean and spewing horrible things about others...show respect for the opinions of others...surely you believe that opinions are like a@# holes and we all have one.

[Nunyabiz]

Nun, My question is why? Why do you have a problem with the people who believe in Christ? What effect does their(our) belief system (way of life) have on you at all? What difference does it make what we think or why we think it? It doesn't hurt nor help you. So why waste your time and energy having a problem with anyone who isn't bothering you at all.
I don't understand why fight against someone who believes in anything you think doesn't even exist....what's the point. What is it you wish to accomplish? What do you want to do to Christians?

If "believers" were not intent on taking over the the US government and the planet then you are right I could absolutely not care less what the hell you believe.
The fact of the matter however is that "believers" are dangerous.

[Nunyabiz]

Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.

Redv14, That's really not a good point. First of all...Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are writing about a person who lived in their lifetime and has first hand accounts from their experiences. They too uses Jesus' own words to make their points. So, no! it isn't way more than the "anonymous" writers of the Bible.
As far as when the accounts were written "long after his death" every famous artist isn't recognized (nor art valued) until way after they are dead.....does that mean he/she didn't paint it?
After our lives are over and generations from now the very same things can be said....
Therefore, your point is totally invaild.

Completely false.
Number one there was no Matthew Mark Luke or John, the accounts were NOT first hand, they were at least 40-100 year AFTER the alleged events.
You like most Christians have no idea what you are talking about.
Revs point is totally valid.

[Nunyabiz]

Just to pb on what you've just said.....If we all (because atheists do not believe in God(Jesus) as I loved you means nothing but LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.....THAT'S IT....IF WE COULD ALL JUST DO THAT!!!!!

That would be fine, that is basically the Humanist manifesto.
But sadly Christians will never be happy with that as they seek to take "dominion" over the Earth.

[Sadanie]

That's a good point...b/c God isn't about "religion" but spiritual and Biblical. A lot of organized religion is full of man's doctrine and has nothing to do with the word of God or the spirit within man.

I totally agree with you there, prsnlgrth! God is important. . .the rest is just "noise" that make it easier for people to reach out to God. The only problem is that sometime people get so stuck in their "image" of God that they buy entirely in a man-made religion that is too often self-serving, divisive and too often, works against God to benefit the human agenda.

[Sadanie]

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess....that Jesus Christ is Lord. And it is so.....
See, this is where I disagree with you! And I don't like to do so because I value your input.
But by stating that "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess....that Jesus Christ is Lord. And it is so..... " you are negating the beliefs and the personal God of the greatest majority of the humanity. Everyone doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, and many never will. But that doesn't make their belief in GOD less worthy. Because of many reasons (mostly cultural) they have not be "taught" about Jesus Christ, just as we have not been "taught" about Buddha, Mohamet, and so many other "representations" of GOD.
And I do not believe that, just because people didn't live in the "catch" area of northern Africa or under Roman empire 2000 years ago, they have no knowledge of God or that the "picture" of God they worship is that of a lesser God.
Call me crazy, but my God is big enough to encompass all religions, and all cultures, and all beliefs, and still remain above it all. And yet my God is a personal enough God to know each one of us and to approach each one of us in a way that we can recognize.

[prsnlgrth]

If "believers" were not intent on taking over the the US government and the planet then you are right I could absolutely not care less what the hell you believe.
The fact of the matter however is that "believers" are dangerous.

ROFLMAO THAT'S SOOOO FUNNY.
You can't be serious...are you?
Oh, maybe you are referring to the middle east and the possibility of their influence in America.

[prsnlgrth]

Completely false.
Number one there was no Matthew Mark Luke or John, the accounts were NOT first hand, they were at least 40-100 year AFTER the alleged events.
You like most Christians have no idea what you are talking about.
Revs point is totally valid.

Prove me wrong!!!.....!!

[prsnlgrth]

That would be fine, that is basically the Humanist manifesto.
But sadly Christians will never be happy with that as they seek to take "dominion" over the Earth.

I'm a Christian and I believe if we all lived by that....All would be well!!
BTW it's in that book you HATE!!!

[prsnlgrth]

See, this is where I disagree with you! And I don't like to do so because I value your input.
But by stating that "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess....that Jesus Christ is Lord. And it is so..... " you are negating the beliefs and the personal God of the greatest majority of the humanity. Everyone doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, and many never will. But that doesn't make their belief in GOD less worthy. Because of many reasons (mostly cultural) they have not be "taught" about Jesus Christ, just as we have not been "taught" about Buddha, Mohamet, and so many other "representations" of GOD.
And I do not believe that, just because people didn't live in the "catch" area of northern Africa or under Roman empire 2000 years ago, they have no knowledge of God or that the "picture" of God they worship is that of a lesser God.
Call me crazy, but my God is big enough to encompass all religions, and all cultures, and all beliefs, and still remain above it all. And yet my God is a personal enough God to know each one of us and to approach each one of us in a way that we can recognize.

Sadanie, I apologize for offending you. I too value your input. I in no way wanted to negate anyone else's beliefs. It's unfair. I respect the rights of others and I will make a conscious effort to avoid any comments that reflect different.

[Redv14]

Hitchens is writing about a person who lived in his lifetime and has first hand accounts from people who worked with Mother Teresa. He uses her own words to make his point. That is way more than the anonymous writers of the Bible have to offer. There are no first hand accounts from anyone who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived. In other words, the Bible accounts of the life of Jesus were written without even one primary source and were written long after his death.

Redv14, That's really not a good point. First of all...Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are writing about a person who lived in their lifetime and has first hand accounts from their experiences. They too uses Jesus' own words to make their points. So, no! it isn't way more than the "anonymous" writers of the Bible.
As far as when the accounts were written "long after his death" every famous artist isn't recognized (nor art valued) until way after they are dead.....does that mean he/she didn't paint it?
After our lives are over and generations from now the very same things can be said....
Therefore, your point is totally invaild.

You don't know much about the religion you believe in. Please educate yourself. Not one word was written about Jesus during his lifetime. The first person to write about Jesus was a Jewish historian named Josephus who wrote about him at least fifty years after he supposedly died.

[prsnlgrth]

You don't know much about the religion you believe in. Please educate yourself. Not one word was written about Jesus during his lifetime. The first person to write about Jesus was a Jewish historian named Josephus who wrote about him at least fifty years after he supposedly died.

Redv14 first of all....(respectfully, as I demand mine) You have no clue what I know...and I do believe you are intelligent...not making assumptions about me or anyone else will permit me to reserve that opinion.
Secondly I understand you don't believe in Jesus...so why would you believe no one wrote anything about him while he was alive, when "he never existed".
I also invite you open your mind to further educating yourself.

Harry Y. Gamble Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. Yale, 1995.

Birger Gerhardsson. Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. Hendrickson, 2001.

Edgar J. Goodspeed. Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist. John C. Winston, 1959

Peter M. Head. “A Further Note on Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus.” Evangelical Quarterly 75 (2003)

Werner Kelber. The Oral and the Written Gospel. Fortress, 1983.

[splendor]

You don't know much about the religion you believe in. Please educate yourself. Not one word was written about Jesus during his lifetime. The first person to write about Jesus was a Jewish historian named Josephus who wrote about him at least fifty years after he supposedly died.

You are a true paradox! In the same quote you acknowledge that Jesus lived by saying: " . . .Jesus during his lifetime."; then in the same breath you say he "supposedly died"! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Be careful; you are coming dangerously close to being labeled a "believer."
Furthermore, are you saying that all biographies are false if they weren't written during the subject's lifetime? That's one for the (if you'll pardon the expression) book!:confused:

[HighlandWarrior]

People can have a sense of right and wrong without ever having faith. Knowledge of right and wrong is not dependent on faith at all.

I never said otherwise. You on the other hand did.

[Nunyabiz]

ROFLMAO THAT'S SOOOO FUNNY.
You can't be serious...are you?
Oh, maybe you are referring to the middle east and the possibility of their influence in America.

I just stick with the facts as told by the Christofascist themselves.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/nation-under-god

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/11/30/10554/198

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/diamond.htm

http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/publiceye01.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743284437/counterpunchmaga

http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman04232007.html

There is a large number of Dominionist in the US Congress and many other federal/political positions.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InfiltratingTheUSMilitaryGenBoykinsWarriors.html

http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timely_002761.php

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/military.html


I got literally hundreds of sites all stating the same thing and the resources can be cross referenced out the ying yang. These are the facts.

[Nunyabiz]

Prove me wrong!!!.....!!

Wouldn't do any good would it?

I can of course list site after site after book after book that all proves this and you will of course flatly deny it all, so the point would be what exactly?

[Nunyabiz]

I'm a Christian and I believe if we all lived by that....All would be well!!
BTW it's in that book you HATE!!!


There are a lot of things in that book I hate, you simply skip over the parts you don't like.

[Nunyabiz]

You are a true paradox! In the same quote you acknowledge that Jesus lived by saying: " . . .Jesus during his lifetime."; then in the same breath you say he "supposedly died"! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Be careful; you are coming dangerously close to being labeled a "believer."
Furthermore, are you saying that all biographies are false if they weren't written during the subject's lifetime? That's one for the (if you'll pardon the expression) book!:confused:

You understand nothing.

I am sure Redv meant to say "alleged lifetime" you are nit picking semantics.

"alleged" biographies that make the claim of being first hand accounts when in fact they are NOT are indeed false.
Especially when the subject of said biography doesn't even exist as a real living person.
Shouldn't be any confusion, only reason there is any is that Christians refuse to accept fact over faith.

[sallyanne]

You understand nothing.

I am sure Redv meant to say "alleged lifetime" you are nit picking semantics.

"alleged" biographies that make the claim of being first hand accounts when in fact they are NOT are indeed false.
Especially when the subject of said biography doesn't even exist as a real living person.
Shouldn't be any confusion, only reason there is any is that Christians refuse to accept fact over faith.
************ now you can read minds as well , your list of accomplishments just continues to impress.I have read many of Redv14's posts and he\she appears very intelligent and articulate so I assuming he\she can speak for themselves and really don't need you to interpret their thoughts. Your continuous barrage of hate missives towards Christians is starting to border on obsessive and you are starting to sound as fanatical as the people you despise .

[sallyanne]

People can have a sense of right and wrong without ever having faith. Knowledge of right and wrong is not dependent on faith at all.
Have to ask you a question that was asked to me when I was trying to find my own spiritual path , it is your prerogative whether you wish to answer or not . If you had the opportunity and the desire to cheat on a spouse with the 100% possibly that you would not be found out , would you? You say you base you morals on consequences of your actions ,well what if there were none, would you still behave the same and why? I completely understand your reasoning on why you say morals don't have to have a religious base but I also believe that as a generational thing passed from our ancestors it may be so intwined with our cultures that in honesty it's influence cannot be denied

[BUSHED]

Not know, History... agaisnt teachings of Christ, that taught of Faith, Charity and Hope but greater than these is Education, that taught through prayer,
as those agaisnt those teachings pray for what ?

Not know History... what let those that believe in that make same mistakes, seems Adolf Hitler tried that all ready ?

[Nunyabiz]

************ now you can read minds as well , your list of accomplishments just continues to impress.I have read many of Redv14's posts and he\she appears very intelligent and articulate so I assuming he\she can speak for themselves and really don't need you to interpret their thoughts. Your continuous barrage of hate missives towards Christians is starting to border on obsessive and you are starting to sound as fanatical as the people you despise .

I can read between the lines enough to know that someone that has stated several times that no such person as Jesus existed simply made a very slight mistake.
No mind reading involved.

[Nunyabiz]

Have to ask you a question that was asked to me when I was trying to find my own spiritual path , it is your prerogative whether you wish to answer or not . If you had the opportunity and the desire to cheat on a spouse with the 100% possibly that you would not be found out , would you? You say you base you morals on consequences of your actions ,well what if there were none, would you still behave the same and why? I completely understand your reasoning on why you say morals don't have to have a religious base but I also believe that as a generational thing passed from our ancestors it may be so intwined with our cultures that in honesty it's influence cannot be denied

This is where Christians differ from Atheist.
The Atheist knows the consequences of such an action would be he or she would know they had lied to the person they love.
This is basic human nature that every human being is BORN with, it is human emotion.
Religion has nothing to do with this except maybe to justify such actions in some perverted way.
Religious dogma does nothing but destroy that basic, intrinsic humanity we are all born with.
Religion has nothing to do with human morality, except to define it based on religious hatred then teach others to hate where there is no reason to hate except from just pure religious teaching.

[HighlandWarrior]

This is where Christians differ from Atheist.
The Atheist knows the consequences of such an action would be he or she would know they had lied to the person they love.
This is basic human nature that every human being is BORN with, it is human emotion.
Religion has nothing to do with this except maybe to justify such actions in some perverted way.
Religious dogma does nothing but destroy that basic, intrinsic humanity we are all born with.
Religion has nothing to do with human morality, except to define it based on religious hatred then teach others to hate where there is no reason to hate except from just pure religious teaching.

I think the difference between an atheist and a Christian is that you believe people were born with the qualities by chance and I believe we were given them. I think man has become too arrogant when he thinks he can explain all the mysteries of life through science.

[Redv14]

You are a true paradox! In the same quote you acknowledge that Jesus lived by saying: " . . .Jesus during his lifetime."; then in the same breath you say he "supposedly died"! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Be careful; you are coming dangerously close to being labeled a "believer."
Furthermore, are you saying that all biographies are false if they weren't written during the subject's lifetime? That's one for the (if you'll pardon the expression) book!:confused:

I should have said during Jesus' alleged lifetime and recognized the error but didn't have time to make the correction. I don't know if he actually lived or not. He could have actually lived but there is no evidence that he lived. There is no evidence to support the claims that are made about the miraculous things he is said to have done, such as walking on water, ascending into heaven etc. I know that there are no first hand accounts written about his life. No, I am not saying that all biographies are false if they were not written during a person's lifetime but I am saying that in order for a biography to be authentic the biographer has to use some primary sources. There are none in the case of Jesus.

[Redv14]

You understand nothing.

I am sure Redv meant to say "alleged lifetime" you are nit picking semantics.

"alleged" biographies that make the claim of being first hand accounts when in fact they are NOT are indeed false.
Especially when the subject of said biography doesn't even exist as a real living person.
Shouldn't be any confusion, only reason there is any is that Christians refuse to accept fact over faith.

Thanks Nunyabiz. You are correct. I realized after I wrote the post that I should have gone back and inserted the word alleged but I didn't have the time.

[Redv14]

Have to ask you a question that was asked to me when I was trying to find my own spiritual path , it is your prerogative whether you wish to answer or not . If you had the opportunity and the desire to cheat on a spouse with the 100% possibly that you would not be found out , would you? You say you base you morals on consequences of your actions ,well what if there were none, would you still behave the same and why? I completely understand your reasoning on why you say morals don't have to have a religious base but I also believe that as a generational thing passed from our ancestors it may be so intwined with our cultures that in honesty it's influence cannot be denied

I never said my morals are based on the consequences of my actions but I will answer the question. No, I would not cheat just because I wouldn't be caught. I wouldn't cheat because I wouldn't remain in a relatioship with somone if my desire was for someone else. I would respect my spouse enough to end our relationship before becoming involved with somone else. What I said before was that common sense and self-preservation are motives enough to agree that one should not kill another, or steal or lie or do things that you would not want done to you. You don't have to believe there is someone in the sky who will punish you in order to think that these are good rules to live by.

[Redv14]

That being said....do you really believe insulting and name calling reduces suffering and shows compassion or caring? I also humbly ask you what makes you believe that believers are suffering? Why would you think that? Because we love and pray for those who aren't aware that what they are doing and saying is hurtful, harmful and they will give an account if they don't repent? Because we don't seek vengeance? If that's the suffering you are referring to....then stop being so mean and spewing horrible things about others...show respect for the opinions of others...surely you believe that opinions are like a@# holes and we all have one.

You are responding to my post as if you didn't understand anything I wrote. I don't get it. I go to a lot of trouble to make sure that what I write is easily understood. Please go back and reread the post that I was responding to. It is post #79 written by Splendor.

[Sadanie]

Sadanie, I apologize for offending you. I too value your input. I in no way wanted to negate anyone else's beliefs. It's unfair. I respect the rights of others and I will make a conscious effort to avoid any comments that reflect different.
No, you didn't offend me. I do believe in Christ (as one of many messengers of God), but not exclusively in Christ. But I was raised Roman Catholic, and I do respect the traditional Christian faith. . .although I find it too narrow to incompass the world, the universe, and therefore all the greatness of God.
You are very sensitive and smart, and I know you wouldn't offend anyone intentionally. I am interested in all views on religion, and on God (notice that I do make a difference between the two.
I respect your opinion and your beliefs.
God bless you.

[Sadanie]

I never said my morals are based on the consequences of my actions but I will answer the question. No, I would not cheat just because I wouldn't be caught. I wouldn't cheat because I wouldn't remain in a relatioship with somone if my desire was for someone else. I would respect my spouse enough to end our relationship before becoming involved with somone else. What I said before was that common sense and self-preservation are motives enough to agree that one should not kill another, or steal or lie or do things that you would not want done to you. You don't have to believe there is someone in the sky who will punish you in order to think that these are good rules to live by.
I agree with you RedV14.
Honesty cannot be forced. Morality cannot be forced. One not cheating on his/her spouse because he/she believes it would be a "sin" or would be immoral in the eyes of God or in the eyes of a church, it is not the highest level of morality, but a "learned" behavior.
If one doesn't cheat on his/her spouse because one respect one's commitment more than one's desire, or if one is able to maintain the high road of honesty just because it is right and respectful to oneself and one's spouse, this is a much higher and much more lasting path to morality. Both ways may be pleasing to God, but the first way seems to be in a more "parent/child" relationship type (the "because I say so" syndrome), while the second way seems at a more adult level.
My opinion only!

[Redv14]

I agree with you RedV14.
Honesty cannot be forced. Morality cannot be forced. One not cheating on his/her spouse because he/she believes it would be a "sin" or would be immoral in the eyes of God or in the eyes of a church, it is not the highest level of morality, but a "learned" behavior.
If one doesn't cheat on his/her spouse because one respect one's commitment more than one's desire, or if one is able to maintain the high road of honesty just because it is right and respectful to oneself and one's spouse, this is a much higher and much more lasting path to morality. Both ways may be pleasing to God, but the first way seems to be in a more "parent/child" relationship type (the "because I say so" syndrome), while the second way seems at a more adult level.
My opinion only!

Thanks Sadanie. This is a great post and I respect your opinion.

[prsnlgrth]

You are responding to my post as if you didn't understand anything I wrote. I don't get it. I go to a lot of trouble to make sure that what I write is easily understood. Please go back and reread the post that I was responding to. It is post #79 written by Splendor.

Redv14 Please allow me to apologize....I've done as you've requested and I have no indication as to why my reply was to you....I know the mother Teresa thing kind of got under my skin(I'm not a big fan of the Catholic Church)...but after reviewing I think this post should have been directed elsewhere.
You and I have disagreed about this many times(as a matter of fact when I first posted here you were one of the first people I ever posted to). And you were very respectful in your reply post telling me.... No thanks you, would take your changes on what you believe. :) LOL...I remember that. Again accept my humble apology I'm not above correction nor mistakes.
I hope I don't have to keep doing that though....
Oh, wait I know now....I asked Nun the very questions you answered...OOOO...my bad.
I was asking you about this suffering you said Christians do.

[HighlandWarrior]

In the context President Obama used Mother Theresa last night on Leno, it seems he believes she is a saint as well.

[Redv14]

In the context President Obama used Mother Theresa last night on Leno, it seems he believes she is a saint as well.

President Obama is like most people who have heard of Mother Teresa. They assume that what they have heard is the truth and never bothered to ask one question about the details of her work with the poor. He probably doesn't know of the criticism she has received in medical journals such as the British Medical Journal and The Lancet. Both publications criticised the standard of care given in her hospices. He probably doesn't know that she has spent donations to establish orders of nuns and priests to increase missionary work and to expand the presence of the church in the world. The money she spent on convents and homes for priests could have been used to help poor people help themselves.

www.motherteresa.org/layout.html
www.mcpriests.com/index.htm

Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish , he will eat every day.

[sallyanne]

I never said my morals are based on the consequences of my actions but I will answer the question. No, I would not cheat just because I wouldn't be caught. I wouldn't cheat because I wouldn't remain in a relatioship with somone if my desire was for someone else. I would respect my spouse enough to end our relationship before becoming involved with somone else. What I said before was that common sense and self-preservation are motives enough to agree that one should not kill another, or steal or lie or do things that you would not want done to you. You don't have to believe there is someone in the sky who will punish you in order to think that these are good rules to live by.
Isn't self preservation based on consequences . You would not do things considered wrong because you believe of the it would have a negative effect on you and your circumstances .The question I asked wasn't intended to be personal , it was supposed to be a general view based on your particular slant as an atheist .I am trying to understand why if atheism is based on self preservation when there is no threat to self would people behave in such a manner . Your answer to my question was admirable but you also assume that I would not behave in the same manner because of some fear I may have .My spiritual belief is founded on love and compassion not fear.

[sallyanne]

I agree with you RedV14.
Honesty cannot be forced. Morality cannot be forced. One not cheating on his/her spouse because he/she believes it would be a "sin" or would be immoral in the eyes of God or in the eyes of a church, it is not the highest level of morality, but a "learned" behavior.
If one doesn't cheat on his/her spouse because one respect one's commitment more than one's desire, or if one is able to maintain the high road of honesty just because it is right and respectful to oneself and one's spouse, this is a much higher and much more lasting path to morality. Both ways may be pleasing to God, but the first way seems to be in a more "parent/child" relationship type (the "because I say so" syndrome), while the second way seems at a more adult level.
My opinion only!
That "learned behavior" has to be based on something and I disagree, it IS a moral issue . Commitment can be maintained without honesty and we have seen it too numerous times to count . I'm not disagreeing that it is the right or wrong thing to do but the WHY of why we exhibit a certain behavior .We see self preservation in the animal kingdom as a reason for a particular behavior but we as human cannot solely base our behavior on this .I don't base my personal morals or behavior on a parent\child relationship because the spiritual lifestyle I have chosen isn't based on a punishing " God" but a caring compassionate one who's example I try to emulate . Don't really know if I am articulating my point the way I wish but also hope to portray a respect for all lifestyles and all opinions.

[HighlandWarrior]

President Obama is like most people who have heard of Mother Teresa. They asume that what they have heard is the truth and never bothered to ask one question about the details of her work with the poor. He probably doesn't know of the criticism she has received in medical journals such as the British Medical Journal and The Lancet. Both publications criticised the standard of care given in her hospices. He probably doesn't know that she has spent donations to establish orders of nuns and priests to increase missionary work and to expand the presence of the church in the world. The money she spent on convents and homes for priests could have been used to help poor people help themselves.

www.motherteresa.org/layout.html
www.mcpriests.com/index.htm

Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish , he will eat every day.


I don't see any problem with money being spent to house nuns and priests and increase missionary work. They are far from wealthy themselves and the work they do multiplies the work of Mother Teresa in helping others. Your Quote "Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish , he will eat every day" Supports this view.

[Sadanie]

I don't see any problem with money being spent to house nuns and priests and increase missionary work. They are far from wealthy themselves and the work they do multiplies the work of Mother Teresa in helping others. Your Quote "Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish , he will eat every day" Supports this view.
The Catholic Church is the richest entity in the world. The treasures of St Peter are priceless, and none of it is going to charity.
In Europe, most countries actually subsidize Catholic schools and churches, although they keep a strict "legal" separation between state and church.
Missionary work has little place in the modern world, unless it is related to assisting people in need with medical care and/or poverty issues. So, unless missionaries are willing to do something else that trying to "brainwash" people, I wouldn't be willing to support them financially. But if they are willing to put their "faith spreading" on the back burner to provide concrete assistance to people in need, then I would be willing to help.

[Redv14]

I don't see any problem with money being spent to house nuns and priests and increase missionary work. They are far from wealthy themselves and the work they do multiplies the work of Mother Teresa in helping others. Your Quote "Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish , he will eat every day" Supports this view.


The kind of help they give is minimal. It just perpetuates the cycle of poverty. They have no plan to support the poor in such a way that they will be able to move from poverty to self-sufficiency which is what the quote implies.

[Nunyabiz]

I don't see any problem with money being spent to house nuns and priests and increase missionary work. They are far from wealthy themselves and the work they do multiplies the work of Mother Teresa in helping others. Your Quote "Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish , he will eat every day" Supports this view.


That woman squandered hundreds of millions

[Sadanie]

The kind of help they give is minimal. It just perpetuates the cycle of poverty. They have no plan to support the poor in such a way that they will be able to move from poverty to self-sufficiency which is what the quote implies.
I agree that there are better way to help the poor, but I believe that Sister Theresa had good intention, just not enough information or vision to do better.
The best way to help the poor appears to be what that banker did (I forgot his name!) when he started giving very small, uninsured loans to poor people to start their own small (very small at first) businesses. It was also a very good business decision as I believe he had more than 95% pay back of the money he loaned out without garantees!

I guess he could have taught something to the like of Citi Group, AIG, and Bof A!
Can anyone remember his name? I'd love to know! I think he is the real hero!

Okay, I found this article re: those micro-loans: Here it is:

MICRO-LOANS
by Nancy Dunne
The World Bank, after years of trying eradicate poverty in developing countries, has adopted a new strategy of channelling tiny loans to "the poorest of the poor" through grass-roots organisations. Using as a model, programmes like the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, the World Bank and other international donors have pledged $200 million to be disbursed through non-governmental organisations over the next several years. The Grameen Bank has won international praise for providing "micro-loans" -- about $100 -- mostly to women, to set up their own small businesses.

The donors, who met in Washington last month have set up the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) as a vehicle to co-ordinate the lending and pour new resources into the scheme. The group includes several development banks and countries. The World Bank will contribute $30 million and oversee the harmonisation of a patchwork of programmes which have developed around the world. The object is to create "enabling environments" among the governments to assist micro-lending.

An estimated one billion people in the world still live in severe poverty. The World Bank sees micro-lending as an important complement to health and education projects it funds in developing countries. For some time, the large development agencies have believed that getting money to women is crucial to sustainable development. Many are heads of household and are less likely than men to leave the family. The Grameen Bank lends mostly to women, who have a higher repayment record -- 97 per cent -- than men. Half the loans have gone to livestock- and poultry-raising enterprises, while 25 per cent have entered processing or manufacturing and the other 25 per cent have set borrowers up in trading and shopkeeping enterprises. It is believed that 500 million micro-entrepreneurs want credit. No one knows how much is available. The Kenya Rural Enterprise Programme opened its first branch in the largest slum in Nairobi in 1990, and disbursed $450,000 to 1,253 borrowers in its first 16 months. Its repayment rate was 98.2 per cent.

Financial Times 18 July 1995

[Redv14]

I agree that there are better way to help the poor, but I believe that Sister Theresa had good intention, just not enough information or vision to do better.
The best way to help the poor appears to be what that banker did (I forgot his name!) when he started giving very small, uninsured loans to poor people to start their own small (very small at first) businesses. It was also a very good business decision as I believe he had more than 95% pay back of the money he loaned out without garantees!

I guess he could have taught something to the like of Citi Group, AIG, and Bof A!
Can anyone remember his name? I'd love to know! I think he is the real hero!

Okay, I found this article re: those micro-loans: Here it is:

MICRO-LOANS
by Nancy Dunne
The World Bank, after years of trying eradicate poverty in developing countries, has adopted a new strategy of channelling tiny loans to "the poorest of the poor" through grass-roots organisations. Using as a model, programmes like the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, the World Bank and other international donors have pledged $200 million to be disbursed through non-governmental organisations over the next several years. The Grameen Bank has won international praise for providing "micro-loans" -- about $100 -- mostly to women, to set up their own small businesses.

The donors, who met in Washington last month have set up the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) as a vehicle to co-ordinate the lending and pour new resources into the scheme. The group includes several development banks and countries. The World Bank will contribute $30 million and oversee the harmonisation of a patchwork of programmes which have developed around the world. The object is to create "enabling environments" among the governments to assist micro-lending.

An estimated one billion people in the world still live in severe poverty. The World Bank sees micro-lending as an important complement to health and education projects it funds in developing countries. For some time, the large development agencies have believed that getting money to women is crucial to sustainable development. Many are heads of household and are less likely than men to leave the family. The Grameen Bank lends mostly to women, who have a higher repayment record -- 97 per cent -- than men. Half the loans have gone to livestock- and poultry-raising enterprises, while 25 per cent have entered processing or manufacturing and the other 25 per cent have set borrowers up in trading and shopkeeping enterprises. It is believed that 500 million micro-entrepreneurs want credit. No one knows how much is available. The Kenya Rural Enterprise Programme opened its first branch in the largest slum in Nairobi in 1990, and disbursed $450,000 to 1,253 borrowers in its first 16 months. Its repayment rate was 98.2 per cent.

Financial Times 18 July 1995

Thanks, Sadanie. It's good to know that the world is beginning to realize that the poor need more help than just a crust of bread and bowl of soup.

[BUSHED]

Yeah who created a need for a soup hitchens ! Well thank god, good folks got prayers answered and warm meal somewhere ...

[sallyanne]

Yeah who created a need for a soup hitchens ! Well thank god, good folks got prayers answered and warm meal somewhere ...
so right , as always the voice of reason Bushed.

[pearl-ivory]

It is funny, we sit here reading and writing as to the good of organized religion, and if there is a "God" in the organized way, when we fail, and I am a victom of this as well...to remember that through out time the church has systematically tried to hide or destroy anything that remotely proves ya or nay..for instance, if you get a chance to flip to the end of the movie stigmata..which is a fictional story but based on information about certain scrolls, believed to be written in Jesus's own hand...these scrolls the church proclaimed to be faults..due to the fact that they don't reaffirm the church's teachings..for what it matters, these scrolls debung the hold the church has. AT the end of this movie, it gives a date and where. YOU servers might want to check it out.. with dial up, I don't have the patience to look..but feel free to do so on your own...

[Sadanie]

Yeah who created a need for a soup hitchens ! Well thank god, good folks got prayers answered and warm meal somewhere ...
Yes, I think people need all the help they can get when they are down!
And that does include a friendly word and a smile, a hot meal, and a loan to get ahead.
I don't think we should devalue any of these! But one of these alone falls short of the help they really need.

[prsnlgrth]

Wouldn't do any good would it?

I can of course list site after site after book after book that all proves this and you will of course flatly deny it all, so the point would be what exactly?

That's probably true...because it's only your truth/no, I mean facts. There's a thin line sometimes between the truth and a fact....
Just Because It's A Fact Doesn't Make It The Truth:eek:

[prsnlgrth]

There are a lot of things in that book I hate, you simply skip over the parts you don't like.

That's a pretty personal acccusation coming from someone who has no geniune personal knowledge.
Is that an example of your "so called facts you're posting everywhere you can? :rolleyes:

[prsnlgrth]

Your continuous barrage of hate missives towards Christians is starting to border on obsessive and you are starting to sound as fanatical as the people you despise .

That is so very factual...........and I for one co-sign....and deem it to be the truth.

[prsnlgrth]

Religion has nothing to do with human morality, except to define it based on religious hatred then teach others to hate where there is no reason to hate except from just pure religious teaching.

That statement sounds just like a description of what you're doing. I heard somewhere that we hate in others the things we don't like in ourselves.;) Any truth to that you think?

[prsnlgrth]

I should have said during Jesus' alleged lifetime and recognized the error but didn't have time to make the correction. I don't know if he actually lived or not. He could have actually lived but there is no evidence that he lived. There is no evidence to support the claims that are made about the miraculous things he is said to have done, such as walking on water, ascending into heaven etc. I know that there are no first hand accounts written about his life. No, I am not saying that all biographies are false if they were not written during a person's lifetime but I am saying that in order for a biography to be authentic the biographer has to use some primary sources. There are none in the case of Jesus.

They themselves (the writers) bare witness of one another. I guess it's questionable to you if they are primary sources.

[Nunyabiz]

That's probably true...because it's only your truth/no, I mean facts. There's a thin line sometimes between the truth and a fact....
Just Because It's A Fact Doesn't Make It The Truth:eek:


Are these things facts to you?

1. Santa Clause is not a real person.

2. The tooth fairy does not really exist.

3. Leprechauns are just mythological characters.

4. The reason these 3 things are facts are because there is zero evidence for the existence of them, common sense & natural principles dictate they can not be true.


If its not the truth then it is not a fact.

One may delude themselves into believing that the Earth is 6000 years old, to that delusional individual that is just as much a "fact" in "their mind" as anything is.

BUT, facts do not take into account the frailty of the human mind.
You may "believe" that you can fly, however if you jump off a tall building explain to me what that "belief" is going to do for you?
It will kill you because regardless of how much you believe you can fly the FACT is you can not.

Fact based reality is what it is regardless of what "truths" some may brain wash themselves into believing.

[Nunyabiz]

That's a pretty personal acccusation coming from someone who has no geniune personal knowledge.
Is that an example of your "so called facts you're posting everywhere you can? :rolleyes:

I absolutely guarantee there are things in the bible that you skip over, like all Christians except for the completely insane you cherry pick what you want to believe and deny or make excuses for the rest.

[Nunyabiz]

[[/U]/U]

That statement sounds just like a description of what you're doing. I heard somewhere that we hate in others the things we don't like in ourselves.;) Any truth to that you think?

There are many MANY reasons to hate religion.

What reason do you have to hate Atheism?

[Nunyabiz]

They themselves (the writers) bare witness of one another. I guess it's questionable to you if they are primary sources.

That is something you have been brain washed to believe an no more.
I will give you $1000 for each and every shred of empirical evidence that you can find that shows any such individuals ever even lived let alone were eye witnesses to the alleged Jesus life & death.

You have absolutely NOTHING.

I have researched this subject for 3 decades and know exactly what I am talking about.

There is not even ONE single shred of contemporary evidence that proves any Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
NOT ONE.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/time.html

[Sadanie]

You are a true paradox! In the same quote you acknowledge that Jesus lived by saying: " . . .Jesus during his lifetime."; then in the same breath you say he "supposedly died"! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Be careful; you are coming dangerously close to being labeled a "believer."
Furthermore, are you saying that all biographies are false if they weren't written during the subject's lifetime? That's one for the (if you'll pardon the expression) book!:confused:


I may be wrong, but I understand REDV to believe that Jesus did exist and, but that he was a man, maybe even a enlightened prophet or a visionary, a man who could move crowds, but not a God, since Red and Nunyabiz do not believe in any God.
I think that what bothers them is the "son of God" part of Jesus' image, not his existence and maybe not even his charismatic power to affect his contemporaries.
Just a thought. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. Just trying to explain MY TRANSLATION of what they are saying.

[prsnlgrth]

Are these things facts to you?

1. Santa Clause is not a real person.

2. The tooth fairy does not really exist.

3. Leprechauns are just mythological characters.

4. The reason these 3 things are facts are because there is zero evidence for the existence of them, common sense & natural principles dictate they can not be true.


If its not the truth then it is not a fact.

One may delude themselves into believing that the Earth is 6000 years old, to that delusional individual that is just as much a "fact" in "their mind" as anything is.

BUT, facts do not take into account the frailty of the human mind.
You may "believe" that you can fly, however if you jump off a tall building explain to me what that "belief" is going to do for you?
It will kill you because regardless of how much you believe you can fly the FACT is you can not.

Fact based reality is what it is regardless of what "truths" some may brain wash themselves into believing.

Nun you are being riducious. I know "if it's not the truth then it is not a fact".
I said.... Just because it's a fact doesn't make it the truth.

[Nunyabiz]

Nun you are being riducious. I know "if it's not the truth then it is not a fact".
I said.... Just because it's a fact doesn't make it the truth.

ROTFL

Well I am not surprised that a "believer" (tm) is capable of the mental gymnastics it takes to make believe there is a difference between those two.

[prsnlgrth]

I absolutely guarantee there are things in the bible that you skip over, like all Christians except for the completely insane you cherry pick what you want to believe and deny or make excuses for the rest.

That reply says everything....I know now you have some book knowledge that makes you appear intelligent; but those kind of comments show pure ignorance. I don't like to say things like that but you've made it impossible not to. If I made this comment instead ....you are ignorant....that would be just the kind of insult you constantly spew and you declare "common sense".

[prsnlgrth]

I absolutely guarantee there are things in the bible that you skip over, like all Christians except for the completely insane you cherry pick what you want to believe and deny or make excuses for the rest.


There are many MANY reasons to hate religion.

What reason do you have to hate Atheism?

There you go again....that common sense of yours. I've never ever even hinted to hating atheism nor atheists for that matter. If you recall with your gift of reading the thoughts, intents, and heart of others I've post I have a FRIEND that's an atheist. So the fact is you implied I hate atheism....the truth is I don't.

[Nunyabiz]

I heard somewhere that we hate in others the things we don't like in ourselves. Any truth to that you think?

I was merely asking you the same question.