So are we gonna talk about London? :(
Chris Katko

And how, hugging and candle light vigils and telling the Muslim community "How sorry we are" doesn't actually stop attacks?

(To be clear: I've never suggested or advocated we attack or oppress innocent people who have nothing to do with Islamic extremism.)

But here we go again.

There was a time when being attacked by a terrorist meant an all-out war in retaliation. 9/11, anyone? Yes, it ended up worse, but the point was the WILL AND PASSION to "Solve" the problem were there.

Now, bomb after bomb, we just sit back paralyzed with fear and act like, "This is the world we live in now and there's nothing that can be done." We have multi-trillion dollar governments, standing armies in the millions of troops, trillion-dollar equipment for our soldiers, multi-billion dollar intelligence agencies. We have nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire planet a 1000 times over. We've sent machines INTO SPACE that landed on the moon, on mars, and even a flying COMET. We're working on RE-USABLE rockets that help themselves land STANDING UP after being fired. (The shear amount of problems in space travel dwarf anything we've ever had to accomplish.)

But no, terrorism. Nope. Can't do anything about it. Just give up. It's not a problem that can be solved.

{"name":"VhGLJ4f.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/a\/ba509f67ef354912aebb0a5f9c0f214b.jpg","w":640,"h":364,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/a\/ba509f67ef354912aebb0a5f9c0f214b"}VhGLJ4f.jpg

There has got to be SOMETHING that SOME expert knows that will solve it. And step 1, in my book, is admitting that 99% of all attacks are coming from the same group of people and start honestly asking "Why?" and "What can we do."

[edit] Oh, and the "progressive" "liberal" tactic of SHUTTING DOWN DISCUSSION under the veil of "hate speech" (our generation's "think of the children!") is absolutely deplorable.

raynebc

This won't stop as long as extremists believe becoming a martyr while killing as many people as they can will earn them glory in the afterlife. Physically intervening to make it harder for them to do so is necessary for the short term, but a permanent solution will involve affected communities undoing the brainwashing that creates jihadis out of their children.

bamccaig

I concur with raynebc. There can never be an end so long as these people are encouraged to believe that such horrific acts are somehow righteous and glorious. The major conundrum here is that their beliefs hinge on the same mechanism that allows Christians[1] their beliefs. Until we as a society accept that this is all bullshit and look poorly on believers of magical men in the sky (or in your head) that can justify horrible things I don't see any solution in sight. With that, naturally, you can see how fucked we are.

As you said, Chris, 9/11 made shit worse. And for some reason, you think that reacting emotionally to a problem and making things worse is better than not reacting at all simply because it's reacting? I think that inaction is one of the best things we can do. Not the only thing, and maybe not the best thing. But certainly I think it's better than committing trillions of dollars to the destruction of land, habitat, people, and machines; and also to the destruction of lives, hopes, dreams, and families.

Every idiot that picks up a gun, bomb, or set of keys (or any other tool that can become a weapon) to kill random people for the purposes of faith-based religion is delusional and probably mentally ill to some degree, whether our gooey science has caught up with that or not. You can't really do much to dissuade them. In their minds, there is no greater good that they could ever do. How do you reason with that without having the ability to demonstrate to them that their beliefs are wrong? How do you demonstrate that their beliefs are wrong when a similar number of people believe in equally ridiculous things on the same merits and "we" defend it?

Similarly, imagine being born into this world on the other side of the world. At first, it sounds great and you appreciate the wisdom. You start to get older and question it. And then, ooops, your mother and father and sister are killed by American troops dropping "righteousness" for their heartaches that most of them probably didn't even personally experience. You've lost everything, the world around you is chaos, and your options are slim. It doesn't take a great mind to imagine how easy recruitment is for them in such a torn part of the world.

So how do you fix that? Will more guns and bombs and destruction and loss work? 9/11 was nearly 2 decades ago. Things have only gotten worse. And they're going to continue getting worse. We aren't treating the wound. We're pouring gasoline on a fire. I heard about London tonight (still barely know anything about it). I think that for us to expect the problem to get better we all need to actually give it the respect it deserves. There's a group of people that badly wants to be heard. An outburst from a drunk celebrity on Twitter is taken more seriously.

I agree that we should take this seriously. That doesn't mean that we should get angry and give money to soldiers to drop bombs and make them pay with lives like some Hollywood fantasy (or Christian doctrine). In the real world, that doesn't solve the problem, and the movie never ends with the "good guys"[2] winning; it just keeps going and going with more and more suffering.

I'm not defending Islam or Muslims. What little I know if it makes it seem like an unreliable belief system with a great potential for destruction. Of course, I think pretty poorly of Christianity too. Any system of thought that prohibits or even frowns strongly against questioning it is pretty obviously a wrong and dangerous system. Unfortunately, not all people in this world are afforded the freedom to think freely, let alone the education (or maybe even biology/psychology). If you wish to find a solution that might eventually work you should probably try to find ways to make us the same instead of dividing us.

There's probably no perfect solution. I don't know who opened Pandora's box, but it's said what has escaped cannot be put back. No amount of childish temper tantrums or political savvy will succeed. Maybe, just maybe, we can learn to lessen the amount of suffering that must happen worldwide and have a net positive affect on this storm instead of fueling it until eventually nuclear munitions are accessible to all and this great being that arose from crude elements and prehistoric ooze, and the planet that bore it, are obliterated.

As intelligent as we as a species can be compared to some of what we observe around us, it turns out we're all pretty fucking stupid yet.

Append:

According to the BBC, police fired 50 bullets to incapacitate 3 assailants. :-/ That seems like pretty poor aim. Not to mention, considering the guys had knives, potentially excessive force. Worst of all, apparently they shot an innocent civilian in the process.

References

  1. And any other arbitrary religion that demands "faith" based belief or discourages thinking for yourself...
  2. Notice: There are no good guys and bad guys. Only guys. And attack helicopters, of course.
Niunio

(...) We have multi-trillion dollar governments, standing armies in the millions of troops, trillion-dollar equipment for our soldiers, multi-billion dollar intelligence agencies. (...)

I don't want to be conspirationist, but maybe that's why there are terrorism. May be there are a need to warrant the costs of that army. Years ago we had the Cold War and before that it was... german imperialism? Pirates? Ottomans? Vikings? Barbarians? Who cares. There are something to fear that will destroy our civilization, doesn't matter if it's real or not.

Chris Katko

Social media users accuse CNN of ‘fake news’ over ‘staged’ London attack protest

NN Rebuts Claim They ‘Staged’ a Pro-Muslim Shot During London Aftermath

Katy Perry in Manchester: ‘Touch the Person Next to You’ and Tell Them ‘I Love You’ to Help ‘Conquer Hate’ ;D

{"name":"91qnvcz73q1z.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/f\/7f31497b1c1c9f54175ebb7c9290308f.jpg","w":640,"h":486,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/f\/7f31497b1c1c9f54175ebb7c9290308f"}91qnvcz73q1z.jpg

Spicey. ;D

Dizzy Egg

Something else that I personally feel needs to happen is to stop defending Islam when these attacks happen. Yes, it is a small majority, estimated at around 15%. But 15% of 1.2b is quite scary. The extremesists in this country aren't being trained in churches, or sports bars, they're being radicalised in mosques up and down the country. It's up the muslim community here to admit they have a serious problem, and to ensure anyone in the mosques preaching hate is named and deported.

relpatseht

Dude, come on, haven't you ever played a video game?

Terrorists are tanks. They make a lot of noise and seem big and scary, but at the end of the day, they don't really do any damage (less than 10 dead, and I'm supposed to be afraid?) and only serve to distract you and sap your resources.

You have a whole collection of DPS units out there: gun violence, car crashes, cardiovascular disease, etc, etc, etc. These are what's actually killing you, but they do it slowly and/or stealthily, so you don't take notice.

Then you have the healers. Things like massive wealth inequality, the military industrial complex, and climate change (likely cause of massive famine in Syria). These are keeping the whole murder machine going.

You're sitting there saying, "Everyone, let's go after the tank!" while mocking the people who say the DPS and healers are the real threat.

It's guerilla warfare. You don't win that fight with weapons without resorting to genocide or mass surveillance and information control. You win that fight by attacking the societal structures that are growing the guerillas.

Bruce Perry

And step 1, in my book,

For a moment I thought your post had morphed into a sales piece for a self-help book of some kind.

~ ~ ~

With my method, the pounds will just drop off!

  • Step 1, in my book: buy 20 sticks of dynamite

  • Step 2: stick them to your belly

  • Step 3: watch the video to learn more

video

Dizzy Egg

There's a million an one things to be afraid of...but I was under the impression this thread was specifically about the UK (London) attack recently...

Neil Roy

In all the attacks recently, the attackers done it in the name of Allah = Mulsims/Islam/whatever. There is an interview with an eye witness where the BBC edited out her comments when she mentioned them yelling out in the name of Allah, but in another station, her report was left in, showing the media is purposely hiding this fact.

If it is not important, why hide it? I think we all know why.

Chris Katko

That's something that infuriates me.

1 - That the media actually is running a HUGE narrative.

2 - That people accept it. Like... the media can just be trusted at face value. Meanwhile, you can Google HUNDREDS of compilation videos on YouTube RIGHT NOW of just incidents that show them pushing a narrative. Like interviewing "on a boat" and some random stranger walks by. Or "interviewing two people far away over 'satellite'" but in the background is not only the same approximate area... the SAME CAR DRIVES BY in one frame, then a second later in the next--they were in the same freakin' parking lot.

The people who trust the media LITERALLY NEVER EVEN GOOGLE "media corruption".

I mean, when traditional newpapers have absolutely collapsed in the internet age, leaving mass consolidation down to <50 companies owning all media in the USA, do people's B.S. detectors REALLY not go off? You can literally pay 6 different companies and get control of 90% of information US consumes and people don't question that?

{"name":"31677_b.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/0\/e0da915d89b40fda19572778aea3a0a1.png","w":610,"h":624,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/0\/e0da915d89b40fda19572778aea3a0a1"}31677_b.png

You give six dudes access to 90% of the vagina on the planet and you think it would be distributed evenly and transparently? Would you be getting laid? Or, does evolutionary biology show us, that people will squander the resources they have access to, in order to maximize their personal gain? Surely no one would do that with INFORMATION in an age when "knowledge is power!"

LennyLen
Neil Roy said:

showing the media is purposely hiding this fact.

Not necessarily. The video may have been cut differently due to time, or for other editing reasons that had nothing to do with an agenda.

Edit: Also, while I do realize that I probably don't watch the same media as you do, none that I have watched have shied away from associating attacks with Islam.

Chris Katko

This is what I'm talking about and it makes me sick:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/11/us/orlando-pulse-gay-community/index.html

Quote:

'Hearts and minds changed'
A year after the Pulse massacre, there's a new 'culture of compassion' in Orlando

Quote:

control-F Islam. No results. Muslim. No results. ISIS. No results

Gay people don't need more compassion. (Because of the Orlando Pulse club shooting.) Straight people don't need more compassion. White people don't need more compassion. Latinos and blacks don't need to change. NOBODY NEEDS MORE COMPASSION... EXCEPT THE MUSLIMS. A Muslim killed the largest number of people ever in a shooting and we're talking about togetherness?! The people who value, appreciate, and interact with "togetherness campaigns" aren't shooting up night clubs! Extreme Muslims aren't hanging out with huggers. They're in basements watching extremist propaganda on YouTube that YT refuses to take down.

We don't need more COMPASSION AND HUGGING. We need liberal Muslims to stand up and destroy the ultra-conservative ones.

You don't stop the KKK with hugs. Why the !@$!@ would you think it would work with Islamic extremists?

If I see a racist being a racist, I tell him to shut the hell up. If I see a "Christian" being a hateful bigot, I tell him to shut the hell up. But apparently, expecting liberal Muslims to do the same is impossible.

Every time we just "hug it out" and change our Facebook pictures, we aren't just "not preventing" the next attack. We're allowing the next one to happen. How many gay people are going to die in the next decade because we hugged it out today instead of dealing with the real issues? They have names. They have families. They have lives to live. And they're going to be snuffed out because the world refuses to even acknowledge why they're being targeted.

If a White Christian was killing them, we'd demand change. We'd talk about statistics. We'd talk about trends. We'd talk about culture. But because Islam is higher up on the Victim Hierarchy, they can do no wrong. Even as they chop off genital after genital of little girls while the world looks away and pretends Islam is "progressive" or compatible with our way of life.

Neil Roy
LennyLen said:

Not necessarily. The video may have been cut differently due to time, or for other editing reasons that had nothing to do with an agenda.

Yeah, you keep on believing that. I know the media hides these things now. In Canada, illegal immigrants sneaking into Canada are now called "Asylum seekers" on the news. Like changing the wording changes anything. It's sickening.

Anyhow, check out this video to see what was edited out.

video

Chris Katko

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/04/02/ap-drops-illegal-immigrant-from-stylebook/

For example, the Associated Press says you're no longer allowed to say "illegal immigrant." Also shouldn't say "undocumented immigrants"

Now you're supposed to say "unauthorized migrant". And GOOD GOD PEOPLE how is that any different? Oh yeah in one key area. They don't want you to remember that it's ILLEGAL to break into a country. That interferes with their globalist "one world" hug narrative that if you just let everyone in and "tear down the walls!" every automatically acts like a perfect citizen. Drug dealers only deal drugs because they aren't allowed to be doctors. Gangsters only start gangs because they were denied minority engineering scholarships. And orthodox Muslims actually want to get along with other religions... it's just those damn white people and their capitalism that FORCE them to be the largest, most powerful, government-controlling Patriarchal system in existence on the planet.

Remember when Obama changed the DOJ wording so that "anyone killed in a drone strike (whether civilian or not) = unlawful enemy combatant." So that all the innocents who died, get swamped up in the "Bad guys" statistics so the American public doesn't know how many we're killing. That's an information war. That's changing words subtly so as to influence a public that doesn't have the TIME to nitpick and challenge what they're hearing.

Kind of like Gamergate. Instead of telling you "gamergate is bad because of X" they say "gamergate, a known group of misogynists and trolls", and then go onto their arguments. By never actually mentioning the reasons Gamergate = Bad, and just writing it with a quick assumption, they're tricking your mind into accepting facts without going through the usual "prove it." There's a word for it, but I can't remember. It goes all the way back to 1930's Germany Propaganda, where if you just keep passively repeating a falsehood enough times, people will accept it without thinking about it.

Likewise, the media's character assasinations campaigns where EVERYONE IS A NAZI. Pewdiepie is a Nazi... except he never did anything remotely like it. Milo Yiannopoulos is pro-child molesting... except he never said that. Palmer Lucky, of Oculus Rift, was a entrepreneurial hero? Until they found out he voted for Trump and overnight he was the devil.

You'll notice if you look carefully that these articles all come out around the same day and even use similar wording--basically they all met in a room/chat and decided what narrative they'd push. Even though they're "supposedly" autonomous writers from a variety of different websites/organizations they all strangely use the same writing.

video

This is hilarious. ^

[edit] I've been saving tons of pictures of examples of media hypocrisy or narrative pushing. Here's one example:

{"name":"5EKX6UG.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/1\/b1ce00ebbf627a6aa2815b76f9ad8513.png","w":453,"h":671,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/1\/b1ce00ebbf627a6aa2815b76f9ad8513"}5EKX6UG.png

[edit]

OH. Here's a compilation video of CNN "losing the satellite feed" anytime someone says something factual about Hillary being a bad candidate. Surely Hillary didn't buy off CNN!

video

And here, CNN in a live interview, interviews an ex-cop who SAVED a baby's life who was locked in a hot car. Too bad he's wearing a Trump t-shirt. So when they re-air it... they CENSOR HIS SHIRT and then hide the censorship by placing him in the corner with some text boxes hiding it.

video

Or like when any time there is a free speech protest, the counters-protesters (ANTIFA, an anarchist terrorist organization responsible for riots, burning down streets, and attacking people) is the one that brings BRICKS, pepper-sprays women, and more. But any time you hear the reporting of it, it only says "15 people were arrested". They don't tell you that the majority (or ALL) of the arrested people were the ANTIFA.

But if you actually watch live video from the event, you'll see countless people in black masks throwing bricks. But all the "freedom of speech" people aren't wearing masks at all. They're not wearing masks because they're know they're not going in for the purpose of committing crimes.

video

Here's a not-great-quality reupload of a bunch of ANTIFAs pulling a protester into their mob, so they can beat them and kick them on the ground 10 on 1.

video

Here they pepper spray a girl who was just being interviewed by a news crew @ 1 min mark.

bamccaig

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

You cannot just systematically single out a particular religion and violate the rights of its followers without opening the rest of us up to the same abuse of power. That won't solve the problem, and it'll only make matters worse for all of us if you do.

It's frustrating to see people getting upset about insignificant attacks, but not getting this outraged when we hear of American government abuses of power and casting their own terror. What affect has Wikileaks even had on the US government or even the world? Fucking none? Nobody gives a shit? But this outrages you?

SMH.

Chris Katko

When have I ever defended the Catholic church? In fact, there are posts from less than two months ago I've made on this very forum, bashing them. Additionally, I'm one of the first to criticize US policy so stop projecting.

The difference is that the MEDIA doesn't protect them. Nobody is arguing "those poor catholic priests! We just don't UNDERSTAND their culture!" and "They're victims of capitalist western ideals!"

I'm going to say it in plain terms: Anyone who kills people because they're gay, is a bad person.

And I will not refrain from criticizing whatever background they come from, and whoever they associate with.

Want to refute my points? Refute my points. But I'm not going to play this distraction game.

LennyLen
Neil Roy said:

Yeah, you keep on believing that.

Whatever man. I worked for the media for many years. And while I won't deny that there's a lot of mental manipulation going on, most of the people involved are just people. There's no deep dark conspiracy.

But then again, like I said earlier, your media in North America seems to be a hell of a lot more commercially slanted than ours is.

Quote:

Anyhow, check out this video to see what was edited out.

The first clip was 1 minute, the second was 3 minutes. There was a lot more edited out than the 5 seconds this video focuses on.

Neil Roy

When have I ever defended the Catholic church? In fact, there are posts from less than two months ago I've made on this very forum, bashing them.

I am the same as you. I bash them regularly and I actually believe in God. I just do not support that vile, disgusting, putrid "church". I am against them as I am the Muslims! The catholics put to death people in far more horrible ways, and if they started again, I would speak out against them again. I can't stand 'em, actually, I hate the Catholic church more than Muslims and I could almost agree with Muslims in many aspects of their religion if it wasn't for the "kill unbelievers" part in Qur'an 9:5. The Catholics are worse as they claim to be THE Christian church when in fact everything they teach is exactly contrary to the Bible, a book THEY used to burn people alive for owning.

So... it is rather humourous when people try and act like I am against one and for the other. I think that ANY RELIGIOUS organization that promotes murdering unbelievers should be BANNED... no matter who they are. But there is only ONE that I see that regularly beheads Christians and blows themselves up with the promise of paradise if they kill non-Muslims along with them in the explosion.

How anyone can defend a religion like that boggles my mind.

And saying "Oh yeah, well that other religion is just as bad!" doesn't change anything. It doesn't get this one off the hook!! >:(

{"name":"610940","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/7\/174c2d1345b314d9a141f8802584ed99.png","w":960,"h":581,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/7\/174c2d1345b314d9a141f8802584ed99"}610940

Chris Katko

I heard Bill Mahar talking with a Muslim reformer once say (paraphrased):

"Religions are a collection of ideas. Ideas are not above criticism. You can criticize ideas without criticizing people."

Killing innocent people and children. Female genital mutilation. Incest (huge problem in the Muslim word. HUGE. Because the Prophet Mohammad married a cousin.) Child marriage--a "legal excuse" to bang children (Mohammad married 9 ear old.). Banging little boys "because it's tradition" (a horrific practice I can't even...). War slaves. (The excuse they use to have sex with captured non-Muslims women.) Killing people who leave your religion.

These are all BAD IDEAS.

Meanwhile, Jesus didn't even have a wife or sex according to orthodox texts. He said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." He said "Turn the other cheek."

There's NO WAY you can say the two are equal. Christianity is fundamentally, a religion of pacifism except in the case of war (which is a necessary evil ala Germany in WW2). The IDEAS represent pacifism, respecting the laws of your government, and many other things we still hold as "universal truths" like "the golden rule" of "do onto others as you wish they'd do onto you."

Where are all the great songs, movies, and other culture in Islam-run countries? The creativity and expression? Dead. For one, the religion bans people in art:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

Of course, so did the past Jewish and Christians! Except here we go again and both of those religions had reformations where they chose to evolve and become more progressive and free and less tyrannical. What happened? When they reformed they changed their set of ideas. Banning art is a ban idea.

(Meanwhile, you can see Christians "integrating" with modern society in all walks of life. They don't interrupt work days to pray. They have 'progressive' Christian music that talks about loving, forgiving, and growing as a person--not killing everyone who doesn't believe what they do. Christians are subservient to their government. It's even codified in their religion, render unto Caesar what is Caeser's. Islam believes Shariah law is above all other laws and governments.)

{"name":"Sharia+law_d47bc4_5602448.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/5\/25705a4ceb2c81f5352d43031b4c25ce.jpg","w":627,"h":663,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/5\/25705a4ceb2c81f5352d43031b4c25ce"}Sharia+law_d47bc4_5602448.jpg

Ideas are not above criticism, and Islam has a lot of bad ideas that need to go. (And other current religions have ideas that need to go too, like many Christians' fear of science--forgetting that science is the study of God's world and not a 'threat' to their belief system.)

And we're not helping reformists and ex-Muslims (who have a death sentence for leaving) by refusing to call a bad idea, a bad idea.

bamccaig

You can criticize bad ideas all you want. That doesn't really accomplish anything unless they're will to criticize their own ideas. Unfortunately, the nature of these kinds of one-god religions is that they are not allowed to think openly, and this causes the entire group to close their minds to it. Christianity would probably be in the same boat if it had any control. Turns out, for various reasons, they've been losing control of the "flock" for generations. In terms of a one-god religion it's actually probably failing in that sense, but that's better for its followers and ex-followers who get to expand their minds with reality instead. Unfortunately, whether dangerous or benign, are one-god religions have bad ideas that deserve criticizing. If you don't criticize them all you'll never get any group to listen to you because they'll rightfully assume you're biased.

Edgar Reynaldo
bamccaig said:

Unfortunately, the nature of these kinds of one-god religions is that they are not allowed to think openly, and this causes the entire group to close their minds to it.

You are so full of shit its coming out your ears. I'm Christian, not brain-washed as you would make us all out to be. I am a Christian because I believe what the Bible says (most of the time, but not all) and not because someone else told me I had to believe it. God doesn't force anyone to believe anything. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make everyone who does a Bible thumping zombie with no capacity for original thought. :P If you don't know anything about Christianity, don't open your mouth to talk about it.

bamccaig

God can't force you to do anything since he's a figment of human imagination, but Christian groups sure as fuck try to pressure you to believe it in various ways.

Neil Roy
bamccaig said:

God can't force you to do anything since he's a figment of human imagination

Except He has done quite a bit for me. Let me list a few...

I asked my wife to marry me, she said no. I prayed about it because I wanted to at least remain friends with her. A month or two later, she returned to me and had changed her mind and asked me to marry her. When we got married, the first place we lived in had a brand new Bible laying it it. I still have that Bible and we have been married 32 years now. I don't believe in coincidences. But wait, there's more...

I had type 2 diabetes and was on 3 medications and took four pills a day for it. I prayed about it and wanted to be healed. A few months after I started praying my prescriptions got messed up and I couldn't get them refilled. I haven't taken any in two years now and my diabetes is totally gone.

That same year (2015) I got a serious infection in my leg, one I had a few times before. One that hospitalized me for two weeks with a very high, dangerous temperature where I could hardly breathe! Well, when I got it in 2015, I refused to go to the hospital, but prayed all night instead. It felt like my entire body was on fire, it was horrible and my wife was worried sick, but I refused to go. The next morning it was totally gone and I was healed.

I get occular migraines. This is a visual distortion, not a headache that has ALWAYS lasted half an hour. It starts out as a small fuzzy dot, almost a crystaline distortion of my vision and slowly grows with the shape of a letter C that eventually fills my entire vision. It ALWAYS happens exactly like this!! ALWAYS... well, the last time it started, I stopped and prayed and for the first time ever, it shrunk and vanished immediately!

I had a bunch of my online accounts all hacked. Plus the fact that my beloved cat died and a few other things happened, I was a nervous wreck, literally shaking on the inside, I could feel it. I finally bowed my head and prayed for help. INSTANTLY I felt a wave of calm wash over my body like I have NEVER felt in my life and I was suddenly in a good mood that lasted for several days. I made some phone calls and my accounts were taken care of by the kindest people I could hope for. I got a donation towards my game around the same time that helped us cover the costs of putting our cat down.

So don't you dare bring your smug, arrogant attitude and tell ME God is a figment of my imagination! I have absolute PROOF HE exists and if you do NOT change your attitude before it is too late and pray for forgiveness you WILL be VERY sorry mister!!!

bamccaig
bamccaig said:

God can't force you to do anything since he's a figment of human imagination, but Christian groups sure as fuck try to pressure you to believe it in various ways.

Neil Roy said:

So don't you dare bring your smug, arrogant attitude and tell ME God is a figment of my imagination! I have absolute PROOF HE exists and if you do NOT change your attitude before it is too late and pray for forgiveness you WILL be VERY sorry mister!!!

;D

Edgar Reynaldo

::)

The idea that all theists are brainwashed idiots because God doesn't exist is your opinion bambam. Personally I think you're the one who's been brainwashed. I know "God" and "Satan" are real and they interact with the world on a daily basis. Satan has manipulated people against me, and taken away some of my very best friends and very nearly my life. I spent basically a decade recovering. But if it wasn't for God I wouldn't be here today. He's given me new life, and now I have the chance for a real career instead of a shitty service job.

But whatever, it's on you not me. Go on and believe in your Magic Pink Unicorn or your FSM or whatever your fancy is at the moment. But one day you may come to realize you've been duped. :-/

bamccaig

The really sad thing is that the same mechanism that allows these fine gentlemen to believe in their bullshit also allows Muslim extremists to believe that what they're doing is righteous and good. You can't stop one without stopping the other. Food for thought.

raynebc

Reasonable people in modern civilization draw the line between believing what they want and directly harming others. Radical Islam doesn't conform to such limitations and is therefore incompatible and should not be tolerated. Other radical mindsets aren't limited to religion and shouldn't be tolerated.

Neil Roy

In other news..

{"name":"610942","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/8\/28a61937a9c2377424f302a38656fc25.png","w":560,"h":690,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/8\/28a61937a9c2377424f302a38656fc25"}610942

;D

Dizzy Egg

People claiming they KNOW God exists or have PROOF are part of the problem. Grow up. I stopped beliving in Santa and the tooth fairy and God when I was 7.

Derezo

Neil's examples of his Magical Thinking are a good ones. These are the types of traps that many Christians, or followers of other supernatural thinking groups, fall into. When I was on The Peace Train Magic Bus, we stopped at Eagle Rock casino. Before we went in, we agreed to perform a ritual and "pray" to the "spirits" that they would help us win.

We won so it worked so there.

Felix-The-Ghost

Am I the only one in allegro.cc that has experienced the filling of the Holy Spirit?

Edgar Reynaldo

We're gonna have to be subjective here, and recognize that what some people consider "proof" of God's Existence / Nonexistence other people won't accept.

LennyLen

Am I the only one in allegro.cc that has experienced the filling of the Holy Spirit?

Only if you mean Scotch Whisky.

Edgar Reynaldo

Sorry double negative. They don't call them spirits for no reason. They call them spirits for a reason. :P

Neil Roy

You would think I would have known better than to even mention my beliefs of God in such a hate filled, anti-God website.

I think it is time I left this place for good.

It's an endless, pointless debate. You cannot change the minds of these hate filled people. It's a joke to them.

This is typical, if you say anything against Muslims, these evil people turn it into an anti-Christian debate. I'm out of here. I am reminded why I left this forum years ago.

Edgar Reynaldo

Neil, you can't get so emotional about everything. You have your beliefs and they have theirs, I don't expect anyone to change their minds, I just don't want the truth mis-represented here. If you leave, who's gonna test my binaries??? Cmon, don't get so bent out of shape by a few dimwits.

Felix-The-Ghost

If you think you're the minority try being the only Spirit-filled believer on allegro.cc ::)

Dizzy Egg

Wait, I'm confused - are people seriously claiming to have proof of the existence of God!?!? HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE MA.....oh yes, it has.

Chris Katko

Wait wait wait wait.

So all this arguments about how "terrorism only affects a few people, so we shouldn't spend our energy talking about it."

VS

"RELIGION WAR. I'VE GOT TIME AND ENERGY to discussing my possibly made up deity is better than your possibly-made up and/or lack-of-a-deity."

Do you guys see my point? We've got time and energy to discuss all kinds of things that have no practical benefit (certainly nobody is being converted today), but the second we talk about Muslims blowing up teenagers at a concert all a sudden "We don't have time for inconsequential stuff." Our people really that strapped for time, or are they just using it as a convenient excuse to not talk about an uncomfortable world reality?

If you think you're the minority try being the only Spirit-filled believer on allegro.cc ::)

I'm confused. There's at least 4 Christians/religious people in this very thread.

bamccaig

We are talking about it. We've been talking about it. Talking about it lead to the assertion that you cannot expect to get rid of one set of idiotic beliefs if you let other idiotic beliefs exist without scrutiny. That lead to some people with idiotic beliefs making idiotic claims about their idiotic beliefs being true.

The uncomfortable truth is that Christianity is just as stupid as Islam. You want to have one, but not the other. It doesn't work that way. Therefore, what is the solution? There doesn't seem to be one. If you'd like to propose some fair and plausible solutions have at it, but I haven't heard anything other than fear mongering and hatred. It may well be at least partially justified, but it doesn't practically solve any problems or make anything better.

Where should we take the discussion now?

Dizzy Egg

Man is a dangerous being. Man is f*****g lethal when he thinks he's got God on his side! Why aren't religous books taught the same as Shakespeare, or Wordsworth? Why do we teach children that the stories in these books are real, and actually took place as described?? Surely the only way to end this is to ensure that these holy books are used in education the same as many others - as works of fiction. Important works of fiction, but fiction none the less. Then they can grow up rounded and without thinking they have a super hero invisible friend.

[EDIT]

God....pah

https://youtu.be/GKhbGholFOE

Aaron Bolyard

As an atheist, I'm not going to deny religion can be a positive social influence. It provides a sense of community, mental wellbeing, and other social and cultural benefits that secular alternatives are hard-pressed to match.

Zealotry is different. Zealotry arises out of desperation, poverty, and other cascading, negative influences. I've not read the Koran, and I'm not an Islam scholar, so I cannot say how fundamental Islamic beliefs aggravate the situation in the Middle East--there's plenty who will tell me the religion is inherently violent, and others who say the opposite, each providing excerpts. But I bet you I could make "Atlas Shrugged" appear as a communist manifesto if I selected particular fragments and excerpts ;).

But I tend to believe that the situation of religious terrorism, in particular terrorist acts committed by Muslims, is more of an outlet for other issues (poverty, warfare, famine) that affect the region. The only solution is treating the cause, not the symptoms. In other words: preventing climate change; helping rebuild communities and infrastructure; and supporting social causes such as education and healthcare.

But hey, drones, bombs, and body bags are cheap in comparison.

I think Emily Dickinson's small poem sums up my thoughts on the matter well:

Quote:

Faith is a fine invention
For gentlemen who see
But microscopes are prudent
In an emergency.

Bruce Perry

filling of the Holy Spirit

Resulting in the unholy spirit because you filled the holes?

But hey, drones, bombs, and body bags are cheap in comparison.

And flammable cladding tiles, apparently :-/ There's a lot of anger in the air at the moment over the allegation that the flammable type of cladding, which is cheaper, was used even out of reach of fire engines on the block of flats in London, which was government-run and housed people who needed help with housing, ergo poor people.

Neil Roy said:

So don't you dare bring your smug, arrogant attitude and tell ME God is a figment of my imagination! I have absolute PROOF HE exists and if you do NOT change your attitude before it is too late and pray for forgiveness you WILL be VERY sorry mister!!!

Ouch. That was such a good post until that last bit. Be nice. :-X

Edgar Reynaldo
Psalm 14 said:

1
Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.

2
The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.

3
They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one.

4
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon the Lord?

5
There they shall be in great terror,
for God is with the company of the righteous.
6
You would confound the plans of the poor,
but the Lord is their refuge.

7
O that deliverance for Israel would come from Zion!
When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,
Jacob will rejoice; Israel will be glad.

Dizzy Egg

"Winnie the Pooh was looking for honey"

Another great work of fiction.

Edgar Reynaldo

The New Testament isn't fiction, it's a biography. For someone who likes to rely on evidence for the proof of things, you sure seem willing to ignore history as often as you like. ;)

bamccaig

Certainly we only write down what we know for absolute certain and when we write it down we never make any mistakes. We're never mistaken in our understanding of goings on, or take other people's words as the truth without verifying facts. If a large group of people believe something happened then it must have. There's no possible way they could have all been fooled. It even tells you right there in the scripture that it's true! Obviously all of the books of the New Testament of the Bible must be 100% factual and anybody that doesn't believe a book compilation that promises to be true is a fool. ::)

video

Edgar Reynaldo

omg, these are real documented people from history who documented Jesus' life and teachings. He came to fulfill the scriptures, and He did. These are actual historical facts about real people who actually lived before you. But of course all this is just from a bunch of believers. All of it is totally made up. Of course the Hebrews made up the Old Testament so they could live strict ritual lives and live according to some crazy Ten Commandments, even though most of them would die in the wilderness for being un-believers. Just for fun. They made it all up so their lives could be harder. ::) ::)

And besides bamccaig, you're just playing on doubt. It's not like you have any facts to support your claims. :/

Aaron Bolyard

So are we going to talk about Finsbury Park?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40322960

Quote:

Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said the incident in north London was "quite clearly an attack on Muslims"

...

The prime minister said police declared it a terrorist incident within eight minutes and a white man in his 40s was now in custody.

Edgar Reynaldo

What's there to talk about? There's a crazy white guy who took 'revenge' on Muslims. It's no small wonder it took so long to happen. It's evil of course, and he's nuts, like most murderers and other people who can't control their passions.

Dizzy Egg

I don't want to upset anyone, I am genuinely shocked to hear that people believe they can prove the existence of God. I would have assumed that would have been a massive worldwide breaking news story. I'm not being fatuous, I'm serious.

Felix-The-Ghost

Most people make up their mind first from whatever positive/negative experiences they've had in their own life and don't want to be confused by the facts. When confronted by such evidence (usually not in a loving way unfortunately) they will reflexively seek to mock or otherwise ignore anything that could demand a reevaluation of their beliefs (human nature, for both sides)

I believe a purely objective look into these things reveals a lot more plausibility to an intelligent creator than an accident. It's been a while, but I know Lee Strobel has various books that admittedly aren't entirely objective (which is hard for anyone to achieve) but it's a nice compilation of facts for someone if they chose to see where an earnest investigation takes them.

Aside from all that, God wasn't ever supposed to be some kind of religious condiment that you sprinkle on your life. The Holy Spirit powered life documented in the book of Acts and demonstrated by Jesus is supposed to be the norm for every believer. Admittedly this is only a marginal percentage of believers, but I think this will change soon.

Aaron Bolyard

I was riding my bicycle a couple weeks ago after having a bad day. The weather turned rather quickly after I left, and I said aloud, "if there were a god he's really pathetic."

Within a minute I was in an accident. Was it a sign of divine retribution? Or was it just me riding aggressively because i was royally pissed off?

I know it was just the latter.

For the record, I know how emotionally charged spiritual experiences work. I had delusions that we are the dreams of Old Ones (ala Lovecraft), and eldritch parasites are working to awaken them. When I was really sick, I had experiences, including visual hallucinations, that re-inforced these beliefs.

But it wasn't real. Subjectively, I have more 'proof' (in the sense of personal experiences) of Old Ones and eldritch abominations than I do of the Christian god (of the latter, none). How funny is that? :)

The only way I was able to function was to apply a rigid objectivist worldview in spite of the delusions. Most people hardly knew I was sick. It worked in all but the most psychotic (but thankfully brief) of episodes.

Edgar Reynaldo

It's called take your medication. :P I know when I get off my meds my head gets funny and I have bad thoughts that aren't really my own, but they like to push themself on me. That has nothing to do with why I believe in God. I don't hear any voices in my head nevertheless I guess I just call them demons, cuz that's what they really are. You know, when Jesus cured sickness, he one time said, "Your sins are forgiven you, take up your bed and rise" and they accused Jesus of blaspheming. He said to them, which is better, that I say to the man "you are healed, arise" or that I say his sins are forgiven? But that ye may know that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sin, "take up your bed and rise".

Jesus Heals a Paralytic

2 And just then some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 Then some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.” 7 And he stood up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.

Felix-The-Ghost said:

No one else has the Holy Spirit...

How do you know? Does it always manifest the same way? Not everyone has the same gifts in the same proportions.

Felix-The-Ghost

Please don't misquote me Edgar. I don't pretend to have some secret knowledge no one else has, the Holy Spirit is available to everyone, but the first world "church" is mostly deprived of it for at best simple ignorance or at worst false teaching that those gifts were only for the original apostles.

Chris Katko

Aaron Bolyard:

This kind of sums up my thoughts about the MSM and people's responses. (Note the dates, reacting to the two separate events.)

{"name":"1rEqtoa.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/3\/036f7b9cdfa7c203c87dd3dcb50d9b6d.jpg","w":685,"h":319,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/3\/036f7b9cdfa7c203c87dd3dcb50d9b6d"}1rEqtoa.jpg

When a Muslim attack happens, everyone refuses to make eye contact and pretends it didn't happen--and attacks anyone who dares actually talk about it. When a retaliation attack happens (because nobody is dealing with the problem), all a sudden "THINGS NEED TO CHANGE!" It's also IMMEDIATELY called a terrorist attack if a white guy does it.

And if it helps: Hell yeah, I--as a Christian--disown, disapprove, and shit all over any guy who would kill innocent people--including the scumbag piece of crap that just attacked those innocent Muslims. And if I ever see a guy near me that threatens to do the same? I'm calling the cops on him. I'll refuse service to him. I'll refuse to enable him. And if I saw him host a YouTube video, I'd comment and call him a piece of shit.

Words are cheap. The least I can do is call the guy a scumbag. So I don't understand why people think that's such a difficult thing to do--to publicly condemn a bad person who supposedly is a member of your religion.

To be clear, I'm not attacking your points but just elaborating on my own. And when I watch the MSM, politicians, and people act so completely differently whether the person turns out to be of Religion X or Religion Y ("I can't make up my mind until I find out what race/color/religion/gender this monster was before I support or hate them!"), I find that appalling. Justice is blind. That means something beautiful and should be near to everyone's heart and we should all strive for it.

Right and wrong comes first, not the persons affiliation. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. Things like female genital mutilation is wrong no matter what someone's traditions, religion, or ancestors had to endure. And as such, we should strive for our reactions to crimes to be equally blind. A person that embezzles money that puts lead into children's drinking water is a scumbag--whether they vote for my "party" or not, or agree with my worldviews or not, doesn't matter.

Perhaps that's the problem? Some sort of tribalistic biological association with "teams". Democrats Vs Republicans, Patriots vs Eagles, my team vs your team, my religion vs yours. If someone is "Bad" but on "my team", it's an "internal matter", but if they're on "your team" it's a threat to my team?

LennyLen

When a Muslim attack happens, everyone refuses to make eye contact and pretends it didn't happen--and attacks anyone who dares actually talk about it. When a retaliation attack happens (because nobody is dealing with the problem), all a sudden "THINGS NEED TO CHANGE!" It's also IMMEDIATELY called a terrorist attack if a white guy does it.

Interesting. A lot of the discussion I've seen has had people complaining of the exact opposite - that everyone is happy to jump on the all Muslims are terrorists bandwagon, but are trying to find justification for this guy.

I've seen about an even split of both those, and people don't see it either way.

Personally, I'm hesitant to call him a terrorist at this point, unless more about his motivations and intentions come to light. He seems more like a guy who is angry and wants to kill the people he hates, who in this case happen to be muslims. I think of him more like the Columbine shooters, or serial killers who target women due to emotional issues.

Polybios

It's a pity there seem to be enough people without anything to lose in the European banlieus and elsewhere; I think they can be lured by the mere fact that they have a chance to matter at all, albeit very negatively. They experience that they won't make it in the economy; in their countries of origin, they're Europeans, and in the country they live in, they're foreigners. With no steady spiritual home and much frustration and anger, they turn to someone who tells them they could be important. These home-grown terrorists are most difficult to spot.

Generally, Islam is taking a very conservative turn in the past decades. This is supported with petrodollars by certain countries we all know. In case of the so called IS, it's quite clear: Let's not forget that their roots lie in Saddam's security services the staff of which were fired by US governors. Without jobs and angry at their conquerors, they withdrew to peacefully water their roses.

relpatseht

The disparate responses are an attempt to balance the equation. A white guy does something bad, and he is a scumbag vs. a muslim/black guy does something wrong, and Islam is an evil religion/muslims are bad/black people are criminals.

Justice can try all it likes to be blind, but we as a society are crippled with biases. Because, at present, there is strong anti-Islamic sentiment in the US (and many parts of the western world) placing emphasis on traits that contradict our biases is a useful tool in combatting them.

It's the same principal as affirmative action, which is the same principal as Mario Kart. The further behind in the race you are, the more useful your power-ups and the more aid you are given. In Mario Kart, this is stupid, because it's a race, but in real life, we're trying to move forward as a group. There shouldn't be winners and losers.

Rephrased succinctly, society should treat it's people equitably until equal treatment is equivalent.

bamccaig

^ Well said.

Chris Katko

. A white guy does something bad, and he is a scumbag vs. a muslim/black guy does something wrong, and Islam is an evil religion/muslims are bad/black people are criminals.

You intentionally mischaracterized my good will point, to imply a racist undertone. ::) The point was (assuming he's "of my religion"), I'm disowning and shaming him. The point was, words are cheap and it's not hard to condemn him--so why shouldn't we expect the same from other groups of people? The truth is, Muslims (of which there are over 1.4 BILLION) are treated like a minority that can't defend itself, or be expected to follow the rules of everyone else. They're handled with kid gloves. They do something horrific, like endorse female genital mutilation or child marriage, and the world goes "It's not their fault. It's evil white men's fault for FORCING them to do those bad things."

relpatseht

Muslims are a minority in the US (and most western countries). Their global population is irrelevant as it can do nothing to defend them from local discrimination and harassment. Again, equitable treatment until equal treatment is equivalent.

I'm not certain where you're getting your information, but I've not seen anyone in support of human rights violations. That said, those evil Muslim theocracies in the Middle East (and they are evil) were put in place by a series of coups orchestrated primarily by the US and UK for our own economic benefit. It would be disingenuous to not accept a certain amount of responsibility for what those governments do.

Niunio

^ I really agree with you.

The sad part is that people are paying for errors they didn't commit. :(

Neil Roy

Bah, I didn't want to return here but... this just bugs me too much. Guess I'm a sucker that way, but I read a response to my post and I can see there is a clear misunderstanding to what I meant.

What I said...

Neil Roy said:

So don't you dare bring your smug, arrogant attitude and tell ME God is a figment of my imagination! I have absolute PROOF HE exists and if you do NOT change your attitude before it is too late and pray for forgiveness you WILL be VERY sorry mister!!!

The response...

Ouch. That was such a good post until that last bit. Be nice. :-X

I wasn't being mean. The facts are, there is a God, and He will punish those who disobey Him and especially those who mock Him. If they do not pray for forgiveness (He is quick to forgive, so this won't be a problem), they can avoid any punishment. But if they do not, the Bible is clear what will happen to the wicked who mock God. When I say "you will be very sorry", I mean it... it is not a threat from me, I literally meant that when they are standing at the resurrection and judged, and if they have not repented, they may find themselves kicking and screaming as two strong angels drag them to the precipice of a cliff and throw them over it into a lake of fire to be destroyed. Now forgetting your atheism for just a second, IF this is all true, would you not agree that those who mock God will be sorry in this situation that they did not ask for forgiveness and stop while they had the chance?

Anyhow, whether you believe this or not, that is what I meant. Not in a mean spirit, but just an honest one.

It's just too bad everyone focuses on that one LAST comment of mine and totally ignores everything I wasted my time sharing about what has happened to me. After all, it's more fun to mock believers and paint them as idiots. I have given this a lot of thought, lots of study and I just know there is a God. I could go on at length about WHY I believe the way I do and the logic I use, but I have done that in here before and it never ends well. Because people are not interested in learning what I believe, they are only looking for "funny material" they can mock me on. Because that's what these forums are all about... having fun at someone else's expense.

About Muslims. While I know there are some good ones. I still do not like the religion, mainly because if you look into it, you will see plenty of verses in their Qur'an which commands them to kill unbelievers. I have nothing against other religions like Sihks (sp?), Hindus etc... because they don't have doctrines to do with murdering non-believers. Muslims do, though most do not follow their own beliefs, which we can be thankful for.

I actually agree with quite a few Muslim ideas more so than Roman Catholicism, which I cannot stand. I despise modern day Sunday Christianity FAR MORE than I do Muslims honestly. But that's another topic.

The main topic of this entire thread was the London attack, and it was done by Muslims. Whether most Muslims support that attack or not is another issue, perhaps not. But I do not feel the media should be covering it all up and I don't think every time we talk about a Muslim/Islam terrorist attack, that the thread should suddenly turn into a "yeah well, what about Christians!" bullshit followed by mocking, scoffing posts.

Anyhow... I'll live to regret posting in here again, but it's a quiet, boring night.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

If they do not pray for forgiveness..., they can avoid any punishment.

Thank Christ! Default escape clause. ;)

Quote:

...they may find themselves kicking and screaming as two strong angels drag them to the precipice of a cliff and throw them over it into a lake of fire to be destroyed. Now forgetting your atheism for just a second, IF this is all true, would you not agree that those who mock God will be sorry in this situation that they did not ask for forgiveness and stop while they had the chance?

I'm sure death by fire is a pretty terrible way to go, but unless you believe that every man, woman, or child (or animal, for that matter) that dies of fire is being punished by God then you have to accept that it's not a supernatural death, but rather a natural one that could occur in real life. That or you interpret some kind of supernatural meaning from the words. The "Hell" usually described by Christians does sound pretty terrifying. The more natural "lake of fire" you describe sounds not so bad considering.

In any case, you can threaten as much as you like from your "holy" book. If I weigh everything I have learned about the Bible and about Christianity and the concept of a God that seems mysteriously absent today against the possibility that it's all a bunch of superstition invented by humans millenniums ago I'm forced to conclude that it's more likely to be the latter than the former. And there is plenty of evidence in the Bible itself that the Christian God is not one that I would have much respect for anyway even if it did happen to exist (which is further evidence that it's an imperfect creation of a human brain instead of an omnipotent being, but I digress).

I'll take my chances. It doesn't worry me at all. Your threats are no more serious to me than if I were to say to you, "devote your life to the flying spaghetti monster or you'll freeze for all eternity in pastafarian Hell". You have no evidence for your beliefs. And while I don't truly believe in the flying spaghetti monster (nobody does, hint, hint, that's the fucking joke), if I did, I'd have no evidence for mine. If we all live our lives based on such empty threats or believe in things without evidence then we'll all just be living in chaos. Much like the East appears to be doing. Curious that.

Edgar Reynaldo

Death by fire isn't funny, and I don't believe he ever prescribed that specific punishment for anyone or anything either. In fact God is quoted as saying that the thought of sacrificing his children in fire never even occurred to him (people who whorshipped Molech did that). The only people consumed by fire were the ones who were trying to kill Elijah, and he called fire down from heaven on them.

However, the lake of fire is a place where your soul gets disintegrated. You're wiped out. I doubt he designed it to be painful or prolonged. The 'going up in smoke for ever and ever' bit refers to the permanence of the action. It can't be reversed. Ever heard the part where God tells Satan he will 'turn him to ashes from within'? That's what he's referring to.

Bruce Perry
Neil Roy said:

It's just too bad everyone focuses on that one LAST comment of mine and totally ignores everything I wasted my time sharing about what has happened to me.

The last comment is often the one with the biggest impact, and you chose to put that one last. I for one didn't ignore the rest, but I did notice how you undermined it all afterwards, and I gave you honest, constructive feedback about it.

Quote:

After all, it's more fun to mock believers and paint them as idiots. ... people are not interested in learning what I believe, they are only looking for "funny material" they can mock me on.

I doubt it. If you're going to make accusations like that, you should name names. I don't think even bambams considers it 'fun', and I suspect what he is doing is less 'mocking' and more 'trying to convert'. [EDIT: or even only 'trying to justify his own position'.]

Quote:

Because that's what these forums are all about... having fun at someone else's expense.

I'm not seeing it.

Take some responsibility for your words. None of us is perfect, and if you want us to feel convinced, you need to appeal to our imperfect psychology. That means avoid comments that undermine your efforts.

I'm annoyed that you reacted this way to my attempt to be constructive, if you can't tell.

[EDIT]
To finish on a more positive note (since what comes last matters) - the rest of that post really was heartwarming.

bamccaig

However, the lake of fire is a place where your soul gets disintegrated. You're wiped out. I doubt he designed it to be painful or prolonged. The 'going up in smoke for ever and ever' bit refers to the permanence of the action. It can't be reversed. Ever heard the part where God tells Satan he will 'turn him to ashes from within'? That's what he's referring to.

Why would ceasing to exist scare me? I didn't exist for billions of years before about 31 years ago. The way I see it, I won't mind not existing for the rest of time.

Or is my "soul" getting "disintegrated" supposed to mean something more than ceasing to exist?

Polybios

An opportunity to quote Epicurus at last:

Quote:

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.

Johan Halmén

All you atheists, who hate believers,
all you believers, who hate atheists,
all you Muslims, who hate Western people,
all you Western people, who hate Muslims,
all you Muslims, who hate other Muslims,
all you Christians, who hate other Christians,
all you... uh... all of you, who hate each other,
go and hang yourself. Or pick a place in Sahara, where you can kill each other.
Whatever makes you happy. Or gives you eternal life. Or 72 virgins.

And leave the rest of us atheists, Christians, Muslims, Potrzebists etc alone. We won't miss you.

Bruce Perry

What's a Potrzebist?

I googled Potrzebists and the only result was this other thread :o GOOGLEWHACK!

Neil Roy

go and hang yourself. Or pick a place in Sahara, where you can kill each other.

Nope, no hatred in that quote...

The thing is, I don't hate. I don't hate atheists, though I obviously dislike being mocked constantly, I am concerned for their well being. They do not know what they are doing. They have no realization of how much of a reality God is and the horrible end they are setting themselves up for. So what? Who cares right? The alternative is eternal life in a remade universe where death has been done away.

It's difficult to understand why I believe the way I do if you find it so funny you feel you need to mock me for my stupidity. But there is sound logic I could go into in depth as I practically live and breathe this stuff, especially in the past few years, it's why I don't program as much. But I don't go into the details and try and convince anyone because part of what I have learned over the decades of debating this stuff from as far back as the BBS days before the internet is that unless someone genuinely wants to learn the truth, there is nothing I can say that will change their mind.

People who genuinely love the truth and want to learn the truth, can pray to God to open their mind and show them and they will start learning it like never before. But people who hate the truth, mainly because of their own lusts in this life and how they do not wish to part with them, are closed to the truth and do not wish to learn it. And my Bible teaches that God will not open their mind to the truth, because they have no love of it.

It's too bad though because obeying God doesn't mean "no fun", contrary to popular belief, things like sex is not a sin. It is actually encouraged, but between married couples, I can quote you a verse that literally encourages married couples to "come together often to avoid temptation", and it means what you think, slang or not. Also, drinking alchohol is not a sin, Jesus first miracle was turning water into wine, and not just any wine but OLD wine. God's laws are put in place mainly to keep us happy. Look at all the problems in this world with people getting drunk and doing things they later regret, or people who fool around on a spouse and ruin a great marriage. I could go on and on, but the laws don't effect God one way or the other, He put them in place to make us happy and it's just too bad people don't see it.

So many of this world's problems could be totally avoided by obeying God, and God promises to bless people who obey Him (with health, happiness, having food, shelter, clothing etc... everything you need). Job for example was a rich man, because he 100% obeyed God. He was tested and remained faithful, he had lost all his wealth but by the end of the book God gave him back double what he had before. There's just so much good that can comes into ones life from obedience, and I am not talking about Sunday, Roman Catholic style churches, I can't stand them. They do NOT represent God what so ever. Most of what they teach is contrary to what the Bible teaches. You do not go to heaven when you die for example (quote John 3:13 to the next Christian that says you do, it's great tool). Nor do "evil people" burn in a Hell (Catholic false doctrine, not true) forever, what kind of a loving God would do that?!

The next time a Sunday Christian tells you that you go to heaven when you die or hell. Ask them if everyone goes to heaven or hell when they die, who is still in their graves when Jesus returns that He needs to resurrect them? See the hypocrisy? I can quote you verses which tell you that atheists are RIGHT, when you die, that is it, you stay dead! The only difference is that Jesus returns and resurrects you, but otherwise, atheists are correct.

Anyhow, this is already getting lengthy, but suffice it to say, I believe EXACTLY what my Bible teaches, not what Sunday churches and otherwise teach. Big difference in what the Bible teaches and what they teach and I don't feel they do God a service.

Again, reread the miracles in my life. I don't believe for no reason. I have solid evidence. I was a type 2 diabetic on 3 medications a day (4 pills a day) for it. I prayed about it and I am no longer diabetic. No pills, nothing as I already said. This is not my imagination, it happened, it is real and I was healed, for many things. And I literally felt a wave of calm come over me that I will remember until the day I die. You can't know what that felt like to literally feel that wash over me and go from shaking inside and a nervous wreck to practically being "high" with happiness, and just from one quick prayer... I am sure someone thinks I am lying. That's too bad.

Chris Katko

Some posters here may notice I'm very cautious in my mention of spirituality. Except when when I'm in a joking mood, I'm actually really careful not to mention things I can't back up. I don't like being made to look like a fool when someone whips out a sourced article that I should have known about.

In a way though, I'm really in awe of the Christians here who dare to, openly, express their religious views to others online--knowing that they'll be obliterated as no better than ghost chasers and people who believe in crystals and horoscopes. You guys are being honest and transparent with your beliefs and that's great and I respect that.

There are tons of events in my life where I should have died, or should have had some horrible thing happen, and each time I was saved. Way too many times for statistical error. I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for God. But I also understand that (almost) nobody is going to believe me when I say I'm not just haphazardly speaking when I endorse God's work in my life. People are going to assume you're talking out of your butt, or exaggerating His works, or ignoring contradicting details to push an agenda.

I think that's why it's best to lead by example. People will be drawn to you for "being different" if you really embrace Christianity. And those people will listen when they come to you. But trying to tell people who already "have it all together" aren't going to question their fundamental worldviews. I'm not trying to say they're "stubborn" but more reasonably skeptical of ideas.

But once you start living it and seeing things "work out" for you over and over and over (though there's nothing in the Bible that says you'll live an easy life--the opposite in fact), and experiencing the calmness and confidence even when the world is burning down around you... it's a feeling that beats out logic. It can't be explained away.

It's just interesting to me how we come to such a clear impasse. Believers believe. Doubters doubt. And it's impossible to make a connection without someone feeling insulted.

Edgar Reynaldo
bamccaig said:

Why would ceasing to exist scare me? I didn't exist for billions of years before about 31 years ago. The way I see it, I won't mind not existing for the rest of time.

Or is my "soul" getting "disintegrated" supposed to mean something more than ceasing to exist?

To reply specifically to you bam, there was an earth age before this one, where (hu)man wasn't in the flesh. We have all existed for a long long time. It was Satan's rebellion that led a third of God's children to follow him in the catabault(sic) or great flood or calamity etc... so God made every human soul to walk the earth in the flesh and to live once. And as the story goes, if you do what is right, you get to live on forever, without fear of pain or sorrow or death because that will all be done away with.

@Neil
/me shakes head

Please stop teaching that every one who has died is still rotting away in their graves waiting for Jesus to bring their corpses back to life. That is NOT Biblical. Read the story of Lazarus and the Rich man again, and again, and again, until you acknowledge that. There are two sides to heaven separated by an un-crossable chasm. Good people go to one side, bad people go to the other one. God is God of the Living. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who are still alive in heaven with God looking down now...).

Neil Roy

Who has gone to heaven?

John 3:13 (NIV)
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

Where are the dead when Jesus returns?

John 5:28-29 (NIV)
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”

Sorry Edgar, I'll believe what my Bible actually says, not the ideas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism. As for the Lazarus story, learn what a parable is.

Chris Katko

Back to the OP topic:

http://deadline.com/2017/06/real-time-bill-maher-maajid-nawaz-contribution-anti-muslim-extremist-1202119139/

BOO YAH. This is exactly what I'm talking about. One of the most prominent anti-jihadist leaders WAS A JIHADIST who went to jail for it. And now as he tries to help the world solve the jihadist problem, "well meaning liberals" and the "southern law poverty center" have now labeled him an "anti-Muslim extremist." And not only that, they're basically trying to have him killed by announcing to all Muslims that he's "anti-Muslim".

Quote:

Saying he was “sick and tired” of “well-meaning liberals,”

Quote:

“It’s funny,” Maher said, “you’re fighting extremists but they call you an extremist.”

Quote:

That’s not all they call him.

Nawaz is a self-described former Islamist who condemns what he calls the “Regressive Left” for ignoring the threat of global jihadism (he warns of right-wing populism too). On Real Time, he cited figures indicating that 23,000 jihadists live in Britain, as do, he estimated, three times as many Islamists, who Nawaz describes as ideologically committed to theocracy but who would not participate in violence.

Nawaz told Maher that being included on the SPLC’s list of anti-Muslim extremists endangers his life. “We know what happens when you list heretics,” Nawaz said. “They end up dead.”

Edgar Reynaldo
Neil Roy said:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

We ALL came from heaven, and that's where we go back when we die. If you'd read your bible (with understanding) you'd know about the three earth ages.

Neil Roy said:

Sorry Edgar, I'll believe what my Bible actually says, not the ideas and doctrines of Roman Catholicism. As for the Lazarus story, learn what a parable is.

Sometimes parables have more to do with reality than fiction. ;) And this is not Roman Catholic doctrine. It's straight out of the NRSV, KJV, you name it.

John 5:25-29 NRSV said:

25 “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Learn the difference between history and prophecy. This ALREADY happened, during the three days when Jesus was 'in the grave'. Guess what, he wasn't there, he was in heaven preaching to those who didn't have a chance to hear the gospel and accept the grace and teaching of Jesus Christ. He went to the prisoners on the bad side of the gulf and gave them the opportunity to repent. Those who believed went with Jesus to the good side of Heaven. Those who refused stayed where they were, in 'Sheol'. No one who has died is ever going to use their flesh body ever again. They're corrupt, rotten, and useless. Who would want to live in a decaying body century after century? Do you see that your belief is just bizarre? God is not some kind of zombie king who's gonna raise all the creatures who've ever been buried out of the ground and reassemble them. Their bodies have served their purpose, and are no more. Haven't you ever read about the corruptible flesh putting on the incorruptible spirit?

According to you, God is God of the dead. God is God of the Living. No one is permanently dead yet, and everyone who isn't living in the flesh is living in heaven (in various places...).

Neil Roy

I love how you quoted the verse I posted and made it look like I said that and left out the verse number. Very deceptive.

I have already proven my point. I won't play verse wars in here. I know what my Bible teaches. And I know about the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, and the heaven and hell doctrine is a lie. The hell doctrine is blasphemous and evil in the extreme. And the heaven doctrine, well, you cannot find a single verse that backs up going to heaven, all you have are vague, ambiguous parables.

You're not interested in the truth, and I am not interested in debating it. I already proved my point by quoting clear scripture. When you look into John 3, and the context in which Jesus meant, it becomes even more clear that no man has even seen heaven, let alone been there. Everyone you ever known, that has ever been, except Jesus, is dead. And is still dead. That is what your Bible says. Reject it if you will, I won't debate it with you. These are the facts. I have read the entire Bible, cover to cover, the KJV and the NIV as well as the NKJV and I guarantee I have studied it far more in depth than you have, you have proven that you haven't.

Bye!

LennyLen
Neil Roy said:

But there is sound logic I could go into

At the end of the day, if your proof is not demonstrable to others, your logic is irrelevant. From our perspective, there is no way to differentiate between you and a crazy person that sees things that don't exist.

No matter how much scripture you quote at us, that will never change.

Neil Roy said:

Who has gone to heaven?

I've died. Does that count?

Bruce Perry

I'll never forget that other thread (maybe it was even the one I linked above) where I asked both Neil and Edgar to share what drew them to Christianity, and Neil wrote some very compelling, heartwarming stories from his life, while Edgar ignored me for fear of ulterior motives.

Therefore, I declare Neil undisputed winner of the current fight. No other reason. ;)

Dizzy Egg
Neil Roy said:

You're not interested in the truth, and I am not interested in debating it

Genius x

Edgar Reynaldo
Neil Roy said:

I love how you quoted the verse I posted and made it look like I said that and left out the verse number. Very deceptive.

There was no deception intended nor asserted. All I did was quote the full part of the chapter that you did, albeit from NRSV, which is much more readable if you ask me.

Quote:

I have already proven my point. I won't play verse wars in here. I know what my Bible teaches. And I know about the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, and the heaven and hell doctrine is a lie. The hell doctrine is blasphemous and evil in the extreme. And the heaven doctrine, well, you cannot find a single verse that backs up going to heaven, all you have are vague, ambiguous parables

I've used specific clear verses to support myself. Nothing that you aren't saying you're doing. I don't know how you are turning this into some kind of Roman Catholic conspiracy, but you're way off base.

Neil Roy said:

You're not interested in the truth, and I am not interested in debating it.

You know that's not true, otherwise I wouldn't have spent all the time I have studying the Bible. And what it tells me is completely contrary to your crazy ass zombie creeper resurrection story. I studied for many years with a very educated, intelligent pastor who UNDERSTOOD his Bible, back and forth, Hebrew and Greek. RIP Pastor Arnold Murray.

The only one here who isn't interested in the truth is you Neil. I present evidence and you flat out ignore everything I say. Learn about the three earth ages, they're real, and they prove there are people in heaven right now, both those who have died, and those who are waiting to be born.

Neil Roy said:

I have read the entire Bible, cover to cover, the KJV and the NIV as well as the NKJV and I guarantee I have studied it far more in depth than you have, you have proven that you haven't.

You are rather quick to assume something you have no knowledge of. You're so sure in your beliefs that no one could ever dare challenge them, even if they (I) present clear biblical evidence to the contrary.

John 5:24 said:

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.

If those who believe are not dead, then why should they live in the ground with everyone who is (according to you)?

24 - It is a kind of hearing which awakens to life
...
25 - This verse continues to refer to spiritual awakening from the dead.

- His call to awake, in its widest and deepest sense;—by His own preaching, by His Apostles, His ministers, &c. &c. In all these He speaks to the spiritually dead.

- This determines the verse to be spoken of spiritual, not bodily awakening.

You should find yourself a Bible teacher who actually understands Hebrew and Greek, and who isn't transfixed on literal translations. You might actually learn something. ;)

I'll never forget that other thread (maybe it was even the one I linked above) where I asked both Neil and Edgar to share what drew them to Christianity, and Neil wrote some very compelling, heartwarming stories from his life, while Edgar ignored me for fear of ulterior motives.

Therefore, I declare Neil undisputed winner of the current fight. No other reason. ;)

You were baiting me, and you were just looking for a reason to pick apart my beliefs. Your interest in Christianity was dubious. You were insincere. I've already stated my reasons for believing what I do multiple times. Ask me a sincere question and you'll get a sincere answer. ;)

This is why Christianity gets such a bad reputation. Very few people today have actually studied their Bible enough or with an intelligent enough teacher so that they actually understand what it says. There's so much ignorance it's unbelievable.

Neil Roy
LennyLen said:

At the end of the day, if your proof is not demonstrable to others, your logic is irrelevant. From our perspective, there is no way to differentiate between you and a crazy person that sees things that don't exist.

I could say the same thing about things like evolutionism. There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab. But I won't call people crazy for believing in it.

I have an intelligently designed and intricately complex human body as proof. I do not believe that tornados in junkyards produce perfectly working computers. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. That's sound logic, not craziness.

Quote:

No matter how much scripture you quote at us, that will never change.

I never quote scripture to an unbeliever unless they comment about my beliefs first. Otherwise it is pointless isn't it?

As for your response "Edgar"... forget it. I won't play verse wars. Explain to me why John 3:13 says what it does. Show me clear Scripture to back up your assumptions about going to heaven or don't bother talking to me.

You attacked me, remember? I merely stated my beliefs which are based on what your Bible says.

When God wants you know something, He puts clear Scripture to explain it. He wanted us to know when His son died, so we are told the exact hour Jesus died at, 3pm. He did not want us knowing His birthday, so it doesn't say that (you won't find Christmas in your bible... or "Sunday" for that matter). He wants us to know murder is wrong, so it clearly states that. He wants us to know that hating people, Muslims, Atheists etc... is wrong, so He says that, with clear text that cannot be misunderstood. Yet there are absolutely no clear verses which say we go to heaven when we die, but there are clear verses which say we die and stay dead until Christ's return.

I usually ask this question, and never get a clear answer from Sunday "Christians" (I put that in quotes because they don't actually follow Christ at all).

Q) If we all are judged at the moment of death and are sent straight to heaven or hell, who is still in their graves that needs to be resurrected by Jesus when He returns? And who is judged on judgment day if we are all judged at the moment of death?

I await your answer to this, and your explanation of John 3:13. I have studied John 3 in context. The conversation started with a temple priest who believed in Jesus asking Jesus about being "born again". Jesus was surprised that he didn't understand this (showing this isn't a new doctrine from Jesus). Jesus told Nicodemus that if he cannot understand things in this life, which he has seen, than how could he ever understand things about heaven if Jesus were to tell him when no man has ever seen heaven. The context is even more damning to Roman Catholicism (and that is ALL Sunday keeping churches) as Jesus states that no man has even SEEN heaven, which means you don't go there in any form, be it spirit or physically or otherwise.

Now, can you answer the questions without playing verse wars... "Edgar"?

This is why Christianity gets such a bad reputation. Very few people today have actually studied their Bible enough or with an intelligent enough teacher so that they actually understand what it says. There's so much ignorance it's unbelievable.

Oh, and when you need someone else to tell you what clear Scripture says, than you're already off to a bad start. I don't need some man to tell me that John 3:13 doesn't mean what it says. JESUS Himself states that no man has gone to heaven, if you say they do, than guess who I will believe?! Hint: not you.

Edgar Reynaldo
Neil Roy said:

I await your answer to this, and your explanation of John 3:13. I have studied John 3 in context. The conversation started with a temple priest who believed in Jesus asking Jesus about being "born again". Jesus was surprised that he didn't understand this (showing this isn't a new doctrine from Jesus). Jesus told Nicodemus that if he cannot understand things in this life, which he has seen, than how could he ever understand things about heaven if Jesus were to tell him when no man has ever seen heaven. The context is even more damning to Roman Catholicism (and that is ALL Sunday keeping churches) as Jesus states that no man has even SEEN heaven, which means you don't go there in any form, be it spirit or physically or otherwise.

The ever so mis-translated verse "born again" is not what it says. It should say "born from above", as in you have to come from heaven to go there. Very simple stuff. The following verses make that very clear :

John 3:3-8 NRSV said:

3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

This is clear biblical proof that everyone came from heaven. And that no one can enter heaven without being from there.

Your favorite quote :

John 3:13 NRSV said:

13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

This following link explains it more clearly than I could.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/JOHN313.htm

There are many examples of people going to heaven when they die, such as Elijah, Paul, Lazarus, etc... Ignore the rest of the Bible if you like. And parables always had a parallel in real life. They are stories used to teach about actual things.

As for needing a teacher, I don't apologize for that. There are many mysteries in God's word, and they aren't all revealed upon simply reading your bible. You have to actually study the Hebrew and Greek and the context in which things occur. In fact it would be quite foolish to ignore the teaching of someone who knows more than me, such as my Pastor Murray. Jesus is a teacher, are you going to ignore Him too?

As for the rest of your 'points', please stop calling me a "Sunday Christian" and stop accusing me of spreading Roman Catholic doctrine. I don't appreciate it.

LennyLen
Neil Roy said:

I have an intelligently designed and intricately complex human body as proof.

If our bodies were designed, then they were designed by a bloody idiot.

edit: Your reply here is also the type of bad logic that theists constantly seem to exhibit. Your premise - that your body is intelligently designed, relies on the conclusion of your argument - that there is a god, being true. You're begging the question.

Quote:

There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab.

Human evolution can not, but evolution in bacteria has been demonstrated.

Niunio
Neil Roy said:

I could say the same thing about things like evolutionism. There is absolutely no proof and it cannot be demonstrated in a lab.

Two words:

  1. Mendel

  2. Dogs

You're welcome. ::)

LennyLen
Niunio said:

Mendel Dogs

To be honest, those are not examples of evolution. Both were deliberate tinkering of genetics.

Edit:

Thinking about it further, those are both examples of the opposite of evolution. Especially with dogs. Many of the traits deliberately bred into dog species by humans would have died out had they been born in the wild.

Niunio
LennyLen said:

To be honest, those are not examples of evolution. Both were deliberate tinkering of genetics.

He said it wasn't possible to demonstrate in a laboratory.

Mendel designed several experiments to study how living beings inheritance works, and it was essential to confirm evolution.

Dog breeding demonstrate how species evolve as they adapt to the environment. The fact those "environment" are imposed by human being is irrelevant as we're talking about "lab experiments". So dog breeding can be used as a long term (+10.000 years) experiment.

[edit]

Quote:

Many of the traits deliberately bred into dog species by humans would have died out had they been born in the wild.

But they haven't born in the wild but in human society. They're adapted to such environment. So it actually confirms it.

Also, the (discutible) fact they would have died out if they born in the willd also confirms evolution: they're not adapted to the environment so the species disapears, unless a change [mutation or hybridization] alowed they to be adapted to the new environment.

Neil Roy
LennyLen said:

Human evolution can not, but evolution in bacteria has been demonstrated.

No, that is only evidence of variation within a kind, and I don't argue against that. Without variation we would all look like clones and could not adapt to our climates etc. But variation within a kind is not evidence of one kind changing completely to another like the religion of evolutionism states.

What was the bacteria before it changed? Bacteria. What was it afterwards? Bacteria. What evolved? Nothing. Also, there is new evidence that bacteria does not mutate as has been stated. There is new evidence that it is just a change in numbers. The bacteria that was resistant to antibiotics already exists, only it's numbers were smaller. The healthier bacteria that were not resistant were more numerous and kept the damaged bacteria that were resistant in check... that is... until you take the anti-biotics and kill them all off.

This evidence comes from frozen bodies found in the north that were there for centuries. Bacteria was found on them that were resistant to modern medicine that didn't exist back when they died. But no matter what you believe, they have always been bacteria.

The same goes with Darwin's finches. They had a minute difference in beak size, which is evidence in variation within a kind. But they were still finches.
I could use the same argument for dogs. They started out dogs, they end up dogs. Excellent evidence of variation within a kind. But show me a dog that became a cat, or a bird? Species like dogs and cats cannot mate. Their DNA doesn't match at all.

No evidence what so ever that anything evolved.

By definition, evolutionism is a religion. You have no evidence you can test, you cannot repeat it so it is not scientific and it is not historical. The only thing one is left with is that it is religious, you have to believe in it without any proof what so ever. It also goes against known scientific principals of thermodynamics like entropy and energy conservation.

Believe me, I have studied this a lot. I used to believe in Evolution and the billion year old universe like the rest of you, until I started to look into the evidence and found none at all, in fact, you will find evidence to the contrary. Like the common idea that things evolved in water, even though water is known to break down proteins, not help them form. There's far too much to go into in one post. But I have clear evidence of design. My body.

Nobody would believe you if you told them that your computer came together as a result of a tornado in a junk yard right? Show me one single solid example of any complex design that came together randomly? It simply doesn't happen.

Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer that is more intelligent than the design and more powerful. This is a fact. I call this intelligence "God" though admittedly I do not know His name. It's just a label I apply in my limited intellect to identify this powerful intelligence.

Niunio
Neil Roy said:

(...) Darwin (...)

When will you evolution negationist understand that Darwin was wrong? It is known for more than 80 years ago. So please stop citing his hypothesis as if it was the current valid theory: it is not.

Quote:

They started out dogs, they end up dogs.

No, they didn't: They were wolfs forty thousand years ago and we don't know what they will be forty thousand years in the future.

Quote:

But show me a dog that became a cat, or a bird?

You're kidding, aren't you? Please, say you're kidding.

Ok, it is obvious you don't understand how evolution works, so I'll put a cite here:

Quote:

Modern species share a common ancestor, but are neither descended from each other nor from some crude composite chimera, and ducks are not descended from crocodiles.

Change "ducks" and "crocodiles" by "dogs" and "birds" or "cats" and profit.

Quote:

No evidence what so ever that anything evolved.

Fossils.

Quote:

You have no evidence you can test, you cannot repeat it so it is not scientific and it is not historical.

Mendel. Again. And he's just one of them.

Dizzy Egg

So now he has proof that God exists and denies evolution as fact.....it's 2017 man.....I feel bad for you.

Neil Roy
Niunio said:

No, they didn't: They were wolfs forty thousand years ago

Wolves are a member of the dog family. Nothing has changed. Also, were you around 40,000 years ago? Did you see them change? How do you know? Show me your scientific evidence, that is evidence I can examine, test and replicate. You don't have any. You have the religion of evolutionism.

Quote:

Fossils.

A fossil is evidence that something died. That's all you have. There is no date on a fossil. Do you know how they date fossils? By the layer they are found in. Do you know how they date the layers? By the fossils they find in them. Circular reasoning. The dates for those layers were all pulled out of thin air.

Did you know back in 2004 it was revealed that a T-Rex fossil was discovered with actual blood and tissue (that was still stretchy) inside of it? Do you think that could survive 1000 years, let alone millions?!

Fossils are only evidence something died. You see evolution, I see evidence of a global flood that wiped them out.

Dizzy Egg said:

So now he has proof that God exists and denies evolution as fact.....it's 2017 man.....I feel bad for you.

You behave like evolutionism is a new religion that somehow magically became fact, even though there is no evidence for it at all. It is a very old one. You expect me to believe the foolish ideas of men from the 1700s and act like it is now a fact when there is no more evidence to support it, and in fact, more evidence against it now than ever before.

Sorry, I know how to think for myself. I won't be brainwashed by stupid, unscientific nonsense of some religion of evolutionism. If you want to believe in that, hey, go for it, that is your right, but don't knock me because I believe in a different religion! Tolerance, remember?!

Chris Katko

So much for the original topic...

relpatseht

I think you're being a bit willfully ignorant here, Neil. Geological layers are only one of many means of dating a fossil (radioactive dating being the first thing that jumps to mind), and the age of the layers themselves is based on other data such as deposition rates and continent speeds. There is an entire web of evidence for these things, and they all support each other with internal consistency. To claim the evidence doesn't exist is to willfully shut your eyes.

Of course, internal consistency isn't proof. Evidence can never provide proof of anything. Science doesn't provide answers, only the most likely explanation given everything we know. As our knowledge changes, those explanations can (and do regularly) shift.

Anyway, while I do agree that it is impossible for science to disprove the existence of a god, I disagree strongly with the premise scientific evidence threatens the existence of a god. To do so is to imply gods domain is inexorably shrinking as our knowledge of the world grows. Perhaps evolution is just the answer to the "how", not the "who"/"what"? That said, atheism is a religion, plain as yours. I don't follow any religion.

Edgar Reynaldo

This ^

bamccaig

I cannot imagine the hoops you have to jump through to conclude that atheism is a religion. It quite clearly is not. It is disbelief in a supreme being or god. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else that individuals or groups choose to believe falls under a separate umbrella. By accepted standards for the definition of a religion, atheism does not come anywhere close to being a religion.

relpatseht

A religion is just a system of faith. Faith is just a belief held without evidence. To claim there cannot be a higher power without evidence is no different than to claim there must be with similar backing. They are both unscientific stances built on faith, as is any other assertion made in absolutes.

Johan Halmén
bamccaig said:

I cannot imagine the hoops you have to jump through to conclude that atheism is a religion. It quite clearly is not. It is disbelief in a supreme being or god. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some find their view of life in atheism, some in theism. To actually believe that the choice leads to a happy life or a sense of meaning in life is kind of a religion. There's nothing in science itself that claims that believing in it will lead to a meaningfull life, in the same sense that science tells you what happens if you combine water with potassium.

My impression is that theists tend to see all atheists as the kind that believes in science, the kind that put their faith in science. My impression is that some atheists are of this kind. But then there are simply those that leave all this faith thing totally out of it, they just see themselves and everything as a part of the universe, which has absolutely no purpose at all. The simple word "why" is a good divider. For some, "why" is about purpose, for some it's about cause and effect.

bamccaig

A religion is just a system of faith. Faith is just a belief held without evidence. To claim there cannot be a higher power without evidence is no different than to claim there must be with similar backing. They are both unscientific stances built on faith, as is any other assertion made in absolutes.

You don't have to claim that there cannot be a higher power to be an atheist. You simply don't believe one exists for whatever reason. There's nothing "unscientific" about disbelieving in something for which there is no evidence. It also have nothing to do with faith. If evidence were found for such a being I would change my mind.

I also don't believe in Santa Claus, trolls that live under bridges, fire breathing dragons, or other fictional beings. That doesn't mean I have thousands of religions (or that you do, since I trust most of you don't believe in these things either). Likewise, if sufficient evidence for any of these things were found I would change my beliefs to include them.

Some find their view of life in atheism, some in theism. To actually believe that the choice leads to a happy life or a sense of meaning in life is kind of a religion.

I don't think I've ever encountered an atheist that believed that their lack of belief in a being gave their life meaning or made them happy. Atheism is a lack of something. It's nothing. You can count 1, 2, or 3 apples. You cannot count zero apples. There's nothing to count. You just know there is not an apple.

It would be like asserting that people that don't believe in homeopathic treatments believe that not taking them is curative (that is, above and beyond not doing harm, it actually has a benefit over the natural state, as if to say that isn't the natural state already). Doing nothing doesn't magically do something. Atheism is our natural state. All babies are born with no belief in deities. It wouldn't even require a word or definition if theism didn't exist.

My impression is that theists tend to see all atheists as the kind that believes in science, the kind that put their faith in science. My impression is that some atheists are of this kind.

Anybody that regards science as a faith-based belief system needs a different word to describe their belief than atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in god. It cannot represent a belief in something. It doesn't even specifically reference science. One could disbelieve gods on entirely arbitrary grounds and still be an atheist. For example, newborn babies are atheists not because they trust science, but because they are incapable of even comprehending the notion.

Neil Roy

I think you're being a bit willfully ignorant here, Neil. Geological layers are only one of many means of dating a fossil (radioactive dating being the first thing that jumps to mind), and the age of the layers themselves is based on other data such as deposition rates and continent speeds.

Nope. Back in the 1700s they made up dates and ages for the layers out of thin air. It wasn't based on any solid scientific data, but only what they thought. There isn't a scientist around that relies on any other dating method but the layers. As for "radioactive" dating, there's no such thing. And you call me ignorant. Funny. But the various dating methods you probably mean, but are yourself ignorant of how they work are horribly flawed and filled with unproven assumptions. Carbon dating, potassium argon dating and the like, are all based on assumptions which have proven to be false. They always give dates that are all over the place and there isn't a geologist or paleontologist that relies on them.

Here's a quote from an archaeologist...

"I've used carbon-14 dating. Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they've already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, 'Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.' But if it doesn't agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that's the end of it. It's only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions." - David Down, Archaeologist.

You need to do some research of your own as to how they do these things. None of the dating methods work, none. For example, if you do not tell the labs how old you think your sample is, they will not "date" it. Because they're testing doesn't give exact dates, it gives dates all over the place and they try and match the date YOU give them. That's a fact, go find a lab and fill out their online form, you will be asked for a date.

bamccaig said:

I cannot imagine the hoops you have to jump through to conclude that atheism is a religion.

And yet, the courts declared atheism is a religion. A religion by definition is a belief something is true without any empirical scientific or historical evidence to back it up. Evolutionism then by definition, is a religion. You have to believe in it without any proof. Like it or not, tough, this is the fact of the matter.

Anyhow, this has gone wayyyy off topic. I'm going to leave this conversation as my point has been made and endless debates with people who only know how to mock is not my thing. Enjoy.

relpatseht

My mistake, the correct term is radiometric dating, which, while very imprecise, is rather accurate within the span of time it can be applied (which is based on the half life of the material in question). A labratory will need a base guess for the date in order to determine which method of radiometric dating is most applicable to the sample. That initial guess will be based on other metrics, and the results in turn will be used to make further guesses.
Again, there isn't a true or false here, only internal consistency. No one measure, taken in isolation, is of much value at all. When all measures are internally consistent, the result is added to a list of assumptions, upon which other assumptions can be built. If evidence is added which is internally consistent with the major body of other findings, but rules out a particular assumption, that assumption is discarded.

All that said, I couldn't find any credentials or even a published paper for your source, so I cannot take it as valuable information (unless some is provided).

Polybios

Easy: You google parts of the quote and what first comes up is a website creation.com. Do you need to read any further? Probably not.

It's the age of the Internet. Anyone with enough time and/or money can make a website and put "the truth" out there. Nobody consuming these "truths" is forced to check his beliefs if he doesn't want to.

Look, I once ran into people who told me they need to "twist" water before they drink it. Because that would align the "hexagonal structures". They couldn't tell me more. But they were very certain it would "revitalize" the water. You can find quite some websites who will offer you expensive equipment, in fact ordinary mixers, to do the job. The interesting thing is you can even find a scientist from an American university whose research seems to back such claims. In fact, you can probably find one or two scientists for everything, especially with some money on your hands.
But in order to judge this, you need to "integrate" so to speak, and one outlier doesn't interest you. >:(

An experiment: Take creation.com or comparable websites and recursively follow all links up to some N connections. Now let one group read all these sites. Then compare attitudes to creation with a control group. You can do the same with some jihadi websites. :P

relpatseht
Polybios said:

Easy: You google parts of the quote and what first comes up is a website creation.com. Do you need to read any further?

You shouldn't discount someones testimony because it doesn't align with your model of the world. Doing the extra research is necessary if you want to be taken seriously.

Polybios

Easy: It's a website explicitly promoting creationist views. No reliable source. Commercials, advertising and propaganda are no credible sources.

Ok, I've taken an extra 30 seconds to google "David Down". Three pages of "creation ... something". Does he exist at all outside these pages? I don't know. I don't care. Research done. Hardly took me a minute. Not credible.

Neil Roy

All that said, I couldn't find any credentials or even a published paper for your source, so I cannot take it as valuable information (unless some is provided).

I doubt that would make a difference in your response.

I had some more things I wished to talk about but, I think I will leave this instead.

Nothing I say or prove will make a difference in these forums.
It's a waste of my time.

In the end, I have proven to myself that what I believe to be absolute fact. And I am the only person I need to convince in this world.

Believe what you wish.

Chris Katko

Whatever you opinion is, you gotta admit: I make the best forum threads, folks! ;D

Bruce Perry

You were baiting me, and you were just looking for a reason to pick apart my beliefs.

Sorry if you felt that way - shame you didn't tell me at the time.

You seem very sure of it - can you demonstrate it by identifying the point where I "looked for a reason to pick apart" Neil's beliefs, since Neil did reply?

Quote:

I've already stated my reasons for believing what I do multiple times.

Then direct me to one of those posts?

[EDIT]
Yes, I do sometimes challenge you or troll you - but it's when you force your religion on others, or in this thread when your fight seemed so below the belt. I hope I won't ever do that if you merely explain what it means for you.

Neil Roy
Polybios said:

Ok, I've taken an extra 30 seconds to google "David Down". Three pages of "creation ... something". Does he exist at all outside these pages? I don't know. I don't care. Research done. Hardly took me a minute. Not credible.

You didn't search very long, took me a few seconds to find his published books.

David Down is an archaeologist who happens to believe in creation. He's as qualified to comment as any other archaeologist with the same credentials. It didn't take much searching to find books he authors on the subject. I don't feel his personal beliefs disqualifies him from commenting. He certainly has more of a right to comment on archaeology than anyone in here.

You can find a few of his books on Amazon here. But I am sure you will have some other negative comment because his religion doesn't match your religion therefore anything he says is suddenly not credible.

https://www.amazon.com/David-Down/e/B003QRSW6S

I didn't wish to comment further in this thread, but I do feel I needed to backup my quote that the man is real, he's plenty qualified to comment and a published author.

relpatseht

Yes, I saw the books, but a book holds no weight on a person's expertise in their field. Anyone can publish a book saying anything they'd like, but it does not make them any more credible as a source. Books, unlike papers published in scientific journals, are not subject to peer review, meaning there is nothing enforcing internal consistency with the larger body of scientific reasoning.

Polybios

I can't find his CV (apart from sparse info on... creationist websites). Anyone can publish books. Besides, lots of people have degrees of some sort, that doesn't automatically make them authorities in their field (we don't even know whether he has some degree).

Not to get distracted by discussing the man's authority, though. I have no issue whatsoever with the guy. Being an archaeologist doesn't protect you from being a creationist.

The important thing is: If you want reliable information about radiometric dating you don't turn to a creationist website. If you want reliable information about the western way of life, you don't go to North-Corean schools. If you want reliable information about Burger King, you don't ask McDonald's press department. See what I mean?
If you have someone outside creationist circles backing up your claim on radiometric dating, you might have an argument. Otherwise, you're most certainly just ruminating propaganda. Which is pretty boring.

Johan Halmén

video

Edgar Reynaldo

@Bruce
I'll respond to your comments later. First things first.

@Neil

Radiometric dating is science. It's proven. Read a textbook please. ;)

A half life is the time it takes for a given quantity of radio-active material to decay into its next most natural components. That means the quantity left at any given time is (1/2)^N where N is the number of half lives it's gone through.

For an example say we have 10 grams of NeilRoynium and it has a half life of 50 years. T is the amount of time passed (in Years). If we wait 50 years, there will be 5 grams of NR left. Likewise, 100 years, (1/2)(1/2) = 1/4 of 10 grams, which is 2.5 grams. If we know that NR decomposes into something simpler like Potassium, and we find 8.75 grams of potassium alongside 1.25 grams of NR, then we can work backwards to find out how old NR is. If we know that NR = (1/2)^(T/50) and that K = 1 - NR Then K = 1 - [ (1/2)^(T/50) ] and we can solve for T which is the time elapsed since the material started to decay. The formula works out to T = 50*(log_2_[1/(1-K)]). If you do the math, it's 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

These are real geological processes, and there is real science behind them. It's not about faith anymore, it's about empirical evidence. If your faith can't handle science, then I'm afraid you're going to have a hard life.

And no, the Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old. >:(

Chris Katko

That's something I've never understood about conservative Christians.

Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6,000 years old? It doesn't. So how are people getting this crap? (Fun fact: The Trinity also isn't actually mentioned anywhere.)

And science has almost nothing to do with religion. They're orthogonal studies. Science is the study of HOW. Religion is the study of WHY.

And evolution (adaption), firstly is not the same as abiogenesis (we came from one-celled mud). Evolution = dogs, and why flu shots have to change every year. Animals with less successful random DNA mutations are ever-so-slightly more likely to die and less likely to reproduce, and ones with more successful random DNA mutations are ever-so-slightly likely to not die, and reproduce. It's not rocket science. You can watch it happen with a simple microscope.

Watch it happen: Bacteria spreads, dies from a low level antibiotic, and then eventually adapts (=bacteria keep reproducing with slight mutations until eventually one mutation can survive in it) and then they hit the next higher concentration of antibiotic and so on.

video

Lastly, abiogenesis, still isn't really a threat. Because since God is all powerful, he can bring about his world however he wants and he is NOT under any obligation to pick a convenient-to-understand method.

Also, the Genesis story actually lines up pretty damn well with our current understanding of the universe. Remember "God created the universe in 7 days."? First off, days could mean "units of time" not "24 days before the sun even existed." Secondly, days can still mean days but there's no need for those days to be RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. It could be seven DISTINCT days, millions of years apart. And the Genesis story COULD also still line up with the Big Bang Theory. "God created light = boom."

The list goes on.

Johan Halmén

Chris, that's trying to twist the Bible text into something that resembles a scientific truth. And actually there's nohing wrong with that. It is kind of poetry, find new interpretations. The books of the Bible were never written in the way science is written today. That idea just didn't exist at the time it was written. Just because the Bible tells the genesis of Earth, it doesn't mean it should today be read like scientific reports are read today. Everyone, even the most "fundamental" Christian, have to admit they contradict each other, if you read the Bible literally. The Bible contradicts even itself. When scientific reports contradict each other, either one is wrong and has to be corrected. When the Bible contradicts itself, it's poetry.

Neil Roy

<deleted> read the edit history.

Johan Halmén

So are we gonna talk about London? :(

Polybios

Sigh... Of course I don't watch a 70 min video if I'm sure it's just boring propaganda. No one in his right mind and with limited time would do this.
You're having a strain of bad luck with your "scientists". If we search for this man, we can't find a page of a university or research institution where he works but rather some accounts about how he only misrepresents himself as a "doctor". He's also mentioned as a "pastor, explorer, and adventurer".
This is getting boring... Can't you at least find one man whose credibility survives a google search? Come on.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

<deleted> read the edit history.

Not to be a dickhead, but such things are against the rules. Post history is not a mechanism for you to say what you want without us being able to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it then don't say it, and if you redact it then don't draw attention to it. I believe even referencing the contents of history is technically against the rules as ML announced them when he introduced post history.

Niunio

So much for the original topic...

My fault. Today I'm wondering why I was discussing.

So are we gonna talk about London?

I never visited London. I will someday.

Edgar Reynaldo

The Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6000 years old. It says this Earth age was created at that time. An age is a specific period of time, not its entirety.

II Peter 3 talks exactly about this.

The Promise of the Lord’s Coming

3 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you 2 that you should remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles. 3 First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” 5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.

11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? 13 But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.

Final Exhortation and Doxology

14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

That passage clearly shows there are three Earth and Heaven ages. It is supported by the rest of the Bible. I'm tired of discussing things people have no knowledge of.

bamccaig

Those passages sure as Hell (heh) make Heaven appear to be some place on Earth. Probably somewhere common folk cannot get to, like a palace or something. It would be amusing if this entire thing was written about men as gods and every time it is said that a person talked to god or talked to angels it was actually a king or one of his servants sending a message or something.

Fast-forward 2000 years and millions of people talk to themselves, imaging some omnipotent being in a mysterious magical land outside of this universe, believing in it with all of their being, all because ancient people wrote highly of their wealthy and powerful rulers. Could it be?! :D

Niunio
bamccaig said:

Could it be?!

Are you talking about ancient Egypt and Greece? ::)

Dizzy Egg

@bamccaig ;D

Neil Roy
Quote:

Not to be a , but such things are against the rules.

Well, until there is a way to delete a message, I have no choice but to replace what I posted with something else. But I didn't want to hide the fact that I posted something, just make it obvious I am getting out of this thread.

From now on I will avoid religious threads like the plague. Everyone's views are too hard coded to make it worth while discussing. Especially when people always seem to resort to insults and belittling people for their views.

I'll leave this with what I told my atheist father, "We'll all find out the truth in the end. If I'm wrong, I would have lived my life being the best man I know how and will never know otherwise. But if I am right..."

Have a good one. No hard feelings. I'll just stick to programming and humour in these forums I think.

Besides, this is supposed to be about London. ;)

Edgar Reynaldo

Protip : Use <spoiler></spoiler> tags.

Chris Katko

ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!!

Niunio

Are spoilers indexed by web search engines?

ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!!

I think that was gross. >:(

Neil Roy

Good idea... something more yummy. ;)

{"name":"610954","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/4\/2464f08ccc3340cfc42cf2f7d09c917f.jpg","w":1280,"h":720,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/4\/2464f08ccc3340cfc42cf2f7d09c917f"}610954
I hear it's also full of nuts.

bamccaig

I laughed. >:(

Chris Katko

Some people say I've got an explosive personality.

Thread #616933. Printed from Allegro.cc