Try not to get in a flap kiddo. You've already been told that the mystical basis of religious doctrines are fundamentally flawed in their suggestion of higher powers because they invite violent exploitation from human nature. The religions are wrong, as proven by the people who follow them. They keep the meek weak and give the aggressive a reason to run amok. Or maybe that is within God's great plan? Ha ha - a debate for another day perhaps.

I'm guessing you're not well up on your Freud, so you won't know he thought females were deformed males - and I guess comedy isn't your strong point either.

Tell you what, here is my proof that there is no God:-

\/(21) x 76t/92832.23 (52/32+a+d)
(x=y2 b12.09023) x 2323.23t |z| = ea1.999 + x dx/x+b - tan(x)
sin(232) = cos(23.5ea) x rnd3 [a+23b] + \/(16-a2)
n(6) x 23.2 [te3], 232.23/23(a+d-e) = 663.6 |abd(2)| (+ rnd3)

You're so uncool.

:cool:

YOU'VE already been told that the actions of people only prove that people are the problem. The actions are wrong, even the religions they claim to follow say so.

Now that I have disproved the existence of God, everything else seems rather irrelevant.

a) you haven't disproved the existance of god. b) it doesn't change the fact that people are responsible for their own actions.


But if you'd like to end the discussion, that's fine. But don't do so under the assumption that you have proven yourself right by any means. Religion (not a particular organization, not The Church, but the religion its self) is not responsible for people committing acts that are against its rules. Period. Religion (again, not a particular organization, not The Church, but religion) is not bad. You've made arguments based entirely on organizations, the actions of people claiminng a particular religion, but none on the religion its self except that people don't need religion (the people who need it seem to think so), and that God doesn't exist (which ignores the religions that don't follow the Judeo-Christian/Islam idea of "God"/"Allah"), neither of which you have proven (a joke equation is not a proof). Despite all your claims and references (but not uses of) logic and science, and your references to 'non-bias' people who would totally be on your side except they've been strangly absent from the thread, you have not given a CREDIBLE bit of argument to back up what you've said. All you've given is your opinion, touted like it was fact.

But, yeah, if you want to just end this here, sure.

The actions of people only prove that people are the problem... and who do you think defines the religions the people worship? I think it might be people.

And my equation is no joke - it is irrefutable proof.

And we've gotten to twisting peoples words around.

And if your equation is such irrefutable proof, then explain it to us lowly non-math-geniuses

These are your words, I haven't twisted them around - merely used them against you.

The equation is already explained in its simplest form.

Yes you have because you knew full well what I meant by what I said. The people that are committing the atrocities are the problem. The people that defined the religions seemed to think that killing was wrong, seeing as how it's one of the core tenets of all the major religions.


and no, the equation is not explained in any form. If you leave the equation as is with no explanation, it will be ignored. Do not try to use it as part of your argument again unless you plan on explaining it.

Some rather dubious instructions from Islam, apparently the world's fastest growing religion:-

"O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing" (Sura al-Tawba 9:123).

"Fight against those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger, have forbidden - such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled" (Sura al-Tawba 9:29).

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (Sura Al Ma idah 5:33).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (Sura AL-BAQARA 2:16) The Quran

>eek!< And from The Bible, representing the biggest religion in the world today:-

"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, as a long hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times." (Proverbs 5:18-19)

"Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine and the fragrance of your breath like apples." (Song of Solomon 7:7-8)

Cor! Grabbing a woman's breastses!

"Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, 'Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' And David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, and said, 'I am pregnant.'" (2 Samuel 11:1-5 )

"There were two women, the daughters of one mother; and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed, and there their virgin bosom was handled.... she lusted after her lovers... and she bestowed her harlotries on them, all of whom were the choicest men of Assyria.... for in her youth men had lain with her, and they handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust on her.... And she lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (Ezekiel 23:1-20)

Rape and prositution?

"And it came about after these events that his master's wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, 'Lie with me.' But he refused.... And she caught him by his garment, saying, 'Lie with me!' And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside. When she saw he had left his garment in her hand and had fled outside, she called to the men of her household, and said to them, 'See, he has brought in a Hebrew to us to make sport of us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I screamed, And it came about when he heard that I raised my voice and screamed, that he left his garment beside me and fled, and went outside.'" (Genesis 39:7-15)

Attempted infidelity, and subsequent accusing of rape?

"And Lot went up to Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him.... Then the firstborn said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.' So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And it came about on the morrow, that the first-born said to the younger, 'Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.' So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father." (Genesis 19:30-36)

Incest... after first drugging the father.

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with a man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like...'" (Genesis 19:4-8)

A city of homosexual men... bent on raping. Too bad they had to make do with two virgin daughters.

Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off (Leviticus 20:2-5). If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed (Leviticus 20:12). Homosexuals must be executed (Leviticus 20:13). People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27). A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death (Leviticus 21:9). Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you (Leviticus 23:29-30). "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse (Exodus 22:18). "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed (Exodus 22:20). The purification of the unclean. These absurd rituals, cruel sacrifices, and unjust punishments are vitally important to God. He even insists that they are to be "a perpetual statute" to all humankind (Numbers 19:1-22). God gives more instructions for the ritualistic killing of animals. The smell of burning flesh is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Numbers 15:3, 13-14, 24). After God killed Korah, his family, and 250 innocent bystanders, the people complained saying, "ye have killed the people of the Lord." So God, who doesn't take kindly to criticism, sends a plague on the people. And "they that died in the plague were 14,700." (Numbers 16:41-50). God repeats his order (see 1:51) to kill any strangers who happen to come near (Numbers 3:10).

The two biggest Religions on the planet are based upon these texts. It is not difficult to see they are conveyors of bad ideas, and that their 'good' principles are borne from savagery and exploitation. The Bible is little different to the script of Cannibal Holocaust.

My equation is complex and watertight, and cannot be reduced down any further to suit other needs. If you do not accept it that is fine, nothing has changed apart from this proof of no God - and it is perhaps fitting that such proof be conveniently impenetrable by blinded believers.

if we're gonna turn this into a "Look what the bible tells people to do! EVIL! EVIL!" thread, then allow me to quote my favorite passage:

Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. Leviticus 19:26


Damn those clocks. Work of the devil, I tells ya. There are many passages in the bible/koran that are open to interpritation. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" seems pretty straightforward. And I don't recall the Catholic priests fucking children in the name of the lord.

The apostolic succession doctrine makes valid ordinations and institutional affiliation the prime concern in clerical status. As long as the officiant has been validly ordained, his personal sins do not affect the validity of the baptisms, absolutions or masses he administers.

Which is not to say Catholic priest abusers attack children in the name of The Lord, but they do enjoy some of the benefits that go with the position. They have been having sex with young boys correctly understanding - through Catholic doctrines - that their work for The Lord remains unaffected.

Traditional Catholics have also charged the Second Vatican Council with fostering a climate that encourages priests to abuse children (Time Magazine, January 2003).

Hehe, yeah.
SVC: Damnit, priest man, stop beating off?
Priest man: Then what am I supposed to do?
SVC: I dunno, fuck children for all I care, just stop beating off!
:p

These are the things that I'm gleaning from your last statement:

1. You obliviously don't believe in orgasms either, considering that you've probably never had one.
2. ...And let's just lay it on the table here... You're upset that I'm infinitely more educated, smarter, and more articulate than you are. What makes this even more difficult for you to swallow is the fact that I am a woman.
3. You are a violating asshole. I did not invite you nor made any references or jokes of my own regarding my womanhood, and thus you have no cause to do so either.

I realize that you're trying to piss me off, because that is what people who try to argue with no basis in fact do when they are threatened by the more intelligent members of the conversations. However, that comment went way too far. Way too far. I'd love to threaten you with, "You'd better not ever say something like that to me again," but I realize that this is an internet forum.

By the way, those people who claim that the Second Vatican Council supported the abuse of young boys or advocated it are idiots of the worst kind. The Second Vatican Council convened to discuss world poverty and the digeneration of compassion and kindness. They tried to set about plans for the Catholic Church to reach out to the world in charity. They addressed the ideas behind what is known as "Liberation Theology." Also, there were others present at the Council besides the "inner circle" of the papacy. John Paul was Pope at the time, and he was one of the best Popes the world had seen in centuries. His predecessor, John Paul II tried to follow in his foot steps. (However his predecessor is a schmuck).

Pope John Paul only managed a 33-day papacy in 1978, and only participated in Second Vatican Council sessions as a Bishop - he was not Pope during the three year Vatican II. Pope at the time was John XXIII, and the Vatican II was closed in 1965 under Paul VI. Whatever else the Vatican II set out to do, it also stands accused of inaction over child abuse (D Vincent Twomey, SVD professor of moral theology, St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and author of The End of Irish Catholicism?).

Successor to John Paul (who renewed birth control bans in spite of a Chruch commission's recommendation for change), John Paul II, was a reactionary who wanted to turn back the clock on modern reality. His highly conservative theology prohibited female ordination, birth control and abortion, and he branded overpopulation a myth. In 2003 he told countries stricken by AIDS not to use condoms because they are riddled with tiny holes through which HIV can pass. The Vatican made these claims across four continents. Despite The World Health Organisation reassurance than condoms are impermeable to HIV, the Vatican continued its claims.

But I agree you are an infinitely more eductated, smarter and articulate(d) woman than I am, if it makes you happy.


:)

actually, I think that's true, the pores in condoms are twice the size of the HIV virus cells

not saying don't use them, of course, but the holes thing I've heard before

The NIH confirmed in 2001 condoms reduce the risk of HIV transference by approximately 85% - other studies (source unspecified, but backed up by the WHO) have shown that the proper and consistent use of condoms prevented HIV from spreading from an infected partner to a non-infected partner in every case.

Mike Roland of Rubber Chemistry and Technology claims the 0.1 micron size of an HIV virus can pass through the 5.0 micron holes in latex rubber. However these tests were made on rubber gloves. The US Public Health Service confirms condoms are manufactured to much higher standards than gloves, with at least double the amount of latex protection applied. If 4 out of 1000 condoms fail the leak test, the whole batch is rejected; the standard for gloves is 40 out of 1000. A study of latex condoms by the National Institutes of Health using an electron microscope found no holes at a magnification of 2000 X.

The Vatican recently attempted to exploit the apparent uncertainty of AIDS prevention in every single case by announcing to millions of followers that condoms do not prevent HIV, and not to use them.

well, nobody ever accused the Vatican of not being assholes

Yeah, I hear Pete Townsend's been doing research in this area for years

Sorry, got my Papal sucession wrong. It has been a while since I studied that particular area, and Catholic history was never my bag, nor any part of Christianity for that matter.

I still maintain, however, that once you start taking pot shots at people in the discussion, then you've exposed two things about yourself:

1. You're a jackass
2. You don't have the ability to discuss anything with any sort of intelligence. Sure you may have facts stored in your bean, but that doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else.

No where in this discussion has anyone made a comment to you concerning your genitalia and it's inability or ability to produce your focus. Nobody has discussed it's size or it's formation.

You owe me a sincere apology, godamnit, and I'm not goint to respect anything you say whatever until I get one. Up until now, it's been an interesting debate, but you've crossed the line.

You have no concern and no consideration. Your only desire is to be "right," and on a few points you have made some sense. However, you have been pulling a lot of information out of no where.

So, when you (A). Assert opinions instead of facts, then you don't have a good argument (B). Make despicable comments to people within the discussion in order to make yourself seem more astonishing than you really are, you have no business trying to have a reasonable and intellectual discussion with anyone except maybe yourself or your pets.

I'm sorry for joking that you had a funny willy.

Friends?

:) :) :)

Accepted. Carry on.:)

hmph @ my awsm The Who joke getting no-sold :mad:

Are you calling Pete Townsend a man-whore? Surely not!:D

intense debate, i like it i like it... religion won't be the downfall of society; "organized" religion will be the culprit.

Maybe not Pete Townsend. Definately Roger Daltry, though.

I hate to cut you off, S, but I have to bring this to the table. I think it will fit in with both yours, S, and yours, Pr3ssur3. I want to talk about what I like to call "the false prophets" or "snake oil salesmen" of religions/spiritualities. For this particular rant, I'd like to bitch about one in particular: Billy Graham and his fucked up ministries.

Every now and again I read his messed up collums in the paper, and I get this disturbed disgusted feeling in the pit of my stomach. The reason is that thousands, maybe over a hundred thousand people hang on every word that joker and his flunkies say.

Pr3ssur3, I know how you feel about religion in general, particularly the Christian religion, and S, you affirm that religion cannot be blamed for the people who abuse it. In this case, you're both right. The Billy Graham Ministry has created a terrible paradox.

Okay...

Yesterday I read his collum in which he was giving advice to a woman. Her problem was that her husband was spending more time with leisurely activities amongst his buddies and in front of the television than with her. Mr Graham, probably his fanatical son, Franklin, told the woman that she should consider her own selfishness. He asserted that perhaps that she should figure out what she was doing wrong instead of addressing the husband's complete lack of attentiveness within the marriage.

Today, he preached the complete infallilibility of the Bible. His assertion was that "Who would want to manipulate the word of "God." He also claimed that everything in the Bible was absolutely true, because the Bible says that everything is absolutely true.

I really want to know where this fucker got his seminary degree and where he was educated. I'm assuming that it was on another planet. Some one that stupid should not be trying to educate anyone on anything especially trying to shape their spiritual lives. No one has the answers, especially not these jackasses.

I'm not afraid of them, because they are entirely too stupid to do anything momental. I realize that the Inquisition was pretty fucking stupid too, but the Billy Graham Gang are stupid in a different way.

Thoughts? (Let's keep it too the topic at hand, Pr3ssur3, as in, not all religions, but religious idiots).

Only you.

As a practicing empiricalist who has proved there is no God (argue if you will, prove otherwise) I would assert that since therefore The Bible has no relevance other than as a work of distorted facts and pure fiction then his comments regarding it are entirely wrong.

Therefore if Billy Graham is basing his advice on such a tome, his thoughts on this subject are completely redundant.

Speaking from the point of view of common sense, I would say he sounds chauvinistic for males while hiding behind religion.

I would also say there are tendencies - including within this thread - to refer to academic qualifications or alleged lack of them to pontificate or denounce thought. Remember that degrees and PHDs might indicate competent understanding of a particular subject, but they are not exhaustive and can sterilise and bottleneck ideas as the current curriculum sees fit.

That was very interesting to watch, but very scary to think these people are getting away with such things. You have made me very curious and i think i will be looking into scientology a little bit more. Not with a view to joining I hasten to add. Thanks

That is pretty scary to see not only what they're capable of, but more importantly, some of the things they get away with.

Concerning the religious discussion...



There's no proof that God exist or not, simply as that. In my opinion as 'stupid' as it sounds, it's a bit more rational that one does. That's another discussion that I'd rather not get into because as it's been pointed out already it has no other ending than, ''you prove it''...''no, you prove it.'' petty bullshit.

Also..

Saying that someone is stupid and/or inferior for their religious beliefs makes you no better than those who claim others are stupid and/or inferior for not having such beliefs.

Now that that's out of the way...

You can't blame a religion for the actions of what a portion of the people involved exploit it for. You also don't have any evidence to make the argument that you actually can blame religion for such actions and that it's different from people using violent movies as scapegoats. The reason you say it's different is because...

"religion has far wider and more devastating consequences than ideas that might be sparked through watching a violent film, and that the unnecessity of religion to be able to practice positive living makes religion, to use the phrase again, more bother than it is worth.

So what you're saying is since religion is a more popular scapegoat than film it's ok to throw the blame of the people who exploit it on religion. It's true that it is far wider but that still doesn't make it the religion's fault, the mosque didn't fly planes into the WTC, the Bible didn't molest any alter boys...people did those things not the religion itself. It's the same with film, music, video games ect. Whether it's a smaller scale or not is irrelevant. Just like I said a Bible or mosque has never hurt anybody, well neither has American Psycho, Marilyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto but they are constantly blamed instead of the actual people committing these actions just like you're blaming religion for the actions of the people who committed them.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

^^^^^^^^Austin's longest post EVER^^^^^^^^

WOO HOO...*celebrates*...:p

But, seriously...To break away from this momentous occasion for a second...

Scientology is not REALLY a religion...It's more of a philosophy *cough cult cough*...Its founder is simply a scheming con artist trying to make a fast easy buck...There is no deity or higher power (Aliens would not count, as they would be considered organic, just like US, Even if they are supposed to be of a higher intellect than us, that would NOT make them a 'higher power'...IF they existed)...How can ANYONE believe that a science fiction writer, charged with fraud and embezzlement, running from the law, could truly be a 'spiritual leader'?...And how could they not see that his 'enlightment' and drive, as well as his sole purpose, are fueled by the pursuit of wealth...Nothing but GREED?

~A sucker is born every minute~P.T. Barnum



However...About your comments concerning religion in general...I agree 100%

Au contraire Austin, I have provided proof that God does not exist. No proof to the contrary has been forthcoming. With the stalemate broken, there are of course no petty arguments.

It might be idealistic that one could exist, but not rational.

Remember that the people craft the doctrines, the people preach the values, and the people worship their Gods - with only blind faith to proffer, religion is the people, and all involved are a part of the very concept, whether they perceive themselves as 'good' or 'bad' (of course the millions of 'bad' do not religiously consider themselves as so, which demonstrates one of the awesome flaws within the practice).

That religious destruction occurs on a much larger scale than film or computer game violence is hardly irrelevant. History has taught us that the vast majority of crimes against humanity have been committed in its name - two of the current most popular offenders being Osama Bin Laden and George Bush, who together have the blood of thousands on their hands in pursuit of their Missions From God. Reactions to cinema or computer entertainment have a miniscule impact on the planet by comparison.

Religion is not a scapegoat - it's two biggest representatives are fundementally defective theologies which will encourage the deaths of millions over the next few centuries, and all its subscribers are however nonchalantly doing their bit to keep the fear and repression that is required alive and kicking.

Au contraire PR3SSUR3, you have no proof that God doesn't exist.

That's your opinion, I think it's rational.



-The religion-(Islam) Clearly says Do Not Kill.

-The people-(Al Qaeda) killed people.

Looks like the flaw isn't in the religion, but with the people.



It's irrelevant when used to say the two can't be compared. It's true that it's a larger scale than film, but film can still be used as an example.

Austin... I'm going to write a song about you. Give me some time to come up with the lyrics.:D

Anyway... I think that your counter points were very sound.

Not to rip into you Pr3ssur3, but I do think that your equation was made up. You still haven't given us the source of that equation, nor how the results disprove that there is no deity of any kind.

I wanted to be a smart-ass and say, "Yes, Pr3ssur3, your right. You've proven there is no God, per se. Now we know there is no "God" only the Goddess. However that would be not only rude, but counter productive as well. :D

The Islamic interpretation of the sixth Commandment is ominous: "And do not kill anybody that Allah has prohibited except when you have a right to kill" (6:151), "....anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or
horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people" (5:32), "You shall not take life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law" (6:151-153).

In their Holy War, Islamic extremists are - in their minds - rightfully killing as they seek justice against their enemies. It's difficult to argue with - it's all right there in their sacred book of things to do. The infidels can be killed as enemies of Islam. Refer back to my lengthy post of several pages ago for further examples of encouragement of violence against those who do not support Allah.

I've already explained how a violent film (or computer game) is devised as fictional entertainment instead of a set of strict and deadly serious rules from a divine source. The bigger and more profound the declaration, the stronger its consequences. There is no comparison - you may as well cite the regular consumption of fast food as a similar reason why people have killed.

Also, refer back to my calculated proof that God does not exist in case you missed it. My proof is proven in that it demonstrates that God does not exist - it is functioning right now this moment. It has already been explained that the equation is demonstrated in its simplest form. It can of course be denied, but then with their blind faith the religious are doomed to live in constant denial anyway, so there you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs

Here's the deal... One of my colleagues in the Religious Studies Dept. was a double major in Math and Religious Studies. He is also an Occultist. Oh... and he has an excellent grasp of quantum physics. The dude, Morgan, is a mathematical genius, and never told me of any sort of equation of any type that "disproves" the existance of any deity.

Math, which draws it's real history from Aristotilean and other Greek philosphers was never intended to disprove God or anything of that nature. Math simply does not have the ability to disprove Goddess or God, so either you identify the source of that equation or I'm still going to assume that you made it up or that it came from some bullshit artist more luney toons than even the most ridiculous fundamentalist Christian who saw Jesus in their macaroni.

I have followed your entire debate up untill this point... I have read a lot of good points and counter points, on both sides... However, at this point you should agree to disagree b/c there will be no conclusion, no resolution. I see two sides that "seem" grounded in rational thought; two sides that agree that this universe holds many truths and "proven" facts. This subject is not one of them and that's a fact.... But of course someone will say that's my opinion.

That's just your opinion, haha..ok anyway...


It's just something interesting to discuss, we're well aware that nobody's changing their mind.

@Haunted- I wouldn't give that a second thought. You can't prove God doesn't exist and you can't prove that he does. Unless of course he just decides to go...''Hey Mike, whadda ya say we go on down?'', the clouds open up...ect ect.