Re: The Swill Bin Religion thread

[Watch Out Pylon!]

What's the deal with Hindu's not eating beef? Or Jew observing kosher rules?

They don't get as hungry as Christians do.

We need our holy cheeseburgers dude!

[Robert J Sakimano]

what's the deal with head christian Donald Trump praying for TV ratings at the National Prayer Breakfast?

[Robert J Sakimano]

81% of evangelical "christians" voted for an admitted sexual predator.

You would rather drink a pint of piss or eat a piece of shit?

81% said they'd rather drink a pint of piss

the fact that they even attend church pretty well disqualifies them from making any sort of informed decision, so...

[Robert J Sakimano]

the fact that they even attend church pretty well disqualifies them from making any sort of informed decision, so...

Just church and not mosque or temple right?

{sigh}

any religion.

[Watch Out Pylon!]

Just church and not mosque or temple right?

{sigh}

any religion.

Even Scientology? They got spaceships and shit.

[MiamiSpartan]

TBF, the same atrocities would have happened one way or another anyway.  Organized religion is really just about power.  If someone isn't using religion to wield power, they (or someone like them) would wield power through another means (government, military, etc.).  It might not be Group A committing atrocities against Group B, but instead it might be Group C committing atrocities against Group B.  People are assholes.  People that love holding power over other people are even bigger assholes.  

Please don't say "well stated", as if you're agreeing with me. Especially since you didn't agree with me at all. Instead, you kind of went off the reservation talking about something that could not be further from what I was saying.

My opinions - the same atrocities would have happened one way or another anyway.  Organized religion is really just about power.  If someone isn't using religion to wield power, they (or someone like them) would wield power through another means (government, military, etc.).  It might not be Group A committing atrocities against Group B, but instead it might be Group C committing atrocities against Group B.  People are assholes.  People that love holding power over other people are even bigger assholes.

Seems to be very similar to your views. Of course you don't practice what you preach because if so you'd acknolwedge that Obama was an asshole, that your mayor is an asshole, that every member in gov't basically is an asshole, 99% of cops are assholes, your teachers are assholes.....lots of assholes to go around based on your definition. Yet for some odd reason you are a Freemason apologist...that's the biggest of your hypocrisies by far

If that's your view, then you didn't state it very well. Instead you went off about the Vatican and all this nonsense.

And yes, I do think Obama, the mayor, government, cops, teachers, etc. are assholes. I'm an asshole. You're an asshole. I'm talking about people in general, at their core, are corrupt...i.e., assholes. We choose whether or not to resist that (and to what extent), whether it be due to societal norms, religion, or whatever. For example, I said that people that love holding power over others are bigger assholes. So there are obviously degrees of assholeness. I don't think that all teachers (and probably not quite 99% of cops) are in those lines of work for the power trip, however. Most teachers, and some cops, are just there doing jobs, trying to get by like the rest of us.

And I'm a Freemason apologist, as you call it, because it's fucking awesome if what you say is true. To have this kind of power to influence everything for centuries and centuries would be pretty bad ass.

[MiamiSpartan]

But don't you see the flaw here?  The Law of Biogenesis, since you take that so strictly, contradicts your creationist beliefs since you take the Bible so strictly.  You've tried to state, in different threads, that the Law of Biogenesis is so strictly a "Law" that it disproves The Big Bang and evolution.  I've pointed out in the Conspiracy thread that you use the term "Law" far too strictly (much more strictly than scientists use it, which is odd considering you're making a scientific argument).  As long as you interpret Biogenesis as a hard Law with no exceptions, it can only then conflict with your strict belief in the Bible, if you dare to think critically on it.  Your ultra-strict interpretation of the Law of Biogenesis contradicts creationism just as much as it contradicts The Big Bang, or any other origin theory.  Either theory MUST contain at least one moment of abiogenesis.  The only other possibility is that the history of life is infinite.


You expect to use words incorrectly and people are supposed to know what you mean?  No, "nothing" is "nothing".  It's a pretty definitive word.  

FTR, I don't agree or disagree with Creationism, nor do I agree or disagree with The Big Bang or Evolution.  All (and other theories) are possibilities, yet all have flaws.  I don't feel the need to know for sure the truth, I more enjoy considering the possibilities, knowing that it is ultimately a mystery that we will never know for sure.  I just disagree with your use of Biogenesis to attempt to disprove some theories, without applying the same law in the same way to your own belief.

No, I don't see a flaw in my logic because there is none.  Since I take it so "strictly"? "Hard" Laws?  Can you give me an example of a "soft" Law so I can compare your definitions?  How about this, we make it easy and use the actual definition of the word, ok?  

"Law - In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it." Therefore the Law of Biogenesis is a description of an observed phenomenon, correct?  And what is that observed phenomenon?   This observed phenomenon is that living things can only come from other living things. So far so good.  Now am I trying to explain why it exists or what causes it?  It's irrelevant to the definition of a Scientific Law because the phenomenon in itself contradicts the Big Bang theory, unless you believe a space rock to be "living"

There are zero flaws in this logic whether you continue to refrain from acknowledging such or not


"You expect to use words incorrectly and people are supposed to know what you mean? No, "nothing" is "nothing". It's a pretty definitive word."

Really?  So no room whatsoever for context?  You're assumption then if you are to be correct is that you believe I had no idea what the Big Bang was....

It's funny that you want to be loose with the context of the word "nothing", but are worked up because I was suggesting context for the word "Law"? And yes, I'm doing the opposite. It's what makes it funny. I recognize that. Can you?

You still don't get your own contradictions. It's kind of funny to see you try to deal with it. Maybe you really whiffed on my point, I'm not sure, but I wasn't saying that the Biogenesis supports the Big Bang. I was simply saying that it no more contradicts The Big Bang than it does Creationism. Notice that I do say (and did in my previous post) that biogenesis contradicts The Big Bang. What you can't get your head around is that it just as much contradicts Creationism. The definition of a Law is irrelevant to my point here. Of course, if you want to get into that, I don't see how it helps you. Yes, the term law is (in general) describing observed phenomena. You're right, no one has observed life being created out of a rock. But no one has observed God creating life either. So how does that help you?

Let me try this again. If you believe Biogenesis to be a hard and true rule that has no exceptions, then you have to believe life can only, and has always only ever come from life, right? In your view, God created man. Ok, and you say that God is alive. Ok, so if God is living, then he must have been created by something else that's alive. So what was that? And if there was something alive that created God, then what created that? And so on and so on. As I said, any origin theory must contain at least one point of biogenesis. If not, then the theory must say that life goes back infinitely (otherwise it wouldn't be an origin theory). You need to have a beginning, and you can't have that without a moment of abiogenesis, whatever origin theory you want to use.

[Cameron]

Excellent. Let's discuss this ark and flood business. I have some questions, I hope you'll oblige me.

1: This flood covered the whole earth, every single landmass?
2: Where did all that water come from?
3: Where did all that water go?
4: Noah lived somewhere in the middle east. Where did he get kangaroos? Where did he get penguins?
5: How did arctic animals like penguins survive on the same boat as tropical and desert animals?
6: What did the carnivorous animals eat while on the boat?
7: There are hundreds of thousands of species of insect, many of which only live in very specific places (not anywhere near the middle east). How did he go about collecting all of these?
8: How could Noah tell the difference between males and females of every species? Was he down on his hands and knees examining insect genitalia?

1) Not every single land mass....Antarctica wasn't affected for example.

2) At any moment the atmosphere contains 37.5 million billion gallons of water

3) Water evaporates, so the answer is that it gets absorbed into the ground

4) Technically it was more likely Turkey ( Anatolia ), which isn't the Middle East. But you basically answered your question. He didn't get kangaroos or penguins. What you have to understand is the time the Bible was written, the authors would not have any reason to believe there existed an Australia. So they obviously are referring to the animals local to their area. God's intent was to punish mankind, and obviously innocent animals would have to be included. If no humans were living in Australia at the time I'm sure that part of the world was spared

5) See 4

6) "Take with you SEVEN pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate"

7) insects aren't animals. The Bible only refers to things that move along the ground and birds with wings.

8) You're obviously not very familiar about the story of Noah from the Bible...." Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them CAME TO NOAH and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

"You're obviously not very familiar about the story of Noah from the Bible."   Thanks for that. You are correct that it had been some time since I've read it (and I did fuck up that particular detail), but I was raised with that nonsense and am at least as well acquainted with it as you. In fact, I'll point out some errors you made, and I'll cite verses.

"Not every single land mass....Antarctica wasn't affected for example." I think you'd struggle to support that assertion. Antarctica wasn't discovered until the 1700s, so it would be impossible for it to have been excepted by name in the Bible, which means your statement is pure conjecture. Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." So anywhere that has life (which Antarctica does) was to be flooded. This speaks to your answer to 4 as well. I don't think there is any Biblical basis for asserting that Australia was spared.

"Insects aren't animals." News to me. Even so, I'm pretty sure they would have had to be on the ark to survive the flood, no? Genesis 6:20 "Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." If creeping things of the earth does not include insects, then what is God talking about there?

Okay, your bible lesson is over, but I've still got some thoughts about your answers.

#2 and #3: The earth is a closed system. If there was enough water to cover the mountains (Genesis 7:20), it would not be possible for that water to simply disappear. Water that evaporates doesn't just "absorb into the ground," it has to go somewhere (and water that evaporates goes into the sky, not the ground). If it went into the sky, it would just fall again as rain (closed system).

#5: Being that you don't have biblical basis for believing that Australia/Antarctica were spared, care to take another crack at how those species could have survived for months and months in the same climate as one another?

Excellent. Let's discuss this ark and flood business. I have some questions, I hope you'll oblige me.

1: This flood covered the whole earth, every single landmass?
2: Where did all that water come from?
3: Where did all that water go?
4: Noah lived somewhere in the middle east. Where did he get kangaroos? Where did he get penguins?
5: How did arctic animals like penguins survive on the same boat as tropical and desert animals?
6: What did the carnivorous animals eat while on the boat?
7: There are hundreds of thousands of species of insect, many of which only live in very specific places (not anywhere near the middle east). How did he go about collecting all of these?
8: How could Noah tell the difference between males and females of every species? Was he down on his hands and knees examining insect genitalia?

Let me give you a quick, accurate breakdown of the story of Noah in accordance with the Book of Enoch ( excluded as canon from the Bible for racist reasons, but that's for another day...)  and why it relates to the possible End Times with what's going on today regarding transhumanism in layman's terms.  

Lucifer got pissed that Jesus was placed at the right side of the Father after he ascended into heaven instead of himself.  Lucifer gathered together about 70 of his angel buddies/comrades to rebel.  God caught wind of this and instead of just killing him imposed a punishment of casting him to earth.  On his way down to earth, Lucifer's tail grabbed "a third" of the stars with him.  These are the Fallen Angels.  There are also Watchers ( other angels)  who fell into wickedness and were also punished.  This is why the Freemasons use the number 33 as one of its most sacred symbols/numbers to represent the highest degree of Freemasonry.  

Now these fallen angels started fucking human females and the offspring produced was a hybrid creature called the Nephilim.  They were giants as well as half-human/half-creatures.  God saw this abomination, i.e. the mixing of DNA to create a different form of man than the one in God's image.  That is why he chose the DNA of somebody like Noah, the most righteous of all of man's sons, to carry-on the human bloodline in its unadulterated form. The Bible states the start of the End Time will be like the days of Noah.  

The flood happened before Jesus was born. Your timeline seems off to me.

[Robert J Sakimano]

I'd like to take this moment to ask that we all remember the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre.

#PrayForBowlingGreen

[MiamiSpartan]

If that's your view, then you didn't state it very well. Instead you went off about the Vatican and all this nonsense.

And yes, I do think Obama, the mayor, government, cops, teachers, etc. are assholes. I'm an asshole. You're an asshole. I'm talking about people in general, at their core, are corrupt...i.e., assholes. We choose whether or not to resist that (and to what extent), whether it be due to societal norms, religion, or whatever. For example, I said that people that love holding power over others are bigger assholes. So there are obviously degrees of assholeness. I don't think that all teachers (and probably not quite 99% of cops) are in those lines of work for the power trip, however. Most teachers, and some cops, are just there doing jobs, trying to get by like the rest of us.

And I'm a Freemason apologist, as you call it, because it's fucking awesome if what you say is true. To have this kind of power to influence everything for centuries and centuries would be pretty bad ass.

"If that's your view, then you didn't state it very well. Instead you went off about the Vatican and all this nonsense."

Is the Vatican not an organized religion? Are they not all about power and in fact worst than most religions in that respect as they are both a religion AND A NATION-STATE?

"And yes, I do think Obama, the mayor, government, cops, teachers, etc. are assholes. I'm an asshole. You're an asshole. I'm talking about people in general, at their core, are corrupt...i.e., assholes." Well you previously only specifically mentioned people in power as they want to control others. But now I understand your position that you think everyone are assholes. I disagree on that end...

"And I'm a Freemason apologist, as you call it, because it's fucking awesome if what you say is true. To have this kind of power to influence everything for centuries and centuries would be pretty bad ass."

Annnnd we're back to being a hypocrite. Freemasons are all about power, the epitome of what you previously stated you hate.

What's funny is that you take my comments about Freemasons so seriously.

I think Darth Vader is pretty bad ass. Does that mean I support oppressing and slaughtering countless innocents, including children? Notice that I said I'm a Freemason apologist "as you call it" and that it's awesome "if what you say is true". I believe none of your freemason/illuminati/satanic nonsense. What you say is fiction.

[MiamiSpartan]

It's funny that you want to be loose with the context of the word "nothing", but are worked up because I was suggesting context for the word "Law"? And yes, I'm doing the opposite. It's what makes it funny. I recognize that. Can you?

You still don't get your own contradictions. It's kind of funny to see you try to deal with it. Maybe you really whiffed on my point, I'm not sure, but I wasn't saying that the Biogenesis supports the Big Bang. I was simply saying that it no more contradicts The Big Bang than it does Creationism. Notice that I do say (and did in my previous post) that biogenesis contradicts The Big Bang. What you can't get your head around is that it just as much contradicts Creationism. The definition of a Law is irrelevant to my point here. Of course, if you want to get into that, I don't see how it helps you. Yes, the term law is (in general) describing observed phenomena. You're right, no one has observed life being created out of a rock. But no one has observed God creating life either. So how does that help you?

Let me try this again. If you believe Biogenesis to be a hard and true rule that has no exceptions, then you have to believe life can only, and has always only ever come from life, right? In your view, God created man. Ok, and you say that God is alive. Ok, so if God is living, then he must have been created by something else that's alive. So what was that? And if there was something alive that created God, then what created that? And so on and so on. As I said, any origin theory must contain at least one point of biogenesis. If not, then the theory must say that life goes back infinitely (otherwise it wouldn't be an origin theory). You need to have a beginning, and you can't have that without a moment of abiogenesis, whatever origin theory you want to use.

"It's funny that you want to be loose with the context of the word "nothing", but are worked up because I was suggesting context for the word "Law""

Hmm let's see. we were talking about the Big Bang theory and I referred to it as "something created out of nothing" and you don't have the basic comprehension skills to understand that nothing = a rock, something devoid of life in this context? Do you really want to keep advertising yourself as this inept? Why didn't you ask about the word something? I assume it was because you realized I was referring to life/creation so not sure why you couldn't put together my use of the word nothing = a lifeless rock. I was asking for clarification of your terms "strict" and "Soft" because I have NO FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about here. A Law is a Law, it's straight forward but you are applying varying degrees to it.

I didn't mention a soft law. When I said "Hard Law", I said that you "interpret biogenesis as a hard law with no exceptions". Way to leave out the important part to argue further about semantics. From chemistry.about.com on Scientific Law: "Laws are widely accepted as true, but new data can lead to changes in a law or to exceptions to the rule." In science there are sometimes exceptions to laws. Talk about being inept in understanding. Several times in that same post, I referred to how strictly you interpret the law. But one time, I say you "interpret it as a hard law with no exceptions" and you throw a fit about the use of the word "hard".

"I was simply saying that it no more contradicts The Big Bang than it does Creationism."

So you see no difference in why God might be considered life more so than a rock would be considered life? Google"God is life" and "Rocks are life" for objectivity and you'll see a huge disparity in search results. Or you can look to the Bible for reference..."Yeshua said to him, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Way and The Truth and The LIFE; no man comes to my Father but by me alone.” You're in the minority if you think a creator doesn't have more life than a rock. Your point

For the guy who's always saying that others should think critically, you have a severe inability to no only think critically on this, but even to comprehend someone else thinking critically. This is not about a rock versus a creator. Both require a period of biogenesis. Ok, you want to say that a creator is alive? Then what created the creator? That had to be something alive, too, right? And if so, what created the creator of the creator?

This is why the Law of Biogenesis MUST have an exception, a period of abiogenesis, in any origin/creation theory. Thinking critically, how can you come to any other conclusion? Please explain.

[AnomanderRake]

I'm pretty agnostic, there may be a god out there, but it sure as shit isn't the god that any religion on earth has cooked up.

[MiamiSpartan]

What's funny is that you take my comments about Freemasons so seriously.  

I think Darth Vader is pretty bad ass.  Does that mean I support oppressing and slaughtering countless innocents, including children?  Notice that I said I'm a Freemason apologist "as you call it" and that it's awesome "if what you say is true".  I believe none of your freemason/illuminati/satanic nonsense.  What you say is fiction.  

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's true and I've proven so time and time again  You haven't researched jack sh1t about Freemasons if you think it's fiction.  George Washington was a Freemason, correct?  He lists that as of being higher importance than the First President of the US, yet Americans consider him to be one of the greatest historical figures ever.  How can this be of it's all fiction??  Do you know what the Washington Monument represents?  A giant dick attempting to reach the ancient gods of sex and fertility.  The literal definition of the world obelisk is "Ba'al's Shaft"....now why on earth would a good Christian like George Washington and the Founding Fathers do something like that?????   Why did Thomas Paine, whose "pen" behind the Revolution was as necessary and important as Washington's "sword", openly write about his disgust for Christians if this country was founded by Christians?

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-thomas-paine-said-about-jesus-in.html

You've been fooled your whole life and now in the information age you have the chance to re-educated yourself yet you fail to do so.  It makes no sense

I never said that I don't believe in the existence of Freemasons.  What's fiction is all this nonsense about some immense, centuries-old cabal running the whole world.  What's fiction is this fantasy that you and others have created in your head to be able to cope with the bad things in the world (just say it's all fake, and then you'll be able to actually go to the movies again).  Honestly, it's more believable that the Stonecutters really do hold back the electric car and make Steve Gutenberg a starrrrrrrrrr.

[Cameron]

"You're obviously not very familiar about the story of Noah from the Bible."   Thanks for that. You are correct that it had been some time since I've read it (and I did fuck up that particular detail), but I was raised with that nonsense and am at least as well acquainted with it as you. In fact, I'll point out some errors you made, and I'll cite verses.

"Not every single land mass....Antarctica wasn't affected for example." I think you'd struggle to support that assertion. Antarctica wasn't discovered until the 1700s, so it would be impossible for it to have been excepted by name in the Bible, which means your statement is pure conjecture. Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." So anywhere that has life (which Antarctica does) was to be flooded. This speaks to your answer to 4 as well. I don't think there is any Biblical basis for asserting that Australia was spared.

"Insects aren't animals." News to me. Even so, I'm pretty sure they would have had to be on the ark to survive the flood, no? Genesis 6:20 "Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." If creeping things of the earth does not include insects, then what is God talking about there?

Okay, your bible lesson is over, but I've still got some thoughts about your answers.

#2 and #3: The earth is a closed system. If there was enough water to cover the mountains (Genesis 7:20), it would not be possible for that water to simply disappear. Water that evaporates doesn't just "absorb into the ground," it has to go somewhere (and water that evaporates goes into the sky, not the ground). If it went into the sky, it would just fall again as rain (closed system).

#5: Being that you don't have biblical basis for believing that Australia/Antarctica were spared, care to take another crack at how those species could have survived for months and months in the same climate as one another?



The flood happened before Jesus was born. Your timeline seems off to me.

"The flood happened before Jesus was born. Your timeline seems off to me"

You're right I was not 100% correct. They rebelled because they knew of God's plan to create a son and they would have to worship him. I erred by including the part about him ascending. Good catch

" I think you'd struggle to support that assertion. Antarctica wasn't discovered until the 1700s,"

I'm referring to the real shape of the earth, the flat earth dome with the firmament as described in the Bible. Not sure what it being discovered until the 1700's would have to do with it anyways, I'm merely saying God would have had no reason to flood that area since man was not there...

"And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." So anywhere that has life..."

It's not logical that it would have covered the entire earth IMO, or else kangaroos, etc survived. There are many Bible references that clearly describe localized regions as "earth"...From (Genesis 41:57) "And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth." Obviously people from American or Australia couldn't have come to Egypt at that time.

"Insects aren't animals." News to me" I'm referring to the words of the Bible, not present day. All the animals were described as "flesh"...seems like a strange word to use to describe an ant. Levicitus also says "For the life [Hebrew: nep̄eš] of the flesh is in the blood". Insects don't have red blood cells

"#2 and #3: The earth is a closed system. If there was enough water to cover the mountains (Genesis 7:20), it would not be possible for that water to simply disappear. Water that evaporates doesn't just "absorb into the ground," it has to go somewhere (and water that evaporates goes into the sky, not the ground). If it went into the sky, it would just fall again as rain (closed system)."

Psalms says "After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the Earth (verse 9)[1]."

"#5: Being that you don't have biblical basis for believing that Australia/Antarctica were spared, care to take another crack at how those species could have survived for months and months in the same climate as one another?"

Yes I do, see the biblical reference that shows Earth to be a localized region ( Genesis 41 )

Okay, so "earth" doesn't mean "earth?" I'm disappointed, you said you were one of the ones who takes the Bible literally.

"God would have had no reason to flood that area since man was not there..."
Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
God wasn't just trying to kill all humans, he was trying to kill everything. There are living things in Antarctica, and God wanted them dead. And besides, if everything BUT Antarctica flooded, how did God block it off? There exist no barriers to protect it from waters high enough to cover Mt. Everest.

[Cameron]

Okay, so "earth" doesn't mean "earth?" I'm disappointed, you said you were one of the ones who takes the Bible literally.

"God would have had no reason to flood that area since man was not there..."
Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
God wasn't just trying to kill all humans, he was trying to kill everything. There are living things in Antarctica, and God wanted them dead. And besides, if everything BUT Antarctica flooded, how did God block it off? There exist no barriers to protect it from waters high enough to cover Mt. Everest.

I do take it literally.  You just choose not to understand the meaning of words from that time period.  I clearly showed the Bible has said Earth is both shown to refer to the entire world as well as used abstractly.  



"God wasn't just trying to kill all humans, he was trying to kill everything. "

Is he destroying everything due to man or everything due to the animals?  It would be impossible to eradicate humans without also doing the same to animals.  He is expressing his contempt that he has to kill innocent creatures he made due to the actions of man.  He would have no reason to kill animals if he didn't have to, which is why he instructed Noah to bring animals with him.  Do you think God would destroy innocent creatures if he didn't have to?

"There exist no barriers to protect it from waters high enough to cover Mt. Everest."

Who said anything about Mt. Everest?  I'm sure God, who is intelligent enough to design humans had the ability to recognize when the rain was high enough to kill everyone.  Of course there were giants in those days so he had to make sure it was high enough but we're only talking 100 feet giants, not thousand feet ones...

"Who said anything about Mt. Everest?" God did. Genesis 7:20 "The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered."

"Do you think God would destroy innocent creatures if he didn't have to?" Who's making him do it?

[MiamiSpartan]

I never said that I don't believe in the existence of Freemasons.  What's fiction is all this nonsense about some immense, centuries-old cabal running the whole world.  What's fiction is this fantasy that you and others have created in your head to be able to cope with the bad things in the world (just say it's all fake, and then you'll be able to actually go to the movies again).  Honestly, it's more believable that the Stonecutters really do hold back the electric car and make Steve Gutenberg a starrrrrrrrrr.

I love how you can't disprove what I just wrote yet still attempt to mock. 1/3rd of US Presidents were Freemasons, FFS our choices for POTUS in 2004 was between 2 Skull and Bones LOL...yeah, these secret societies have on influence in the world...

None of that does anything whatsoever to contend that this part of a worldwide conspiracy going on for centuries, that this conspiracy is a bunch of satanists, including the vatican, and that they've faked all the stuff that you say is fake, including space, science, the concept of a round earth, antarctica, etc., etc. Go ahead, keep telling yourself all the bad things are fake if that's what it takes to get you to leave the house without a panic attack.

[MiamiSpartan]

I didn't mention a soft law.  When I said "Hard Law", I said that you "interpret biogenesis as a hard law with no exceptions".  Way to leave out the important part to argue further about semantics.  From chemistry.about.com on Scientific Law:  "Laws are widely accepted as true, but new data can lead to changes in a law or to exceptions to the rule."  In science there are sometimes exceptions to laws.  Talk about being inept in understanding.  Several times in that same post, I referred to how strictly you interpret the law.  But one time, I say you "interpret it as a hard law with no exceptions" and you throw a fit about the use of the word "hard".


For the guy who's always saying that others should think critically, you have a severe inability to no only think critically on this, but even to comprehend someone else thinking critically.  This is not about a rock versus a creator.  Both require a period of biogenesis.  Ok, you want to say that a creator is alive?  Then what created the creator?  That had to be something alive, too, right?  And if so, what created the creator of the creator?  

This is why the Law of Biogenesis MUST have an exception, a period of abiogenesis, in any origin/creation theory.  Thinking critically, how can you come to any other conclusion?  Please explain.

"I didn't mention a soft law.  When I said "Hard Law", I said that you "interpret biogenesis as a hard law with no exceptions".  Way to leave out the important part to argue further about semantics.  From chemistry.about.com on Scientific Law:  "Laws are widely accepted as true, but new data can lead to changes in a law or to exceptions to the rule." "

I'm not leaving anything out..."soft", "hard", etc implies varying degrees.  Of course if something is discovered later on in life that changes this Law I would change my opinions/beliefs accordingly.  Never contended otherwise. But in this nothing has.  And nothing ever will...if so it would have happened by now if we are already living in a technological era that allows for the the ability to create synthetic biology, clone life, etc.

Things about the past are constantly still being discovered and theorized based on new data that's found. The point is that there are exceptions to laws. The law of biogenesis has at least one exception, whether you believe in the Big Bang, Creationism, or something else.

I have shown that you no longer believe, if you ever even did before ( hard to remember each and every poster's positions all the time ), that the Big Bang never happened.  If you wan to say the Law of Biogenesis also disproves Creationism, that's fine but irrelevant to my point.   You believe in the law of biogenesis I assume ( at least for now until something comes along to change it),  so by its own definition and hence yours as one who believes this, spontaneous combustion without a shadow of a doubt does not happen or at a minimum did not create life.  

You haven't proven that the Big Bang never happened, and certainly not shown that I don't believe that (I feel it's no less of a possibility now than when this thread was started). The Law of Biogenesis does not disprove that any more than it does any other theory. That was my point. And my greater point is that your strict belief in biogenesis, and you strict belief in the literal word of the Bible conflict with each other.

So may I ask as to your theory on who/what created you?  We know it's not Creationism and it's not the Big Bang, so I'm curious what this 3rd theory is as it never garners much attraction.  

My theory on who created me is that my parents did the nasty and my dad's sperm fertilized my mom's egg. They banged. I don't know if it was a Big Bang, and frankly I don't want to know.

But if you're talking life in general, I don't know, I don't pretend to know, and I don't need to know. I understand that you can't remember what each person writes, so here's what I said on the previous page:

FTR, I don't agree or disagree with Creationism, nor do I agree or disagree with The Big Bang or Evolution. All (and other theories) are possibilities, yet all have flaws. I don't feel the need to know for sure the truth, I more enjoy considering the possibilities, knowing that it is ultimately a mystery that we will never know for sure. I just disagree with your use of Biogenesis to attempt to disprove some theories, without applying the same law in the same way to your own belief.

"This is why the Law of Biogenesis MUST have an exception, a period of abiogenesis, in any origin/creation theory. Thinking critically, how can you come to any other conclusion? Please explain."

So you're saying this is a law which was correct 99.9999999% of the time but 100% correct going forward is really not a Law because of one time this phenomenon may not have happened, representing an incalculable .00000001 to the trillionth out of 1?

Is there an asterik mark next to the description of this law?

No, I'm not saying that it's not a law. I'm saying that there are exceptions to the law. I already showed that scientific laws can have exceptions. It doesn't stop them being laws. You are wayyyyy too hung up on that word. And I'm surprised that you are so hung up on it, considering that if laws have no exceptions, and biogenesis is a law, then your Biblical interpretation of God is wrong. If you believe in Creationism, then Creationism creates an exception to the Law of Biogenesis. You have difficulty wrapping your head around this, because you can't think critically on the subject.

[Cameron]

[Cameron]

[Robert J Sakimano]

reminder that 81% of "christians" voted for a racist, bigoted sexual predator.

[Turtleneck]

A week before his re-election last year, state Rep. Matt Shea denied that a leaked manifesto he wrote was a road map for a holy war, one that would pit conservative Christian “patriots” against Muslim and Marxist “terrorists.”

Rather, Shea insisted, the document titled “Biblical Basis for War” contained notes for a scholarly sermon on war in the Old Testament.

But newly leaked emails, first reported by The Guardian on Wednesday, as well as a video on Shea’s public Facebook page, show the Spokane Valley Republican has had close ties with a group called Team Rugged that trained children, teens and men in their early 20s for religious combat.

“The entire purpose behind Team Rugged is to provide patriotic and biblical training on war for young men,” a man identified as the group’s leader, Patrick Caughran, wrote in a July 2016 email to Shea. “Everything about it is both politically incorrect and what would be considered shocking truth to most modern christians. There will be scenarios where every participant will have to fight against one of the most barbaric enemies that are invading our country, Muslims terrorists.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-rep-matt-shea-endorsed-training-children-to-fight-in-holy-war/

[Watch Out Pylon!]

Under his eye.

[The Pantry]

To each, his/her own beliefs.

Raised Lutheran in a mostly Catholic neighborhood.  Us kids mostly got along fine but sometimes they got preachy, especially during Lent.  They were appalled some of us ate meat on Fridays.

All 4 of my kids were baptized in the Cathollic church.  Ex, her siblings, and her mom were Catholic.  Seriously, my MIL was one of the nicest people I've ever met and I had no objection to the baptisms in her church to make her happy.

Now, none of my kids follow the Catholic faith.  I haven't been in a church in over 20 years.  Religion is not where my spiritually is.  

Laugh if you want.  I've become a believer in reincarnation.

If you want a real trip, check out the Aetherius Society.  My ex's brother has been pastor of the Detroit chapter about 40 years.  Letterman had him on his show years back as a guest UFO expert and clowned the shit out of him.

[kingstonlake]

Spent 4 hours in a car with my “Christian “ uncle last week. I always suspected he was they typical hypocritical Christian we make fun of. It was way worse. The things he said shocked even me. I asked him how he reconciled his feelings about recent shootings and the people that were targeted with being “Christian” and told him I loved him but you can’t call yourself a Christian. He said he can feel that way and still be a Christian. I said no you can’t. You can’t be racist and call yourself a Christian. He said I CAN feel that way and I AM a Christian. Maybe he is a Christian. Pretty sure he’s 81% anyway. He did admit that his views are more than likely racist. If anything he was honest.

[tGreenWay]

A week before his re-election last year, state Rep. Matt Shea denied that a leaked manifesto he wrote was a road map for a holy war, one that would pit conservative Christian “patriots” against Muslim and Marxist “terrorists.”

Rather, Shea insisted, the document titled “Biblical Basis for War” contained notes for a scholarly sermon on war in the Old Testament.

But newly leaked emails, first reported by The Guardian on Wednesday, as well as a video on Shea’s public Facebook page, show the Spokane Valley Republican has had close ties with a group called Team Rugged that trained children, teens and men in their early 20s for religious combat.

“The entire purpose behind Team Rugged is to provide patriotic and biblical training on war for young men,” a man identified as the group’s leader, Patrick Caughran, wrote in a July 2016 email to Shea. “Everything about it is both politically incorrect and what would be considered shocking truth to most modern christians. There will be scenarios where every participant will have to fight against one of the most barbaric enemies that are invading our country, Muslims terrorists.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-rep-matt-shea-endorsed-training-children-to-fight-in-holy-war/

If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny. These idiots have no self-awareness, including and especially how much their idea of Christianity mirrors radical Islamists.

[Robert J Sakimano]

America is a stupid country.

[Robert J Sakimano]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-rep-matt-shea-endorsed-training-children-to-fight-in-holy-war/

If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny. These idiots have no self-awareness, including and especially how much their idea of Christianity mirrors radical Islamists.

religion is religion... they're all equally dangerous and the fundamental root cause of conflict and misery across the globe.

[The Pantry]

America is a stupid country.

Of everyone posting on tSwill, you seem the angriest. You mock everyone that doesn't agree with you. You hate American made products. You hate any form of religion/spirituality.

Why? What makes you so pissed off at everything?

[InTenSity]

America is a stupid country.

Of everyone posting on tSwill, you seem the angriest. You mock everyone that doesn't agree with you. You hate American made products. You hate any form of religion/spirituality.

Why? What makes you so pissed off at everything?

Religion isn't an American thing, neither is Christianity. Just wanted to point that out.
Otherwise, blind patriotism is horrible and buying American just to buy American sucks as well. Just buy whatever.

[The Pantry]

Of everyone posting on tSwill, you seem the angriest. You mock everyone that doesn't agree with you. You hate American made products. You hate any form of religion/spirituality.

Why? What makes you so pissed off at everything?

Religion isn't an American thing, neither is Christianity. Just wanted to point that out.
Otherwise, blind patriotism is horrible and buying American just to buy American sucks as well. Just buy whatever.

Get most of your produce to sell from out of the country? Maybe it's cheaper but how does that help the US?

Not blind patriotism. Have met a number of small farmers over the years. They do one of the toughest jobs just trying to make a living.

[Watch Out Pylon!]

America is a stupid country.

Of everyone posting on tSwill, you seem the angriest. You mock everyone that doesn't agree with you. You hate American made products. You hate any form of religion/spirituality.

Why? What makes you so pissed off at everything?

IPOTD.*

Ironic post of the day.

[The Pantry]

Of everyone posting on tSwill, you seem the angriest. You mock everyone that doesn't agree with you. You hate American made products. You hate any form of religion/spirituality.

Why? What makes you so pissed off at everything?

IPOTD.*

Ironic post of the day.

Contrary to your beliefs, I'm not mad about anything. I just find you libs silly and, except for WBH, wouldn't want to have a beer with any of you.

[Robert J Sakimano]

America is a stupid country.

Of everyone posting on tSwill, you seem the angriest. You mock everyone that doesn't agree with you. You hate American made products. You hate any form of religion/spirituality.

Why? What makes you so pissed off at everything?

you're welcome to believe whatever you want.

(See how easy that is?)

[Watch Out Pylon!]

IPOTD.*

Ironic post of the day.

Contrary to your beliefs, I'm not mad about anything. I just find you libs silly and, except for WBH, wouldn't want to have a beer with any of you.

You sound very believable.

[Robert J Sakimano]

You sound very believable.

he's so not upset about my posts and opinions that he feels the need to log in and tell us how not upset he is.

Oh, and then he announces that he would never have a beer with us. That's how not upset he is.

[Robert J Sakimano]

because they're "pro life" and not at all afraid because their life is in god's hands..      

The Fellowship of the Parks church in Fort Worth, Texas, and its sister campuses, for example, have partnered with the local company Sheepdog Defense Group to train volunteers at the church to respond to shootings, members told the AP.

the best thing about religious kooks is the free entertainment.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

[DWags]

You sound very believable.

he's so not upset about my posts and opinions that he feels the need to log in and tell us how not upset he is.

Oh, and then he announces that he would never have a beer with us. That's how not upset he is.

I’d have a beer with you. Because I think you’re a great American

[Robert J Sakimano]

he's so not upset about my posts and opinions that he feels the need to log in and tell us how not upset he is.

Oh, and then he announces that he would never have a beer with us. That's how not  upset he is.

I’d have a beer with you.   Because I think you’re a great American

awww, man.. thanks.

I will always recall the one beer we shared together last October - in the shadows of Spartan Stadium - with fondness. You were a true gentleman, a scholar and a damn fine American. Warm and welcoming. Playing good tunes at the tailgate.

Go Green!

[Robert J Sakimano]

hey look.. a religious person who wants to execute women who have abortions faces child sex assault charges.

so random..

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

[Cameron]

Algerian author Said Djabelkhir sentenced to jail for offending Islam

[Sponsored content]