A “This I Believe” on NPR from one of us
21 November 2005 by Ron
Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller, of course) does today’s “This I Believe” essay on NPR. And what Penn believes is that “There is No God“.
A tidbit or two:
I believe that there is no God… Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I’m not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it’s everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more… Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around… I don’t travel in circles where people say, “I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.” That’s just a long-winded religious way to say, “shut up,” or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, “How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do”… Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.
Read (or listen to) the whole thing here. (And for the other side, check out the earlier — incredibly lame — essay for the “This I Believe” series from William F. Buckley, How Is It Possible to Believe in God?)
21 November 2005, on 7:24 pm
Buckley rhetoric is so obtuse that it borders on being hilarious.
21 November 2005, on 7:38 pm
“I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God.” Never thought of it this way but it is a rational improvement over, “I’m an Atheist.”
21 November 2005, on 11:29 pm
Completely random, but here’s some food for thought,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
I’ve thought about this before I knew that such a theory existed, that if many worlds is correct, this could mean that there is an afterlife. Spooky eh? But the christers can’t get all excited and say “told ya so” because this has nothing to do with god.
22 November 2005, on 9:08 am
Oops. I said “theory” which I don’t think it qualifies as.
22 November 2005, on 1:46 pm
I actually think this is the best part: “Believing there is no God means the suffering I’ve seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn’t caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn’t bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.” Excellent anti-nihilistic spin on the problem of evil, I’d say.
23 November 2005, on 8:48 pm
I will pray for you :
)
26 November 2005, on 3:44 pm
As a child, I used to be an agnostic. I consider myself a scientist and have credentials to that effect–including my doctorate degree by age 22. I was a fan of Mr Jillette because of his nonsensical approach to things. I do not beleive in organized religion but that is not to say that there is no god. I am not a theologian and therefore I leave commentst to those educated in such fields– Karen Miller comes to mind–”The History of GOD”.
Several Noble Prizes have come by way of what was considered a mockery statement, “The Big Bang Theory” of how the universese was formed. In fact, several programs including PBS series have described in detail what happens picoseconds after the Big Bang, but not the singularity itself. There have been comments made that if there is a big bang, then there must be a Big Banger. I recall a program you had on PBS describing the Gamma Ray Bursts. A scientists (whom I do not recall, but I remember he worked at one of the Israelly universities commented that if a gamma ray burst explosion occurred within the reaches of the Milky Way, that it would destroy all life in our galaxy–to my astonishment, he had not discussed “what if another big bang were to occur anywhere, would it not destroy life in the universese?
I now believe there is a God. I cannot deny his existance and in fact find that science supports it. Where I think most scientists have problems in dealing with all the supperstition and baggage that comes with the word God and any organized relegion. I ignore all of that. First a few disclaimers, if God did create man in his image then I take that to mean having free will and independent thought. The pettyness of whether God is a He or She is also nonsense since I find the sex distinction to be only usefull for reproduction and therefore irrelevant to the argument.
I also find that monotheism is not a natural superstion. Most religions have many gods. I find it aoutstanding that Jews found monotheism in a field of much unexplained phenomena and at a time when illeteracy was the norm. I also find it difficult to understand how Muhamed, an uneducated, illiterate individual that had done well for himself, would undertake such a monumental task as forming or adapting a relegion in an area where it could only cause him trouble. To remind the readers, I am not a theologian and therefore I bring these topics up for consideration, I would ask Dr. Miller to come to my rescue.
I find a frequent argument that there is no God in that he permits such suffereing..I don’t follow that logic. (there is suffereing therefore there is no God). In fact I find the arguments against the existance of god about as illogical as those used to negate it. The former arguments sound rather selfish to me–there is a god and he is only the to serve me! I would expect the oposite to be true, if there is a god, we are here at his pleasure and we better figure out what he wants from us. Clearly any true religion has nothing to with democracy, but instead an oligarchy.
This is too bervose but it is a demanding topic. I think Mr. Jillette’s comments are understandable but self serving and rather simplistic , for a person of his stature. God is not for Suckers. It can be used to abuse others. Those scientists that find these inconsistancies should come out of the closet. I think there are too many that simply avoid the issues becasue they feel they will be laughed at. This intelligent design issue is not provable It should be mentioned and we should go on but the debate it has created is luaghable. I will not choose to beleive in god using that line of thinking.
I believe that there is a God. I do not know hat he wants from me. Carl Sagang disappointed me especially with his book-”Contact”. I wil excusse him since he was suffering from such a painfull illness at the end. He was and agnostic untill the end.
27 November 2005, on 12:13 am
George, you went on for seven paragraphs and finally just assert you believe in God,
but you didn’t say why. What makes you think this being exists?
28 November 2005, on 1:22 am
George,
If you are looking for clear answer to understanding the God of the Bible.
BIBLE ANSWER MAN
Hank Hanegraaff
Question & Answer
11/25/2005 - Friday
The first question is about evolution.
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/bible_answer_man/Archives.asp
28 November 2005, on 9:22 am
George:
You may be a scientist (of course that means fuck-all here), but you’ve apparently not studied much cosmology. Start here and your appeal to ignorance may end. The oscillating universe seems facinating to me, would you not agree?
28 November 2005, on 10:48 am
“I consider myself a scientist and have credentials to that effect–including my doctorate degree by age 22.”
Phd in what? Asshattery? Knitting? Basket Weaving? Cock Punching?
Simply being credentialed with a doctorate degree does not establish ethos. Many here, with only rational discussion and no indication to their qualifications, have established a greater and valid ethos than you have with that single phrase (and you didn’t establish much).
28 November 2005, on 11:02 am
I fail to see how any of that long post is supposed to explain to anyone why you’ve abandoned reason for fairy tales.
All I got from it was “I believe there’s a god because I feel like it.”
28 November 2005, on 11:08 am
“and in fact find that science supports it.”
This is my favorite part. Anyone else expecting “proof” from “Dr.” Hovind coming up next?
28 November 2005, on 11:08 am
Were this person a scientist, would he not have presented some evidence to his case and not just an appeal to incredulity/ignorance? Sounds to me like someone preaching again. And just what about Contact disappointed you so?
28 November 2005, on 1:39 pm
“I consider myself a scientist and have credentials to that effect–including my doctorate degree by age 22.”
I found this statement the most interesting. Does considering yourself a scientist indeed make you a scientist? Furthermore, while a doctorate by 22 could be impressive, allowing for the reputation of the program, the curriculum, and the means through which it was earned (I get email all the time to earn my PhD online but I’ll go with the accredited university route), it by no means, as stated above, establishes any kind of ethos. George, you could do a much better job of arguing your case if instead of trotting out a brief glimpse at your educational background you had focused on why God must logically exist as you claimed. It seems your logic centers around the idea that if someone thought it up against the prevailing logic of the time then it must be true. You’ll need to do better than that.
28 November 2005, on 1:56 pm
Hey, we use Ph.D.s to clean the closets around here. Cain’t shake a stick without hittin’ one on the flabbly ass. Thinkin’ ’bout a fire sale to get rid of a few.
28 November 2005, on 10:39 pm
“…it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around…” by Mr Jillette
I don’t need to say any more…you guys gave George a great welcome…not.
29 November 2005, on 2:59 am
“I don’t need to say any more…you guys gave George a great welcome…not. ”
I’m not sure what you were hoping for. I don’t think anyone was mean, but merely responding to his comments.
29 November 2005, on 9:16 am
King - don’t bother trying to reason with Sable. It invents things to bitch about.
29 November 2005, on 9:20 am
I don’t need to say any more…you guys gave George a great welcome…not.
Ok, sable chicken:
What if someone came on your blog and made this comment:
I’m a scientist. I have a PhD. Therefore I know there is no god/gods.
How would you retort?
29 November 2005, on 8:02 pm
Well first of all every single one of you made fun of George’s degree. I didn’t think that George was telling you that he is a scientist to brag, but to give you a little back ground into who he is and what he has studied. I feel that he made several interesting points as to why he feels that there is a God. A big bang can not just happen, if there is nothing to explode. ” what if another big bang were to occur anywhere, would it not destroy life in the universes?” I am not a scientist, but I do find science and nature very interesting. But how can an explotion not do more damage than it can create new life. If we look closer to these theories, there is something missing.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0972043314/102-0077147-2170538?v=glance&n=130&v=glance
“Icons of Evolution” is both an eye-opening tour of discoveries in contemporary biology and a stirring call for professional and educational honesty. It reveals that Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis that distorts the truth to maintain its influence over science education. And it is a policeman’s whistle, calling upon scientists to clean house and rid their textbooks of lies.
Are students learning the whole truth about Dawin’s theory of Evolution?
According to a growing number of scientists, the surprising answer is no. They claim that many of the most famous “Icons of Evolution” -including Dawin’s “Tree of Life”, finches from the Galapagos Islands, and embryos that look remarkably similar- are based on outdated research and sloppy logic. They say students are being hurt by the failure to present both sides of an emerging scientific debate over Dawin’s theory.
Explore the fascinating new conflict over evolution in the classroom- a conflict based on science, not religion.
George said-
“The former arguments sound rather selfish to me–there is a god and he is only there to serve me! I would expect the oposite to be true, if there is a god, we are here at his pleasure and we better figure out what he wants from us. Clearly any true religion has nothing to with democracy, but instead an oligarchy.”
I find this to be a very powerful statement. If there is a God (I do believe that there is) should we not figure out who He is?
I think Mr. Jillette’s comments are more for entertainment sake and he is an master of illuision. There is plenty to discuss here, with both what he has to say and with the comment that George left. But if this is not about differing points of view, but an open forum to just be abusive…well there is little point in going on.
To answer your question Rockstar Ryan, I would retort with inquiring questions, and not blatant insults.
29 November 2005, on 10:40 pm
Cluckin’ Chicken,
Darwin out of date? No shit- he was writing nearly two-hundred years ago. Hot damn, by those standards we should be treating glaucoma, pneumonia, diabetes, syphillis, hairy palms, etc, by going in for a good blood letting.
I cannot tell a lie, George Washington would approve.
PS- How’s your husband treating you these days? Ask him if he normally uses Hawthorn tonic to stop cardiac arrest.
29 November 2005, on 11:39 pm
Marcus, I’m glad to see that we both agree that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is out of date. What does that have to do with medicine?
30 November 2005, on 7:57 am
“To answer your question Rockstar Ryan, I would retort with inquiring questions, and not blatant insults. ”
No one insulted him. He was asked several questions. Of course, it’s entirely unsurprizing that an xtian is whining about mistreatment the moment someone disagrees with them.
30 November 2005, on 9:29 am
Don’t have a lot of time; boss is a Nazi and typing errors may occur till i find a new job as i only have internet @ work.
Well first of all every single one of you made fun of George’s degree.
1. Saying you have a degree in the digital world is akin to saying you’re jesus christ; one can’t prove it.
2. Degrees don’t matter; data and evidence do (at least to those of us in the real world.)
A big bang can not just happen, if there is nothing to explode
I gave you a link to study cosmology. I can only lead a xian to logic; i can’t make u drink.
Are students learning the whole truth about Dawin’s theory of Evolution?
According to a growing number of scientists, the surprising answer is no.
You haven’t heard of the Steve List have you? It’s a list of scientists named Steve (and only Steve) that say ID is bullshit; more than the total amount of “scientists” on the Discovery Institute’s list. but the proponents do a good job of that themeselves…and yes, they are learning the whole truth of “Dawin’s” theory. Would you care to show me the data for ID and why it should be taught in science class?
Marcus, I’m glad to see that we both agree that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is out of date. What does that have to do with medicine?
Your ignorance knows no bounds. We are not your educators. Get a basic textbook and go to town.
To answer your question Rockstar Ryan, I would retort with inquiring questions, and not blatant insults.
I want you to point out, with EVIDENCE, that I insulted this person. Until you do that, go away.
30 November 2005, on 10:59 am
Marcus, I’m glad to see that we both agree that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is out of date. What does that have to do with medicine?
Holy shit, you’re dumber than I tell people.
30 November 2005, on 12:55 pm
I can’t speak for George…only myself. I am insulted everytime you call me a xian, instead of a Christian. But there is little reason to even tell you this because you know that you are insulting me and that is why you do it.
EVIDENCE, that you insulted this person!?! Well if you insulted George, it would make logical sence that he might not want to comment to you again. That is what people do when they are feeling insulted. But if George does not comment again, to say that he is insulted than there is no evidence…only my opinion. In my opinion I feel that you guys are keeping a real good discussion from taking place, because this is just not a forum for talking about different sides of the fence.
“…but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense. (Smolin 1997:82)
Possibility A gives us the same situation as that described by standard Big Bang theory: a universe which exists at every instant of time, and hence cannot have “come from” nothing.
Possibility B gives us a universe extending back infinitely in time, likewise eliminating the supposed problems raised by the universe “coming from” nothing.
Possibility C (which is the kind of scenario proposed in the quantum cosmological speculations of Hawking 1988) once again gives us a universe that cannot “come from” nothing, as the very notion of time-ordering ceases to have meaning in the early universe.
It thus appears that whenever a complete theory of the origin of the universe is developed by supplementing standard Big Bang theory with quantum gravity, that theory will still bypass the complaint that something cannot come from nothing.
It is not as though we are talking about “nothing” somehow metamorphosing into an existent something, or about the universe somehow causing itself”
Possibility D — The only reason that there is no room for God in these theories is, it reflects only popular prejudice and lacks rigorous logical support.
If I am to make sence of all this, I need to believe some guys named Steve…that there is no begining to the universe and there was a big bang too?
This is wierd, because in my little basic textbook I read that, “But what caused the Big Bang? No scientist has an answer. One science book calls this the “ultimate mystery” and says “there is no scientific answer to what happened before the Big Bang.” Then the writer goes on to say that, “we must accept that the universe did begin.” (The Universe and Its Origin)
For Christians, this is no surprise at all. The Bible tells us that “in the beginning God created” (Genesis 1:1) We already knew that the universe was created from nothing - by our God.
Of course, we do not know when God created or how. The Bible does not say that creation took place as a Big Bang or that it happened 15 billion years ago. Yet we do know from the Bible that there was a time when God spoke, and everything sprang into existence. Yes the universe did have a beginning. And only if God exist can that beginning be explained.
Ryan, I know you are a busy man…but did you get a chance to listen to the Hank Hanegraaff link that I left in my first comment?
30 November 2005, on 1:13 pm
Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianvXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian Xian
If that insults you, check this out!
30 November 2005, on 1:14 pm
Oops…
http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/3558/jebuspwnd0vr.jpg
I’m a dirty double poster!
30 November 2005, on 1:14 pm
“I am insulted everytime you call me a xian, instead of a Christian. But there is little reason to even tell you this because you know that you are insulting me and that is why you do it.”
*sighs* Cry, baby, cry. That is entirely untrue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian read it, unless you want to continue clinging to your delusions of persecution.
30 November 2005, on 1:16 pm
“Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianvXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian Xian”
*LOL*
I’ve got to do it again:
“Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianvXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian XianXian Xian Xian Xian Xian”
*lol* gets funnier every time.
30 November 2005, on 1:25 pm
Good one, Lya.
In case somebody’s unwilling to go to WikiPedia, I quote: Xian or Xtian is another word used to describe Christians and is similar to using Xmas in place of Christmas; the X or Xt used as a contraction for “Christ” (”X” resembles the Greek letter Χ (Chi), the first letter of “Christ” in Greek (Χριστός [Christos]).
30 November 2005, on 1:34 pm
So *PLBPLBPLBPBLPBLBPLBPLBPBLPBLB*
(vitual razzberry, in case your wondering)
30 November 2005, on 1:36 pm
*hehe* In case YOU ARE wondering
(can we get an edit feature? please?)
30 November 2005, on 1:40 pm
No sable chicken, there is no need to read any further than
Are students learning the whole truth about Darwin’s theory of evolution?
According to a growing number of scientists, the suprising answer is no. They claim that many of the most famous “Icons of Evolution”-including Darwin’s “Tree of Life,” finches from the Galapagos Islands, and embryos that look remarkably similar-are based on outdated research and sloppy logic. They say students are being hurt by the failure to present both sides of an emerging scientific debate over Darwin’s theory.
Strawman. Of course scientists don’t teach directly from “Origin of Species”! Don’t you think some advances have been made in the past 200 years? Oh, wait - evolution has nothing to do with medicine.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Next time you’re ill, don’t rely on medicine! Pray to the LORD! Then tell me the result.
30 November 2005, on 2:01 pm
“evolution has nothing to do with medicine.”
Did Sable really say that?
Question - with all this hysteria over the bird flu and the possibility that it will mutate into a form that can be transmitted human-to-human (thereby creating an epidemic that will KILL US ALLLLLLLLLLLLL):
BY WHAT PROCESS DO YOU THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN?
30 November 2005, on 2:03 pm
Marcus,
The image of Jesus hanging on the cross for all of our sins, SHOULD BE hard to look at.
As far as X goes, I still prefer to be called a Christian than an xian. Sorry Lya I’m not crying in pain over your little knitted quilt of Xians.
30 November 2005, on 2:06 pm
And I like to be called “King of Kings, Lord of Lords”. OK, Sable?
I actually find the bleeding Jeebus pic kind of funny.
30 November 2005, on 2:07 pm
“As far as X goes, I still prefer to be called a Christian than an xian. Sorry Lya I’m not crying in pain over your little knitted quilt of Xians. ”
*LOL* what the hell are you babbling about? I don’t give a rat’s ass what you prefer.
P.s. It’s impossible to knit a quilt. It’s one or the other.
30 November 2005, on 2:20 pm
“evolution has nothing to do with medicine.”
I didn’t say that…totally out of context.
Lya
“(thereby creating an epidemic that will KILL US ALLLLLLLLLLLLL):”
I think this might be what they are talking about when it comes to turning the Dawin’s Tree of Evolution upside down.
Ryan, “Strawman” come on! I’m trying my best to stay on topic here…don’t get me started with the GMO thing again (just kidding)
Ok…I’m done if you can’t tell me you listened to at least the first 2 minutes of Hank.
30 November 2005, on 2:26 pm
Thanks Lya, now I know why I’m having a hard time getting my knitted quilt done for Xmas.
I’m really done now
30 November 2005, on 2:28 pm
“I didn’t say that…totally out of context.”
Thank goodness! (if that’s true of course)
“I think this might be what they are talking about when it comes to turning the Dawin’s Tree of Evolution upside down. ”
Um *poink* huh?
30 November 2005, on 2:34 pm
“Thanks Lya, now I know why I’m having a hard time getting my knitted quilt done for Xmas. ”
*lol* I’m an avid knitter. Don’t mock me or I’ll poke you in the eye.
30 November 2005, on 2:35 pm
If you didn’t say this, I’m Lord Jesus Christ:
Marcus, I’m glad to see that we both agree that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is out of date. What does that have to do with medicine?
And I gave you my answer on Hank. If he’s gonna give criticisms of a 200 year old book, I’ve no need to listen. If you have any valid criticisms of evolution, please present them. But don’t get them from a Creationist website, as they’ll most surely be pre-debunked.
30 November 2005, on 2:43 pm
Ryan…you didn’t even listen to Hank at all did you?
Ok we can’t talk about the Bible, or knitting…. the only thing left to do is talk about bunnys. Anyone going to be offended by that?
30 November 2005, on 2:49 pm
See Sable, fall on your knees before you Lord Rockstar Ryan
I love bunnies! Greatest pets on earth.
30 November 2005, on 3:18 pm
Lya, I wish I could say that I am as impressed as you are with all Ryan’s straw throwing.
It is so nice that you love bunnies. When I was a kid I beg my dad for a bunny. My dad got us kids one bunny each, that makes 3 bunnies. One buck and 2 does….well to make a long story short. Bunnies will help you learn all about the birds and the bees….as 3 bunnies become 500 bunnies. It was alot of work…moral of the story be careful what you wish for.
I here that you can potty train a bunny, I have never tried to do that, is it possible?
30 November 2005, on 3:19 pm
sable chicken:
I’ve heard this a million times. “They don’t teach the debate!” “Scientists are criticizing Darwin’s theory!”
In science, we do something because we have reason to. If you have a point to make, make it, then provide a link to your evidence. I don’t have time to listen to religious babble that I’m already familiar with.
30 November 2005, on 3:57 pm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-20;&version=31;
30 November 2005, on 4:01 pm
“Lya, I wish I could say that I am as impressed as you are with all Ryan’s straw throwing.”
So says the Queen of all strawman-throwers.
“I here that you can potty train a bunny, I have never tried to do that, is it possible? “
It is insanely easy to liter train a rabbit. Instinctually it will pick one area of it’s living space to go in. Just put a liter box in that space and it will always go in the liter box. Occasionally they will go outside the box to mark territory – but that’s usually only if they feel their space is threatened.
Mine does it when I move the furniture around. He doesn’t like me messing with his stuff.
30 November 2005, on 4:03 pm
Why do xtians think that throwing bible versus at us proves anything?
The bible is not admissible evidence as it is contradictory, arbitrary and –most of all – FICTION.
30 November 2005, on 4:13 pm
That link sable threw in is from Romans 1:18-20 -
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Being serious here:
Are you trying to say that God is proven and self-evident; therefore I have no excuse not to believe he exists?
30 November 2005, on 7:43 pm
Cluckin’ Chicken,
“The image of Jesus hanging on the cross for all of our sins, SHOULD BE hard to look at.”
That wasn’t the joke; you didn’t look closely enough. Try again- if you’re net-wise, then you’ll get the joke.
30 November 2005, on 8:31 pm
Marcus, I’m not net-wise, the title has been changed.?..I don’t get it. Really even if I did get it, it just makes me feel sick to make mock of Jesus on the cross. It’s just wrong.
Ryan, “Are you trying to say that God is proven and self-evident; therefore I have no excuse not to believe he exists?” Yes I am being serious here, I truely believe the Bible is the truth. But I can just look at nature and see that there is a God, I hope someday you can see that too.
Lya, It sounds like one bunny is more fun than alot of them. It’s nice that you found a good pet.
I hope you guys have a wonderful Χριστόςmas, I’m sorry that this converation was not more productive…there is always next time.
1 December 2005, on 8:35 am
” “Are you trying to say that God is proven and self-evident; therefore I have no excuse not to believe he exists?” Yes I am being serious here, I truely believe the Bible is the truth. But I can just look at nature and see that there is a God, I hope someday you can see that too.”
Oh please. Read the Blindwatcher Maker. Read anything other then that stupid book of middle eastern mythology. Existence is NOT proof of a creator. Simply because you haven’t bothered to LEARN anything about science does not mean “godddit”.
1 December 2005, on 9:32 am
But I can just look at nature and see that there is a God, I hope someday you can see that too.
Ok, just wondering since the Bible says differently in Job:
7″Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?”
So if we search for God we can’t find it, but it is readily apparent. Truly, the logic of the Bible is dizzying…and retarded.
BTW everyone - for a good laugh go to that link sable chicken provided and pick one verse in da bibble. Then change versions for something COMPLETELY different.
1 December 2005, on 12:07 pm
Ryan,
“Are all these words to go unanswered?
Is this talker to be vindicated?
Will your idle talk reduce men to silence?
Will no one rebuke you when you mock?
You say to God, ‘My beliefs are flawless
and I am pure in your sight.’
Oh, how I wish that God would speak, that he would open his lips against you and disclose to you the secrets of wisdom, for true wisdom has two sides.
Know this: God has even forgotten some of your sin.
“Can you fathom the mysteries of God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
They are higher than the heavens—what can you do?
They are deeper than the depths of the grave —what can you know?”
—–
The story of Job, do you understand it?
(Job 11:1-20) Zophar (who is one of Jobs 3 friends) now Jump into the debate and turns it up a notch. He attacks Job personally and accuses him of being filled with pride and of uttering meaningless words. He charges that there must be some hidden sin in Job’s life. He thinks that, God knows about this hidden sin and is giving Job what he deserves.
The question that is given to Job by his friend Zophar is a personal attack on Job. It is like saying “Job what in the world is wrong with you, can’t you see that there is a God?”
Job’s suffering was made even worse by the accusations of his friends. He called them “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2)
The man Zophar that said
“Canst thou by searching find out God?.” in Job 11:7, is saying this because it is clear to him that there is a God (even though Zophar lacked the true wisdom of God)
2 December 2005, on 11:57 am
is saying this because it is clear to him that there is a God (even though Zophar lacked the true wisdom of God)
See that’s the problem - no, it doesn’t say that. It says “Canst thou by searching find out God”. Not all the rest of the bullshit you added.
2 December 2005, on 6:34 pm
Hello Ryan,
I read the NIV Bible…with ADD and dyslexia, I just can’t sort through all the King James Words.
Job 11:7 (King James Version)
Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Job 11:7 (New International Version)
“Can you fathom the mysteries of God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
Keep in mind who is saying this to who, and why is he saying it.
I don’t know what you are talking about at this point.
“See that’s the problem - no, it doesn’t say that. It says “Canst thou by searching find out God”. Not all the rest of the bullshit you added.”
What did I add..?, but an short discription of what is going on in the story of Job. because I see it way out of context in the link that you gave, that referred it to Romans 1:18-20.