Well, IS there? And if so, how the fuck do YOU know?:)

Silly question. No one knows if there is, or if there is not. Any answer other than this comes from baseless arguments. Things supported by baseless arguments includes atheism (they can't prove that God does not exists, yet they believe that He does not exists) and religion (they can't prove that God exists, yet they believe that He exists).

I think that a theological question does not fit well on a scientific board. :rolleyes:

I do not think there is a god, I am not an atheist I only believe in science.
If anyone can ever prove (with hard scientific proof) that there is a god I am willing to listen to them, I don't think it will happen.

ps wouldn't this be better in the water cooler ?

Searching the forum I found something relevant to this topic. It's an interesting opinion about God (found on the topic Immortality (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2125)):
Originally posted by stickfigure
My position on God:

All accumulated matter in the know universe and beyond = Super Entity aware of me and everyting else and capable of things I can't even fathom.

He's not a Old Man with a white beard or blue skinned many armed creature but, an Intelligence of organized matter on a universal scale, Master of both time and space.

But then again that's my philosophy.
I can't say that stickfigure's opinion is right or wrong, but at least his philosophy does not lead anyone to a crusade/inquisition/war.

One might as well believe in God. If he/she/it does exist you go to heaven and everything is fine. And if God does not exist then what have you lost in believing?

So the safest option is to believe in God.... :)

I suppose the real question is "Who cares?".

I mean, if someone could prove tomorrow absolutely one way or the other, I don't think its going to make a scrap of difference to me. I'll still have to eat, work, fart, feed the cat etc.

Personally i'm in the 'no god' camp (I will not ever capitalise the word god :mad: ), and I despise organised religion. It served a purpose once, but its time humanity outgrew these childish beliefs.

(ooo thats going to stir some shit !)

without a common frame of reference, there can be no argument...
So to make any attempt at answering this question would be futile without a definition of what "God" is in the 1`st place.

strangely enough, of all the people that beleive in "God" even they can`t agree themselves on a definition either. :)

Yes there is a god. No arguements for it but PROVE ME WRONG! Things have happened which are inexplicable by science, so god takes care of that problem.

Where is Noltair when you need him. I personaly believe there is a God, and am Christian, though I haven't gone to church in forever.

I agree wholeheartedly that abscence of proof isn`t necesarily proof of abscence.

however the owness of proof lies with him to whom the question is asked :)
This cannot be done by EITHER party. and what/who "God" is, cannot be decided either.

therefore, ipso facto: there can BE no argument/question or debate, it`s a moot point :)

For most a belief in a god begins with contemplation of the universe: if we exist than something must have created it. I have but to consider the opposite to disabuse myself of that belief: the opposite of existence is nonexistence, the great nothing. This is an equally profound concept as existence, and of course if nothing existed then it is easy to see how there could be no god. Why existence instead of nonexistence? Why not, both are equally valid alternatives, why can�t it be that existence just exists?

Where god comes in for me is the decided lack of ability to prove one way or another. I don�t worship a god, but I do acknowledge that one could exist because I have no way of knowing otherwise. I think it is fallacy to state �yes, there is a god� or �no, there is no god.� Both are wrong in their own way. Most people choose to believe in a god because it is the easy way out, I should say rather most people choose to ascribe to god all the things they don�t want to think about. I think worshipping a god is wrong because how do you know if you are correct? There may be only one god, but there may be many gods. There could be an infinite number of gods or les than infinite power. There may once have been gods that no longer exist, or maybe there are yet to be gods. Who is to say gods have to be infinite? Perhaps god consumed himself when he created the universe and all matter and energy is god.

I believe that if there is a god he doesn�t care one iota what we do on this earth. I don�t believe in a heaven or hell. I believe in the great oblivion after death. Heaven and hell, indeed all organized religions are concepts made by man for men. If Jesus was the son of god, why did he just preach in the Roman Empire and not Asia or Africa? Why did Buddha only stick to Asia, and Mohamed to the mideast? Why were the Africans still worshipping trees and mountains with all these true gods floating about? It seems kind of hokey that the �one true god� would be so regional doesn�t it? Could it be that man invented these religions? Why no, man has never tried anything to gain power, wealth, and control over people using a belief�

I agree with mega wholeheartedly. However, there have been some interesting new cosmological theories, that would explain the creation of the universe from nothing(I am talking about a specific theory actually, called the "Varying speed of lighty theory"). It breaks some of the laws of thermodynamics, but explains quite a bit of the universe, and is becoming more and more widely accepted.

I have found proof of God!! Here is his answer to our prayers!!!

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html

A 2 lightyear long "Fuck You!"

I myself believe in Him. I went through many different religions, but none of them suited me. I believe there are many gods for many people. I also believe there is the chance that they all worship the same god, though merely through a different name. Also, I believe in reincarnation, which many religious people believe as hersay.

But through my scientific outlook, I follow the saying- "I am a scientist. Therefore, I believe, though I dont believe, because there is no way for me to test the idea till death."

Sarevok, one of the biggest, fastest growing threads I can remember is the "Meaning of Life" discussion a couple of years ago. Being a scientific board doesn't proscribe us from chatting about philosophical topics

A-bomb - Noltair, that's exactly who I was thinking of when I asked the question.

My personal belief is that our existence has a great deal more unexplained than it has explained. If you open your eyes to it then you begin to understand that. Whether that unexplained something is a GOD is a potentially endless debate, one which rabbis/mullah's/Guru's/Priests etc will argue about for ever.

Yes, there is a god. No arguments for it but PROVE ME WRONG! Things have happened which are inexplicable to science, so god takes care of that problem.


Ah, yes, the classic theologian challenge to dissprove a negative (which is impossible). :rolleyes:

As for things that are inexplicable to science, that's only a temporary condition. There's plenty of things that were inexplicable to science a century ago that we now know the reasons for. No need to invoke a deity to explain it. Someones terminal cancer suddenly clears up? PRAISE JESUS! :rolleyes: The reason is biochemical in nature, not related to divine intervention by a supreme being, and we'll find it eventually if we look hard enough for it, as we always have when we go looking for the answers to a question. :)

And how can someone believe in the fables of some omnipotent being (think bible/koran/whatever) when we ourselves are duplicating (and soon surpassing) most, if not all, of what's in there? Sodom and Gamhora (SP?) obliterated by holy fire and brimstone? Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Adam created from the dust of the earth? Bacterial life form created from inert lab chemicals. In His image? Dolly. Lazarus? Cryogenics and nanotech.

As for that whole "Universe in six days" thing...nigga pleze...if I was an alien visitor to some stone age planet and wanted to impress the yokels, I'd tell them I created everything in existence in the a blink of an eye too, then nuke a city to drive home the point that I AM GOD! After vaporizing a city in a blink of an eye, who'd deny that I have the power of a God? :p

The promise of eternal bliss in paradise after serving a lifetime in earthly misery makes sense if you're out to control a mob of unruly heathens without having to invest much in earthly improvements. Why bother with clean water and sanitation if you can simply tell the savages that they'll live in palaces of gold and pearls if they simply obey you and tolerate the squalor they're living in?

This also counters the fear of the great yawning abyss that is death. Why fear eternal death if you can have eternal "life" if you're martyred on an enemies spear while fighting for the glorious cause of converting the "infidels" to The One True Religion��, that being the worship of Me?

Indeed, if I do come back to life in a future time (after being frozen), and am effectively immortal, then I would like to travel the stars till I find some primitive planet with sentient, though technologically backward beings, and make myself their God. I'd have great fun converting some tribe of alien beings into my worshippers, then sending them out to massacre the neighboring "infidels", watching as a holy war spread across the planet.

Naturally, I'd give my "choosen" people the technological advantage so that The One True Religion of Me�� would become the planetary religion. Then I'd have a whole planet of beings that worshipped Me. Naturally, since I want as many worshippers as possible, I ban any form of contraceptive and encourage them to fuck as often as possible.

Then, once I've got a few billion of them, comes the Holy Jihad as my legions of freman (as I'd call my followers :D) spread out to neighhoring solar systems. The cycle repeats till I've got trillions times trillions of beings worshipping me, spreading throughout the universe to convert all the rest of sentient life in existance to the worship of Me.

We'd send missionaries to convert subjects among more technologically advanced races, since I'm not stupid enough to go up against superior strength, to subvert them from within, while all the while my followers grow ever more numerous and powerful, till the time is ripe for a "tribulation" among my believers in the advanced race to rise up and make Jihad against their own people. Once the Holy war is in full swing, I will "deliver" my followers in a "Rapture" by sending in countless legions of my alien followers to save the day and finish off the infidels, establishing Me as the only true god for this new client race.

'Course, by this time countless centuries have passed and no one alive has seen me, since I only speak through priests who get "visons". It wouldn't do for them to see that I'm some physically corporeal being, rather than some all knowing and ever present entity that looking over their every move, and ready to strike them down with eternal damnation if they don't obey My whims, eh?

I wouldn't settle for some half-assed worship by a few million on one planet if I can have all life in the universe enthralled in basking in My benificent and eternal glory. That's not too much to ask for, now is it?

Surely, if I can think up this scenario, some other alien NBK already has, thus explaining all religion. :p

(Don't forget the Great Bear and Wooly Mammoth! Anyone remember these?)

Originally posted by A-BOMB
I personaly believe there is a God, and am Christian, though I haven't gone to church in forever.
If you are a christian and does not go to church, you're right. Christ asked for love, not for hypocrite Host-eating. A pity that the majority of christians does not follow the teachings of Christ, but the teachings of the priest. I find amusing how a couple of fools (read priests) can distort a belief.

Originally posted by Arkangel
Sarevok, one of the biggest, fastest growing threads I can remember is the "Meaning of Life" discussion a couple of years ago. Being a scientific board doesn't proscribe us from chatting about philosophical topics.
I realized this. Sorry, I was mistaken.

Even if there is no God, I would not care about it. No one needs a supreme being taking care of everything and a eternal life. As Tuatara said: Who cares?

Well, I think that megalomania covered everything, and I agree with him. He is the only God we need. :D

Mega, maby every culture sees the god in their own way.. as budda and the rest of the dudes.

NBK, it's not too late for your plans. There are still some countries on earth that have no communication with rest of the world.. You can mask yourself in some halloween clothing, take a flamethrower and convince some tribe (in africa) to grow/maintain/harvest hemp-fields. Maby thats not a global conquest of the world, but this sure will give you lots of money :)

If I took a flamethrower to a village in africa...there wouldn't be any villagers left alive to grow the pot! :D

While I'm tempted to say that religion, god, and the rest are BS, I'm more inclined to take mega's point of view, even if the first paragraph needed reading twice to understand. (Few to many big words for my "I've just been programming JAVA for 5 hours" head.)

It hasn't been proven, nor has it been proven otherwise. There is no way to tell, and I'm happy to not think about it.

I, like I'm sure a few many more here, and very scientifically minded, and I can't believe something that doesn't have a scientific reason, or at least common sense behind it. I suppose yes, there will be technological advances that mean my view needs updating every once in a while, but that is not what I like to spend my time doing.

God has no implication for me living a very simple life, so I choose to ignore the whole concept. It's very simple for me really.

I believe in the possibility of a god, supreme being or maker of all matter started off the creation of time and space. It really isn't something I believe people should give away a Sunday or more of time when they could be making a contribution to the world or in other cases they should stay the hell away from me locked up in a church. As far as the creation of the universe, I believe in white holes and black holes being the matter producers and destroyers of the universe. I believe for every black hole there is a white hole in another spacetime of opposite properties on the other side spewing forth matter at an incredible rate giving birth to a new universe.....But as for as a god there is too much variation as to what people believe the truth is. All religious scriptures were written by men and nothing more, if religion wasn't so widely accepted and hadn't been in place so long it would be an equal challenge to convince someone I could fly around and shoot lasers out of my eyes or to believe there is one all powerful being that created the universe, earth, people ect.....

I do believe that there is purpose and intelligence behind our being here, if you wish to call that God that’s fine with me.
When I was younger I was an agnostic. After about 10 years of ups and downs, I started to realize that there was a pattern to the ebb and flow of fates whims. On reflection, I can see how many seemingly random events happened at exactly the time and manner to best teach me a lesson I needed to learn. I don’t subscribe to any organized religion, although most have some truth in them if you can winnow out the chaff.
The latest Scientific American has an article that explains that quantum mechanics and information theory imply that the universe is a hologram. There is also a book called “The Holographic Universe” by Michael Talbot, which also shows that this would explain some otherwise inexplicable phenomena. To me this makes sense, I think this universe, and by extension us, is a projection, a “real virtual image” to borrow a term from physics, and is an illusion. I further believe that we are spiritual beings in the midst of an experience that is designed to let us chose either to learn and grow, or to stagnate and rot. I think that those who chose to hate and hurt face a “mod” far hasher than nbk after they shuffle off this mortal coil.

While I agree that arguing about the subject is pointless, I would still like to say why I disagree with the reasons that people put forward to justify the existence of god.

I remember an RE lesson in school, where the teacher was putting forward arguments to prove that God existed. They were as follows:

1) Everything must have a cause, the Universe is no exception. The cause is God.

So I asked why a Universe must have a cause, but a god doesn't. No answer except "God doesn't have a cause because he's always existed. He is a 'Causeless cause'" She said that last bit in a really dramatic way, as if she thought it was really clever and was going to impress us. I said no, God has never existed, it's the Universe that has always existed. No reply at all, she just moved on to the next point.

2) Something as complicated as life must have been designed by an intelligent being. That being is God.

Well, what does "complicated" mean? A fart must look pretty damn complicated to an atom of helium. And anyway, that's nonsense. Complicated things can form by chance. The proof (life) is all around you. Well, if the stupid teacher could use arguments without proof, so could I.

I don't know any of the others, she threw me out the lesson for disagreeing and being awkward. Strangely, she seemed to think that those arguments proved that the Christian god existed, but would not work for a different god.

And saying that there are things that science can't explain, so there must be a god, is stupid. Saying "Oh, God did it" when you can't explain something is useless, because it still doesn't explain it. Like if I was asked how a car was put together, I could reply "A welder did it," but it's still not explaining how it was done. It just adds the added complexity of trying to justify the existence of an entity that, as far as I can tell, is four-dimensional, has no mass or physical presence, but can alter matter and has infinite power, and has magic powers to the extent that they can make worlds appear out of nothing.
You still have all the problems of trying to explain, and yet you also have to explain god, and why he bothered to do all this.

A physics teacher of mine once said that it is such a coincidence that our universe has just the right mass for it to have lasted long enough for us to be here, that "it almost makes you wonder about god." It's not a coincidence. A coincidence is when two totally independant events happen together by chance. But we are not independant of the universe. There's a deeper absurdity to it than that also, but I can't quite explain what it is.

I don't believe in a god, because it makes explaining the Universe many times more complicated, and it's my belief that the simplest answer is usually the right answer. I can see why primitive civilisations came up with the idea of a god (and the more complicated the civilisation, the more complicated the religion. Interesting...), but now when people like knowledgehungry say "prove me wrong," well. It's not a proof, but you are basically assuming that there is a god, just because no-one can prove that there isn't one. I like to assume that there isn't because there has been no evidence of one. It's like assuming that there is a cube of ultra-pure lutetium weighing exactly one kilogram sitting 143 feet below the apple tree in my garden, just because I have seen no proof to the contrary.

Nice pic, leadazide :D.

There is of course the other agrument against the existence of god, due to the pure illogicality(sp?) of the whole thing. If you were god why would you create some crappy planet with a few "intelligent" beings on it, what purpose do they serve you? What greater good of the universe can come of having human beings on earth, that "god", couldn't do himself? An all powerful being should not need to create other beings!

I am a Christian and believe there is a God. -Why? I have Faith, I cannot easily explain this� I do not believe we exist for the sole purpose of progressing through a period of time until we die and return to the earth's soil. I feel without God we are nothing more than bugs struggling with survival until we die. All the achievements, the sacrifices, the good and beautiful efforts of people, the ugly and evil acts of people, are ultimately futile things of life with out God.

Some may see this as a foolish or blind primitive way of thinking. But isn�t religion really just a set of beliefs you follow to live your life by? What these beliefs are could be anything; how is one better than another?

I�m not going to attempt to argue that my beliefs are correct, as others have pointed out it would be pointless; it is difficult if not impossible to scientifically prove any set of beliefs about the meaning of life or existence of a god.

grendel23, there's something wrong with your computer.

Do you notice how your posts have such interesting words as:

“mod”

that’s

don’t

and other such juicy gems?

Perhaps it is time for you to get a keyboard that has a working ' " key? ;) 'Cause otherwise it's going to start annoying me, then you can tell us if your presence here was just a holographic projection of a former member? :p

You may wish to start copy/pasting ' " when needed.

Living gnomes and fairies exist and also Elvis is alive and aliens built the pyramids of Egypt.
PROVE ME WRONG! :rolleyes:

If you have that attitude, your not knowledgehungry, but "comfort-of-mind-hungry" because you are either afraid of the fact that the universe has no reason or you don't want to put any effort in thinking about the great questions of our time.

Now I know why you were in favor for the war in Iraq:

Iraq has WMDs! PROVE ME WRONG! :rolleyes:

Don't tell me GWB got direct orders from God about that.

Therefore:

9/11 was a conspiracy by the US Government. PROVE ME WRONG! :rolleyes:

Fascinating!!!

we present this "God" guy (who`s existance can be neither proved nor disproved) into the arena of so called Scientific minds that incidently share a common goal and are Unified in this!
until the "God" subject pops up, then within a few posts, the beginings of a flame war emerges :)
doesn`t this microcosm just stink now of all the wars started from the begining? I don`t know about you, but I see a patttern emerging!


Abso-fuckin-loutley fascinating!

"And for an Encore, Man then went on to prove that Black was White...and got himself killed by the next Zebra Crossing!"

What really gets my hackles up is when "christians" ask how I can have morals without a belief in their god. Arrogance of the highest order!

I'm certainly not the most moral person around, but I have a reasonable sense of decency taht I bet surpasses that of many christians. I certainly don't think it's right to sexually abuse young boys for example!

It's easy to see how the idea of gods/spirits emerged. Like bunch of cave-dudes light a fire in their cave one night. A subtle wind blowing into the cave mouth means that the fire is insufficiently ventilated and the cavemen die of CO poisoning in their sleep. It's a mysterious death with no obvious cause, possibly the lighting of the fire, or merely their presense angered someone/something? Maybe the cave is naturally poorly ventilated and this has happened many times before, maybe people shouldn't dare trespass onto sacred ground?

9/11 was a conspiracy by the US Government. PROVE ME WRONG!


Hey, you believe that too? Cool, I'm finally not alone in knowing the truth. :)

A God, who made us and who's looking after us... This is the best expression of our vanity, I think.
I can't believe we would be more than bugs if He exists.

"God" subject pops up, then within a few posts, the beginings of a flame war emerges

You know yt, if you look around the issues and opinions section for my nickname you'll find that more of my posts lit the fuse of a flamewar....:o ...No idea why...:p

9/11 was a conspiracy by the US Government. PROVE ME WRONG!

Hey, you believe that too? Cool, I'm finally not alone in knowing the truth.


Aah the truth. Such a glorious thing, more abused and twisted than the expressions which call upon god. Now if only people would believe in the truth instead of god....

Does that also mean I'm on the CIA blacklist too now?

I still fondly recall the time a couple of young Jehova's Witness boys turned up at my place. After they started off trying to tell me about god, my sister and I began to tell them about the fairies living at the bottom of our garden.

Somehow they just couldn't see I was throwing their own arguements straight back at them. They left, still not believing in fairies. I still don't believe in god. Or fairies.

Yeah, Anthony, about the little boy thing - thats why I don't like organised religion. So many times it tries to force people against their own natural instincts.

"Celibacy is not hereditary" :D



The universe exists because it can. Given enough time, all things will happen. Its the classic monkeys/typewriters/Shakespere idea.
We are here because we are an integral part of that existence. We exist now because now is when we can exist. Got your head spinning yet? here's the best bit - the universe exists because we are here to see it!

Tuatara, while I don't believe in a god, I also don't believe the universe exists soley because we are here to see it. That's like saying if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears/sees it, then it doesn't happen(which some very extreme philosophers actually believe btw).

Nihilist,

I always thought Existentialism sucked too :)

Ahh, the old tree in the forest thing. Know anything about quantum mechanics and superposition?

The whole basis of quantum computing revolves around the ability of two or more quantum states to exist at the same time - the condition of superposition.
Observation of the object in this state causes the superpositon to resolve into just one of the possible states. So the tree in the forest has both fallen and not fallen until it iteracts with its surroundings. Same applies to the sound it makes.

Same as Schrodinger's "Cat in a Box" argument. put a cat in a box. Now it is in the box you cannot tell if it is alive or dead, until you observe the cat - either directly or indirectly. The cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

BTW observation of a quantum state does not require humans - anything can be the observer, even a photon.

nbk,
I have been composing my posts in Word, then pasting them into the reply window. Apparently in Mr Gate's program a ' is not a '. The funny thing is these rendered correctly in IE6, so I was confused until I looked at the source and saw what you were talking about.
I will find a less evil program to compose my posts.

I use Notepad. Works great, simple, and I can open multiple windows of it to compose replies to many threads at once. :)

Belief is a personal leap of faith, that needs to be whole heartedly honest. I don't agree with Bible thumpers or JW's. I don't believe in Scientology or The Church Universal and Triumphant (a local religious cult w/militant tendancies). But I don't believe in Aetheism either, I just hope that there is something afterwards, something that explains what the point of it all is. A "Wizard Behind the Curtain" so to speak. I can't imagine nothing after such a confusing blur of memories and emotions. I guess I would just feel really disappointed, if that were possible. Maybe that is the point to just experience and be happy with having done that.

It's surprising how many adamantly atheist women suddenly start talking to the Lord in the bedroom ;)

Of course, the correct response is: "it's ok, you don't have to call me that"

:D

I'm an atheist, I blaspheme all the time.

Just because He doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't take His name in vain.

Hey, Kid Orgo, it's interesting that though you're an atheist and a blasphemer, you still capitalised the H in He and His?

Was that an accident or divine intervention?:p

Anyway, glad this debate is still pottering along. My position still hasn't changed:

SOMETHING is going on beyond our clear comprehension. There are always more questions than there are answers and the "something" is what some people believe in as their god, or others brush aside as coincidence.

Either way, all religions are the version of that "something" that has been polluted by human perception, interpretation and finally exploitation.

'Either way, all religions are the version of that "something" that has been polluted by human perception, interpretation and finally exploitation.'

as is the whole world around us ;)

I'm not sure there is any such thing as coincidence or chance. I suspect the universe may be completely deterministic, and the only reason some events seem random is that we do not understand or cannot see the underlying causes. In other words, should the unverse start over from the exact same conditions as last time, then all the same events will occur. No gods required!

Tuatara, do you mean that there is a fate sort of thing going on?

like every atom has a pre determined path since the big bang? thus everything that seems random is only because we don't know its origin or the factors affecting it. the movement one of my rockets may seem random but when you look more closely you see its because half the nozzle is gone and because its windy. every time it changes direction its the result of a combination of wind and thrust. if we can't see the wind and thrust, then it is random? see what i'm getting at? nothing is actually random....

Thats exactly what i'm saying. Sadly events will always appear random to us, since to predict the future accurately you'd need an exact model of the entire universe. A partial model only gives you a probability, since those factors not accounted for in your model are the ones that upset your predictions.

So there you go, self-will is just an illusion ;)

I choose to believe in Him. However, I also believe that a large portion of the bible is a load
of crap, aimed at keeping the masses in control and productive.

I agree with Arkangel, it is good to see this thread still hanging in there.

Originally posted by tri-x
I choose to believe in Him. However, I also believe that a large portion of the bible is a load
of crap, aimed at keeping the masses in control and productive.
How controversial... The proofless belief in the existance of God does exactly this, keeps the masses under control and productive.

Speaking of the bible, I don't think its a bad book. In fact, I like it very much. The book of Ecclesiastes is worth reading, better than most contemporaries books. There's a lot more of good things in the bible, like when Saint Paul says that fags, alike criminals, will not go to Heaven http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/images/icons/icon14.gif:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (Cor 6:9-10)

Other good readings on the bible are when Caine's wife appears from nowhere :rolleyes:, or when a jew (I don't recall his name) fucks his daughters because there were no jews available for his daughters to fuck, and the girls could not fuck non-jews.

sare: that also says that anyone who has any kind of sex doesn't go to heaven...."either fornicators"

That use of the word 'inherit' is interesting. Does that mean all those good folk have to wait until god fucks off before they get anything? What a rip!

The oft quoted wedding where J. turns water into wine is the one that makes me laugh. More likely the guests were simply too pissed to tell the difference.

Hey, I just noticed that buggering sheep was left off the list! So all you Ozzies are OK ;)

Since all the party girls will be in hell, what's the point of going to heaven? ;)

Well, they can guarantee you they are AIDS, syfilis etc free... :p

"The oft quoted wedding where J. turns water into wine"

It sure is a neat trick, that water-into-wine thing. Sadly J no longer has those powers since he resigned his modship here :D.

Sarevok, talking of fathers fucking daughters, I heard on the radio yesterday that some guy in England had been sentenced to 14 years in prison for having six children with his own daughter!!

He should be exiled to a hillbilly settlement where that's acceptable.

That way, the taxpayer won't have to pay for his meals for 14 years. I read that in the UK it costs about �22,000 to house a prisoner for a year. Assuming he serves half of that 14 years, �154000 will have gone down the drain on him. That's just daft if you ask me.

As long as his daughter was 16, what's technically the crime? :)

Well I'm out of heaven on quite a few counts. Does "nor abusers of themselves" mean what I think it does - wanking?

You can use the bible to justify just about anything. Same goes for any holy book that's ever become established. It's how they stay around.

150 AD: "Take a completely vague and self-contradictory book and call it God's Word. It'll sell like hotcakes."





To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke. Religions can have a 99.9% overlap in belief structure and tenets, and that .1% will have people killing people for centuries.

Even admitting this, I still hate the fucking protestant Unionists.

Interesting how one can be aware of the futility of bias and still be biased, hrm?

What I find interesting is that the Christian New Testament is most dissimilar in principal to the Old Testament.

In the OT, got was an arsehole, who kills you if he doesn't like you, and turns people into salt for looking at something he told you not to.

In the NT, God has sent along Jesus and gone basically all soft. No more sacrificing your children, drowning the world, or crushing Phillistine empires. Instead, we get bombarded with a new election policy of forgiveness and free will. It seems that God has lost his balls, and now writes children's novels instead of good old violent, self worshipping works of propoganda intended to scare people.

And all because he became a Dad. Or was it more to do with whoever wanted us to believe in 'God' writing to tell the people what they wanted to hear?

Think about it. The Jews were subjected to dictatorship by the Romans, and were pretty fucked off about it too. They had no choice but to obey the Romans, and according to the OT, they had no choice but to obey God either. This similarity of policy between Israel's God and Israel's opressor can't have been very popular, now can it?

So religion re-invented itself, conveniently changing with the times, introducing something that Israel really wanted: freedom to choose what THEY wanted to do and believe in. No wonder the Bible became the world's best selling book over night.

Originally posted by Nihilist
sare: that also says that anyone who has any kind of sex doesn't go to heaven...."either fornicators"
Whoso fucks his wife and only his wife (this is called love and loyalty, I don't know if this still exists :() is not a fornicator. A fornicator fucks anyone, and fucks only for the fucking. And who said I have SOME kind of sex? :mad:

Originally posted by nbk2000
Since all the party girls will be in hell, what's the point of going to heaven? ;)
Party girls are foolish airheads. In fact, there is only two kind of women: those who don't want to fuck anyone, and those who want to fuck everyone but me! So I don't care about where the party girls are, or where the party girls are not.

Originally posted by Mr Cool
Sarevok, talking of fathers fucking daughters, I heard on the radio yesterday that some guy in England had been sentenced to 14 years in prison for having six children with his own daughter!!
Very sad, and this is more common than we can think of. In Brazil (a barren wasteland full of subhuman apes) there is shit like this (or even worse shit) happening everyday. This is a proof that our world is hell itself, a hell even worse than one God (if He exists) could think of. That's why I say, society (and I hate society so much) can't be reformed (like my teachers always say), society must be destroyed.

Talking about God...

(1) He does not exists.
Life has no value, we are but spiritless fleshbags. It would be bad, and hard do believe, because there will be no explanation to our existance.

(2) God exists and he is ok
This would explain why we are alive, why everything exists and all that. Everything would be fine then, but if He existed, I am sure there will be no idiot fucking his own daughter, so it would be good, but very hard to believe. What kind of God would allow a human/ape to fuck his children? It is better than #1, but it is as hard to believe as #1.

(3) God exists and he is dead, mad, or something like this
This would explain everything, like #2. At the same time, it would explain why the world seems to be going crazy and why EVERYTHING is a shit today. This is bad, and less hard to believe than #2 and #1.

(4) God exists, he is ok, but we are not living in a "normal" world, we are living in some kind of hell, because we were "sinners" in the "real" world
This makes sense too. It would explain our existencial doubts, like #2 and #3, would explain why everything is a shit: not because God does not exists, nor because he died, but because He WANTS our world to be what it is. A hell. Because we deserve it.

I think #3 and #4 makes sense. I don't have a proof about God being mad or dead, nor about the world being hell, but it is a reasonable way of thinking.

I must disagree with #1. The non-existance of god does not render life valueless. Its like those bloody art critics who see a piece of modern art (wild swathes of colour on a piece of plywood) and start inferring all sorts of wierd shit about the artist, and what this piece represents etc. , when the truth is the plywood was handy and the painter simply liked the colours. Why can't life be its own justification, why must there be a purpose? Can't something just be . As for explaining our existance, given an "infinite" universe we were bound to happen! Despite the astronomical odds against, someone manages to win the lottery every week!

As for #2, if god does exist it might explain 'how' but not 'why' we exist.

#3 is excellent news for those waiting to 'inherit':D

#4 If true then god deserves the Big Finger.

I said "this question does not fit well on a scientific board" because seriously thinking about this shit just makes one mad, for there is no proof of anything, we just ponder and drown in endless possibilities like my #1, #2, #3, and #4. This is not good for one's mental health...

Originally posted by Tuatara
Why can't life be its own justification, why must there be a purpose? Can't something just be .
I don't know, this is not a rational thing, its psychological, don't you think? Some people need a purpose/justification/whatever, and some don't.

Even if you think there is no need for us to have a purpose, you must agree (I think) that a life with a purpose would be more "cool" to live than a life without a purpose.

Yes.

If you knew WHY, would life still be enigmatic enough to live? Would you still want to be alive if you discovered there really was some sort of selfless meaning to your existence, perhaps having nothing to do with yourself?

After searching through various news websites, I found the answer, there is a God:

"I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/16/attack/main578471.shtml


I also found this:
Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory committee, applauded Israel's attack. "It will help the peace process," he said... - http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/0/081018-8320-010.html

here's why I believe that god exists:
The chance of all 2000 enzymes in the human body coming together 'natrually' and forming life is 10^40,000.
anything above 10^50 is mathematically impossible.
if we all have a sense of right and wrong where did it come from? you may answer your parents, but where did they get it from, their parents, etc, etc so you go back long enough and are left with 2 people , they had to get their sense of right and wrong from some(one)(thing).

as previously stated if I belive in God and i die and he's not there what happens to me? nothing , I rot, but if you don't believe and he is there what happens to you ? your screwed.

now hell may not be all fire and brimestone or the worst pain you've ever felt , according to the bible it is merely the eternal separation from God.

I hope this at the very least convinces you aetheists that there is some superior being that created us

"anything above 10^50 is mathematically impossible."

How can anything, by definition, be impossible unless the probability is exactly zero?

Complex life might be improbable, but it's not like the universe has been short on time to try out a few combinations.

"if we all have a sense of right and wrong where did it come from?"

It's a natural part of sentiency. You also do learn it from your parents and those arouns you i.e. society.

"you may answer your parents, but where did they get it from, their parents, etc, etc so you go back long enough and are left with 2 people"

Humouring you for a moment, what we have now doesn't have to have always been inherited. People do have the ability to learn and develop *themselves*, and then pass it on.

Also, your statement is flawed in that you assume it all starts with two people. You're using religious rhetoric to "prove" religion - a bit of a logic loop, no?

The chance of all 2000 enzymes in the human body coming together 'natrually' and forming life is 10^40,000.
anything above 10^50 is mathematically impossible.

No, it's not. This fact proves the genius that lies in simplicity. Enzymes are determined by their structure, which is determined by the way atoms interact. The rules how atoms interact are relatively simple compared to the complexity of the whole universe.
However, those simple rules will still provide the laws which giant enzymes have to obey.
Just because there are millions of parameters, you can't immediatly distinguish the simple set of rules behind it.

Amino acids and enzymes simple formed, because their structure and the conditions were energetically favorable.

There has been an experiment which showed that complicated amino acids can be formed by simply allowing N2, CO2 and other very simple molecules produced by vulcanic eruptions and lightning strikes to react for long enough. I'm talking about a timescale of two weeks, which is peanuts compared to the age of the universe.

It might be interesting to read up on the subject of entropy, which is not only a chemical variable but possibly one of the most important factors why things happen.

BTW, a chance can't be higher than 1.

I'd love to know where this magic number of 10^40,000 came from.

As far as I'm concerned, while vast numbers may be incomprehensible (lets face it, most folks can't imagine what 1000 of something looks like), the idea of a deity that made everything is even more incomprehensible.

" humoring you for a moment, what we have now dosen't have to have always ebbn inherited. people do have the ability to learna dn evelop and *themselves* and pass it on"

if "passing it on" isn't inheritence then what is?

when you were a kid and you hit your sister/cousin/brother and someone said it was wrong, why is it wrong? who decided that hitting someone you were angry at is wrong?

you say we learn from society, where did society get moral law? the only record of someone writing down moral law and setting it forth for society to model after are the 10 commandments and various similar religious stories.

the universe has been around for what ~6billion years right? in order to have created life "natrually" it(primordeal(SP?) sludge/soup) would have had to try combining the human enzymes 1 2/3 ^39990 times a year for 6 billion years((10^40,000)/6,000,000,000), not to mention having life supporting atmosphere and other such variables needed for succesful life.

"Based on the number and complexity of assembly instructions, we can conclude that all life forms have a complexity greater than Dembski�s 10 ^ 150. The time required for any evolutionary change using a true RM&NS process would thus be substantially greater than .5 *((10 ^150)/(average population). This strongly suggests that no evolutionary change can be the result of an RM&NS type process"(http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000246.html)


do you believe that something can be good or evil?

You are under the misaprehension that ALL combinations must be attempted. Wrong. Evolution follows the path of successes, eliminating obvious mistakes, and the downright impossible (try bonding 3 Xenon atoms together).

As for your numbers, have you got a handle on just how many atoms there are in the universe? I sure don't. Heck the number of atoms in my cup of coffee stuns me.

Oh, and the latest estimate of the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, so we've had twice as long as you thought;)
It is possible to have a model that is well defined, precise, logically consistent, etc. that is yet wrong because it doesn't actually model the real world. This is why empirical data and empirically replicable tests are critical, and more personally, why I have been interested in both the problems of quantifying biological information and in assessing the probabilities of systems of events.

... from further down the thread you so kindly posted a link to.

you say we learn from society, where did society get moral law? the only record of someone writing down moral law and setting it forth for society to model after are the 10 commandments and various similar religious stories

And here we go again, with the notion that morality is derived from religion. What a load of horseshit.

When I was a kid, I did things I KNEW were wrong, not because someone told me they were, simply because I knew that if someone had done it to me I'd have been unhappy. (pissing on my headmasters car for example) I didn't need the bible, I didn't need vicars and I certainly didn't need God to tell me what was right and what was wrong.

Morality is one of the bedrocks of religion, and as of this very day, the Anglican church is in turmoil because of the ordination of a Bishop in the states that takes it up the ass. All the heads of the Anglican church are in London, discussing whether this is acceptable in the eyes of God. There's a huge amount of opposition, especially from the African Bishops, yet these people habitually condone bigamy, female circmcision and all manner of practices that you and I would condemn. So who's right here?

The bible and every other religious document is used on a regular basis to justify the point of view of every man and his dog. What does this tell you, that a man in Africa can mutilate his daughter, and condemn another man who is only attracted to other men?

It tells ME that religion is hypocrisy. I don't deny God, but what I DO is deny the right of anyone to tell me how to interpret Him. I don't actually believe in God as described in the various teachings, I just believe that we're part of something bigger than we can understand and it's down to me to find my way through that.

As to creationism, then if the universe is finite, and time finite, what exists OUTSIDE the universe we're aware of. Is it a vacuum? Is it all contained in a tin box in somebody's pocket in another universe outside that? Infinity is a fascinating subject, and quoting all the statistics in the world will not get you any closer to defining it. And what happened before the creation? What was God doing, working behind the checkout at a 7-11 somewhere? I mean, seriously, if all there was was darkness, where the fuck did he come from?

I asked this question in the first place because you're generally pretty bright, and it's always interesting to see how people feel. Do you know, there are upwards of 5 Billion people on this planet, and all of them have their own different experience of life, of God, of understanding of their place. The arrogance of most religions is to state that everyone that doesn't have your point of view is wrong. It seem to me that the 3 main religions based around "God" are the most smug, conceitful and arrogant and I have to say I'm repelled by them.

I'm ranting a bit, but in Summary, if you believe in God then the answer is Yes, there is a god. If you don't then no, there isn't one. And for those like me, who feel that even if he does exist, don't think he'd want me kissing his ass, all we can do is live our lives as well as we can and hope that we get into heaven on the back of being a pretty decent guy.

Originally posted by Skean Dhu
you say we learn from society, where did society get moral law? the only record of someone writing down moral law and setting it forth for society to model after are the 10 commandments and various similar religious stories.

do you believe that something can be good or evil?

No. Good and evil, as absolute concepts, are flawed beyond belief.

Society, in order to survive, must make rules for people to live by. Humans are very competitve, stupid creatures and in order for large groups of them to survive together they must have rules in place to regulate their behaviour. This is where morals come from. If you look anywhere in the world, you will find common moral concepts. People shouldnt steal, people shouldnt kill without reason, cheating is bad, etc. Imagine for a second a world with no rules of any kind, with no ingrained moral sets. The result is utter violence, chaos and despair. Morals are simply another survival mechanism.

I'm new in this forum and I enjoyed(well, more than that) this place.At lest people are honest here.(After all rogue people are far more honest than "cultured" people).As for God I should say that every word is associated to a certain concept and the concept may be different for different people.
I'm not going into details of trying to prove that there is a God or not but few things I've noticed here is that most of the members are critians.The God and the denial of Him are both for the concept of the bibilical God(not for all the members).
I hold a different concept of God and I've proof of his exixtance.There are things that are not explicable by the present theories of science but even the science and the "scientific" proofs are also not that "absolute" not to be questioned.(I'm leaving this behind as well).
Here is what I honestly think.One things the most noticable is that you understand anything only if you want to.Strong prejudises will make you a good critique but thats where it ends.I've seen the world in a unified manner and not the fragmented way that we are taught to see it.And I can see some things that are self evident.
The first fundamental assumption of the behaviour of man
1.Empathy is far more natural than apathy.
second fundamental assumption
2.Like is more natural than dislike.
I don't think that for the people who see the world through their own eyes and not from the distorted eyes of society there is any need of proof for these two.
Now examining them the surprising thing is that none of the 2 adds anything to the survival value of a human and times a lot they are in conflict with survival.(True ! isn't it?)
Why is it that the sense of achivement of a human always resids in the minds of others(thinking of it as an achivement)? Why the default behaviour when seeing somebody in trouble is the wish to help him?(you need to justify it to yourself that why you should NOT help?). Though the prolonged exposure to the pain of others renders you insensitive but that should be viewed as distortion.(well, it IS distortion,but without it you can't survive).
The care of a man about all living things and that of animals was far too surprising when I thought of it first but I won't talk about animals anyway.
I'm a hindu and I'm saying it here because at least I was never exposed to the concept of bibilical god demanding surrender and behaving like a tyrant.May be that is the reason that I'm not much in reaction with the concept of god.but don't steriotype me on that.The image of hindus that is created by the media in west is simply great.
But what I've observed so far is that most of the people behave contrary to the assumtions behave out of reaction rather than natural response.Since nobody cared about you so you start not caring for people or you start disrespecting people because they don't respect you (when someone doesn't respect himself that makes him far more disrespectable though).
And why the respect of someone with very high self respect is far more valued that that of a sheeple(I first got this word here and I really love it).
I'm not the one goody-goody "love,tolerance" person and belive in massacers too:).But the point is that you do that because you have to and not because you want to.(well,how else can you handle a koranic person?blowing of people for no apparent reason:mad: ).
The thing I felt is that there is something connecting people and their feelings.That can not be any logic result of evolution or the physical laws governing the nature.well, let that be the god.(who cares about hell or havean?).As for right and wrong if something happens than it is justified by the nature and it's laws so whats wrong that "can happen" or "has happened"?
"Whatever happens is for the good".A great quote and I know it's true.If you come out of the distortiion and reactions this is what is there for enyone to see.

( I was thinking of writing a book titled "First assumption":) . Actually there is only one assumption for any theory and rest are merely logical entailment of the first one.
Like in the previous case there is only one assumption and that is the first one.The second assumption follows because one likes oneself so empathy entails liking others being more natural than dislike.
Or for the "Books"(There is only one "book" with three editions namely 1.(Old Testament) 2.(Old Testament + New Testament) 3 (Koran)(i'm saying so because reading half of each book (couldn't read fully I felt that the same idea is being reflected is all the three books which is below))
First fumdamental assumpton: Man is a bad .(Basterd ,Sinner or whatever)
what follows is that ->since the desire of pleasure gides him -> Desire for pleasure is sin and so is the pleasure
Since sex is one of major pleasures -> Sex is sin and chestity is holiness
Since women are major sourse of this desire so they must be .........
Predominant in Islam and medieval cristianity.
)

I would like very much critisism from the people "who think" and who don't try to be "good".

Thrall, I tried to read your post, I really did, but it's so jumbled together I found it very hard work. I don't know if you're typing in another programme then copying and pasting to the thread, but if you want stuff to be read, put some time into the format as well as the writing itself.

Yes, a tricky post to read, but I think I understand what you are driving at.

Firstly, I agree with your two assumptions, that (social conditioning aside) 'empathy' and 'like' are prefered emotional states for humans. BTW the opposite of empathy is antipathy, not apathy.
I disagree when you state neither is beneficial in evolutionary terms. Consider humans as herd animals - looking after your herd mates is extremely benefical to the herd. Many examples exist in the wild, like meerkats who post sentries, elephants who rally around their young when threatened, many species of monkey will warn others of intruders. Remember that the evolutionary process is more interested in a species as a whole, rather than specific individuals, so a social trait can evolve as a means of protecting a species, while still sacrificing the odd individual along the way.

I think human empathy is a natural extension of this herd instinct, and intelligence allows us to extend this empathy towards other animals, particularly those which are beneficial to us. No god required.

Damn this thread is so much fun! Nice post thrall, I can see you are thinking.

Actully I was using Knotes to write and than copy paste and it turned out to be very bad (Sorry). As for the comment, I didn't expect it to be interpreted that way(though I can understand why it was interpreted so).Anyway I've removed it.
Tuatera : I would like to ask only one question : Isn't inteligence supposed to supress the herd spirit rather than extend it?:confused:
And for opposite to empathy, I chose apathy rather than antipathy because antipathy and empathy are two shades of same concept but apathy is truly orthogonal to both of them.

By empathy, apathy and antipathy, I take it you mean 'love' , 'hate', and ' I don't care', which would put apathy in between the other two, not orthogonal at all.


Perhaps' extend' was the wrong word. ' Modify' might be a better word - take herd instinct, add intelligence and you end up with increasingly complicated social structures, of which compassion is a significant component in human society. I believe research into primate groups in the wild has shown good correlation between group size and the amount of social interaction required to hold the group together. To me this indicates empathy is beneficial so the survival of animals living in large social groups, as people do.
As groups get larger and smarter, empathy and complex social structure would lead to the codification of those individual behaviours beneficial to the group as a whole, as well as those behaviours which are socially destructive, when the size of a group precludes the interaction of all individuals within the group. Thus we now have social evolution leading to moral codes of conduct, which eventually are set down in religious texts(e.g 10 commandments), and common law. This enables individuals within a large group, meeting for the first time, to know how to treat with each other. It also allows abherrant behaviour to be recognised and dealt with before it can cause too much damage to the group.

Phew! I guess I'm trying to say that intelligence allows us to extend the human 'herd' to a size far beyond species lacking that intelligence, through the use of complex social structures, based originally around the instinctive empathy we all share.

Still no god! :D

I recommend everyone read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, any library will have it. That explains things very well in my mind. Argue with me, but after you read the book;).

I hope there is a god. I dont know if there is but I sure hope there is. As far as I can see most people are looking for answers, when an answer cannot be provided for whatever reason it is a miracle or some sort of act of god. A good man dies for no apparent reason so whats the reason....it was an act of god. All of these religious nuts are most likely cofused people who cant deal with somethings just not being able to be explained or are too stupid to look at scientific facts so god is an easy way out. I am tired so I hope this all makes sense.

If there is an scientific explaination for evrything as I have heard so many times, why then are all these mysteries in the world that are unsolved. The main reason I believe there is a God is because I don't believe that the whole world was created out of nothing (big bang theory). All the detail thats in thw world, and with my knowledge of chemistry and the atoms I simply refuse that each individual atom and electron was created by an accident. Thats enough evidence for me to prove that God exists.

The bottom line is that you can choose not to believe there is a God or not but I don't want to spend eternity in hell.

Is it true that there is no mention of "hell" in the Bible (old testament at least)?

Many scientific mysteries of a few decades ago are now scientific fact, it's a continuing effort. Science doesn't have all the answers, but religion has even fewer.

The absence of an explanation for the universe doesn't prove the existence of a god. Same as failure to prove your whereabouts doesn't prove you were at the murderscene.

Though I thought I should not write about my opinions on science yet repeated mention of word "Scientific Explaination" and "Scientific Fact" compelled me to do so.
Right from the begining when I first asked my elder brother when he was teaching me mathematicle form of the law of gravity I asked him "Why two masses attrect each other at the first place?".He didn't answer me then.And being a graduate in technology I don't have an answer now.New theories come(string theory for instance).That claim to have an explaination of these questions yet they leave some other questions behind.Quantum theory for instance has a formula E=H(nu)(can't write the symbol) and ask why it's so.....no answer.I'm not going in writing the list of the fu***** "postulates" of it and others theories.
So in the end "science" itself become a knowledge system based on some assumptions that themselves have no base.They are "Just assummed".
To explain myself let me give two more postulates that I could and will never understand
1.Homoginity of space(if an even happens in some way at some point in space than it will happen same way provided all other "factors" are same(if your procedure of making PETN works in US than it will work in INDIAas well))
2.Homoginity of time(if an even happens in some way at some point of time than it will happen same way provided all other "factors" are same(if your procedure of making PETN worked yesterday than it will work tomorrow))
3.Homoginity of direction
No one can prove the bias of these assumptions.The most odd appearing to me is the 2'nd one.
Anyway all I'm saying is that there are no "explainations".All explainations create intermediate constructs which themselves are undefined all the time.and then comes a better theory that will incorporate the exeptions of previous one and will introduce more constructs which themselves left undefined.(First you define temperature,then enthalpy and then entropy what more........?)
This is the way science is progressing.There seems to be little logic if you try to look at it from a bit heigher platform rather than being in it.The same statement used by "scientific" people for "religious bygots".
At the end science seems to be an autological system which generates no knowledge or at the max quatifies the "consistancy" of the universe.But thats it.Science is based on assumptions,So is our life.We trust our senses while there is no reason for that and we know the fact that they do decieve us sometimes,yet contrary to all logic we trust them anyway.Thats the way life goes on.
All special thing science has is consistancy but thats what every autological system is.And the theories who uses the construct of god,some of them are consistant(Autological ;)).
While everything at the end is just one big assumption then why to worry about the fucking "logic" anyway.Trust yourself and trust your instincts.There is no science and there is no religion.All are assumptions anyway and if one believe in god of any form that is also an assumption( or a corollory ;)) and nothing more.
I stick to the "Fist assumption" and I shall try to be as "natural" as I could(free from "distortion").Agin if one ask why my answer remains same "it's an assumption".:D

Originally posted by Anthony
Is it true that there is no mention of "hell" in the Bible (old testament at least)?
When early old testament texts where written, hebrews believed on the Sheol, a place where every soul went to rot - no eternal justice bullshit:
Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun.

Through the bible, this belief becomes a dualistic heaven/hell belief.

If I took the bible seriously, I would believe on heaven and hell, but I would not believe on a "normal" world, where people live, die, are judged, and go to heaven or hell. I would believe that, when Adam and Eve were banished from the paradise (Eden), they were sent to hell (this world) to live (suffer) and die (to cease to exist). So, no world, no chance, no hope, no nothing.

Your world is an ashtray... we burn and coil like cigarretes, the more you cry your ashes turn to mud.

A quote from the UK comedy series The Young Ones - "If there isn't a God, how do you know His name?" ;)

I think the biggest difference between science and religion is that religion assumes it has all the answers, and refuses to listen to contradictory evidence. Science (well, good science anyway) assumes it doesn't have all the answers, and actively sets out to find new evidence to either prove or disprove current theories, postulates, laws, models etc. I would never assume I knew all the answers, which is why I watch with keen interest as new discoveries are made which point to things like dark matter, and dark energy, which help to fill in the holes in current astrological theory, and may even lead to a Grand Unfied Theory linking electric, magnetic and gravitional fields - the Holy Grail of physics for the last 100 years or more.

Actually there is a god,although on earth it has been used to benefit organized religions until few can believe it anymore.

To understand it better one may consult wingmakers.com. It is not fiction, although written as fiction.

To understand where the human physical body came from one may consult sitchin.com, for the Sumerian clay tablets history of where we came from, why, and how.

The fact is we are all spiritual entities which ride around in a human body vehicle because that is the only way we can interact with the three dimensional organization of "frozen energy" which makes up all the physical matter in this universe, (one of 7). The frozen energy is actually trapped in resonances which cause it to be unable to itself leave that state.

This is very difficult to comprehend, but search some websites on hyper-dimensional physics to gain insight into what our way out there scientists are now encountering. It's actually too complicated for the human brain, although the spiritual brain which partially can inhabit the human vehicle can comprehend it pretty well. For a brief overview of hyper-dimensional physics, go to http://www.halexandria.org/dward118.htm


I am not going to get into a debate about this because the proof, while as sound as that of anything else we strongly believe, is not something one can demonstrate to those not yet able to comprehend it.

Each physical body is inhabited by a spiritual entity about plus minus 30 days of its birth. That spiritual entity got permission to possess that vehicle, and rides it till it becomes uninhabitable. Then the spiritual entity merely steps out of it, and the physical vehicle decomposes and returns to mineral state. 100% recycling.

Your physical body's mind has most of the spiritual mind's powers blocked while in the physical form. However those who play around with such powers occasionally unlock them and by thought alone can make impressive things happen. Often though I have found that once I got really going on some power, and USED it, higher powers noticed and shut it down. That's for experimenters...Expect powers to be turned off once noticed.

Do not, at this time pay too much attention to technology for things are afoot which may render most technology moot soon. Pay attention to what's happening. The sun is having instabilities that exceed those in recorded history. Solar mass ejections (localized nuclear blasts which send out enormous amounts of sum matter at millions of miles per hour, (so far no big one has been directed at earth of any of the unprecedented large ones lately), can do enormous damage to earth if they hit it. That could really crimp experimentation. Clearly the sun is very upset about something.

On a more practical priority level, the Russians have moved sunburn cruise nuke mobile missile launchers into syria and Iran to block America's napoleon, and say they reserve the right to fire them without warning should Putin decide someone was becoming a threat to Russia. He also put 19 ten warhead mirved ICBMs on active duty, aimed at, guess who. Saudi Arabia has made a deal with China for icbm rockets and Pakistan for warheads for them (and is beginning to pull its money out of USA banks. Practically the entire world is working to cause the dollar to be rejected as the international currency of exchange. They are going to gold backed currency. When that happens USA will collapse internally within a couple years. Nukes may follow.

All those things tend to push making a better explosive way down on one's priorities. It's a hobby, but ought not consume too much of one's time. Understanding who runs the universe, and your own place in all that may cut more mustard than anything else you can do. At least it would re-arrange your priorities as to what counts long term about what you do with your time while in the physical form. Research Edgar Casey's works (om almost all libraries and on the net) for some pretty reliable poop from the spiritual side, about how things work.

Why are you so much conserned about USA?
If it falls it will be the only good thing that can happen to humanity.If the desenders of the killer white population that wiped out(literaly) three continents(australia,and both amaricas),and now they talk about humanity(what an irony), falls or suffers,don't you think it will be justice to all the slaughtered aborigins that died for no reason but for the greed of the europen "civilised barbarians".
Anyway what I want to say is that a lot more things are speculations and as for proof I say once again "There is NO PROOF".
Far as sprituality is concerned times a lot they argue about some kind of "order" in the chaotic universe that is inexplicable as far as probabilistic analysis is conserned.But that FEEL of order can be probalistic as well.I mean the questions of the kind "Why this only happens and not that?".
But the point is that whatever happens this question can be asked.
For instance I have a coin that I toss.There is equal probability of head and tail.Now I toss it and head comes and there is one that says"See head appeared and not tail.there must be some REASON for that".What I want to say is that this question would have been asked even when the tail would have appeared.There are things that don't have reasons as such.
Or the best answer to the above question(Why only head and not tail?) is "Something had to appear, so it's head,so what?and I know now that actually "so nothing".
There are possibilities that we don't consider and then discard.
far as "may be" is conserned think about the following
May be I'm(thrall) is an alien or may be you are you just don't know or may be there is no antarctica,or north pole,or maybe there was no hitler,or maybe.......,or maybe............
The point is that we see and believe and just live our life based on that and thats it.
@ tuatara
All I want to say is that science and religion are not much different.Well, even religion is not defined.I mean how can you say that religion assumes that it has all the answers,Which religion?
Both are beliefe systems or If I say science is anothere religion then whats wrong about that?
I again say that when considering religion why to take default meaning as the religion of "The Book".Well,Taoism leave a lot of scope for other possible explanations and you can murge science in it partially,or hinduism for instance.Why the religion means some set of rituals and a nesseccery theory of origin of universe?science is progressing and being ammended time to time.
there were some mediavel theories of chemistory(alchemy) that are far more absurd than even "The Books".But they are augmented and ammended.Why not this can be dome with religion?
Just because "Boorbearers" are too rigid to change? Or the books have some inherent rigidity?
But why to become reactionary("Getting distorted") because of that and and deny everything that is in the "religion".I'm no follower of P. Sorokin but he IS right when he says that science is analytic(It analyses) when religion is sythatic(It sythasises).
Sorry for being tool long or offencive if I've been but I like the people who don't try to be "good"

@thrall: 'Which religion?". Thats a fair question, and I must say I've really only come up against Christians, as that is by far the dominant religion where I live. Some of them have been so blinkered by their beliefs its amazing they can walk down the street without falling over.

The difference bewteen science and religion is in definition. Science requires proof, religion requires belief. If there was proof that god existed then religion would be science. And any scientist who clings dogmatically to an idea, without proof or contrary to evidence, is turning his science into a religion - and that happens too often because of human pride.

I am not going to get into a debate about this because the proof, while as sound as that of anything else we strongly believe, is not something one can demonstrate to those not yet able to comprehend it.

Translation: our proof is nonsense unless you already believe us.

Sorry, rjche, I found nothing on that webiste that mentioned god or spirtuality, only a lot of discussion of mutlidimensional physics - which may or may not be valid, I haven't seen all the math.

I tend to favour the 'Occam's Razor' approach - the simplest answer is usually correct.

Every image of god sux!
Every sucker that tells me that there is something supperior i should worship - sux.

----------------------------
Its spirit and my skills,
in one combined!
The phantom of the extremism
is there - in my mind!

rjche, your post sounds like pseudo-scientific bullshit. Are you on drugs?

Thrall, nothing good will happen if the US falls. The USA holds a lot of brainpower needed for humanity's advancement. Militarily speaking, they are the only hope white people have against the enormous and evergrowing masses of chinks and niggers.

American natives and aborigines are mere dirty apes. Who gives a shit if some aborigines were killed in the process of gathering money for Europe's economic-technologic development? Without the killing of shit like the aborigines, you would not have a computer to play with; you would have a stick and a hand full of shit to throw against someone's face.

Originally posted by simply RED
Every image of god sux!
Every sucker that tells me that there is something supperior i should worship - sux.
Remember, enraged one, you can't prove the non-existance of God, as knowledgehungry can't prove His existance; you are utterly right, however, when you say you dislike people catechizing you - no one has the right to tell you which belief is right or which belief is wrong.

Your post makes me remember of Eric Harris; he said: Everything I don't like... SUCKS.

If you want to know how we got here, read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Bloody brilliant, even if the later chapters get a bit heavy, as he takes EVERY arguement against evolution, as well as lots you never heard or thought of, and destroys them totally!

As for the USA being bad or good, well, on the one hand you have lots of rights, including the second ammendment, which we in the UK are told is so bad that it will rip our society apart, yet you are the most powerful nation on earth, you have loads of money, etc. so it isn't all bad, but then you have a chimp like Bush running round blowing up places he can't even spell, like Iraq.

I just don't see how so much power could wind up in the hands of a nutty draft-dodging warmonger. But then we have the B'liar, a man who thinks ID cards are a great idea, along with banning things that are already illegal, to stop criminals who are killing people (already illegal!) with things that are already illegal.

As an aside, it is costing 19 million pounds for the security for Bush's visit.

I don't think God exists. I am a fairly committed atheist. I have seen no more real evidence for him, than for the WMD in Iraq.

I am also an atheist and beleive that god doesn't exist, I beleive that someone called Jesus may have existed and suffered (or should we say benefited?) from Schizophrenia, making him beleive he was the son of god, and all the people beleived him because they didn't know about schizophrenia yet.

There is some obscure part of the bible that says that people should be put to death if they have poor eyesight :rolleyes: .

Thrall,
You are not exactly right.
As i study quantum chemistry now, 2nd year in the uni, these rules are not true.
An electron goes every time in different location.

Wow! You don't call this an "Explosives Forum" for nothing! It seems that no matter what forum one haunts, someone comes along and plants the "Is there a God?" landmine. Like in most forums, the responses seem to have fallen under 3 broad categories: "There may be but why should I care?", "There's not and I don't care", and "There's not and I hate everyone who believes there is". Since about 99% of the responses to this question everywhere it is posed are either atheistic or agnostic in tone, I find myself wondering why this question always generates so much interest?

Well, that's a question for which I don't have an answer, so I'll just state my views and be done with it. I didn't join this forum to proselytize, so this will likely be that first and last thing that I'll have to say on the subject.

I believe with certainty that there is a God. I believe that I know who He is, and I believe that there is only one true religion; all others being false. Yes, slap me around if you must, but I believe strongly in that which most liberals and lovers of the State hate most, an exclusionary theology. I'm an adherent of the most despised religion in the world - Christianity. Of course, what most people know of Christianity is based on information from either non-christians or apostate christians (who make up a large part of those who call themselves Christian). I base my beliefs in large part on faith, personal experiences, observations, and a smattering of Second Law of Thermodynamics and Classical Logic thrown in.

Regardless of whether my belief is "the truth" or hogwash, one thing that should be obvious is that when atheistic and agnostic beliefs predominate in a population it leads inevitably to moral relativism. Moral relativism invariably leads to ambiguous laws, and ambiguous laws empower the State to do as it wills for its own interest - giving it absolute power. This is the very definition of tyranny. Therefore, any religion that advocates "moral absolutes" is anathema to the State. It is in the interest of the State to eradicate or subvert such religions.

There are only two religions of significant size in the world that adhere to the concepts of "moral absolutes" and "absolute truths". These are Christianity and Islam. Is it any wonder that both of these are under attack by the U.S. government? Islam is a 'religion of coercion'; that is, its tenets advocate forcing others to submit to their beliefs or die. This is why Islam tends to produce theocracies in nations where it predominates. The result is that individual freedom perishes everywhere Islam prevails. Christianity, in its true form, is a 'religion of non-coercion'; that is, its tenets advocate that one must truly believe and can not be forced to profess belief. Furthermore, true Christianity does not allow its followers to dictate the behavior of the non-believers. They may freely inform non-believers of their sinful ways, but they may not force them to stop their sinful behavior. When true Christianity predominates in a population it tends to lead to a much restrained secular government noted by legal certainties rather than legal ambiguities. It is under these conditions that individual freedom flourishes, because the power-lust of the secular State is held in check.

Sadly, in the U.S. a huge number of Christian churches have been subverted by the government: they are now the mouthpiece of an almighty State rather than an Almighty God. Both Bush and Ashcroft profess to be believers in Jesus Christ, but they work more towards the kingdom of the Almighty Federal Government than they do the Kingdom of Almighty God. In my opinion, they are apostate christians. Don't think that by this statement I'm implying that they should be working toward establishing a theocracy. Rather, they should be advocating the principles upon which the nation was founded; namely, limited Federal powers and broad individual liberties.

So, the next time you see your government seeking to remove Christian influence from the political spectrum, ask youself, "Is the government doing this in the best interest of the people, or in the best interest of itself?" Also, ask yourself, "Where did I learn of or learn to hate Christianity? From state-run schools? From state-run universities? From an essentially state-run or state-friendly media and entertainment industry?" I think these are questions worth considering when dwelling upon this issue. And people do dwell upon the issue of God and religion. If threads such as this one proves anything, it is that whether people are mostly atheistic or agnostic, one thing they are not when it comes to this issue is indifferent.

I believe that there are absolute truths, and that they remain true regardless of how many or how few believe it or know it. Whether I'm right or wrong, or whether you agree with me or disagree with me does not alter "the truth" - whatever it might be. "The truth" is not altered by the believer, but rather the believer is altered by "the truth" when it is known (and most often, even if it is not known). Here is an example of an absolute truth that I'm sure everyone can agree with - under normal conditions, hydrogen cyanide is a deadly poison to humans. Would strongly disbelieving this "truth" change this fact? Would this "truth" change the unbeliever who challenged it? You be the judge.

In any case, going back to the original question: Is there a God? I say "yes", but I can't offer you any proof beyond doubt. My position is mostly based on faith, but faith is not always just blind belief or wishful thinking. Sometimes it is like a sixth sense: you "know" something is true even though you can't quite put your finger on how or why you know.

This much we can be certain of: time will continue to pass, our physical condition will slowly deteriorate (or very quickly if one isn't careful with their explosives), and we will eventually die. Entropy will increase and over time will ultimately wipe out every trace of our existence. All that we live for and all that we believe and all changes that we wrought upon this world will be obliterated. This is a certainty with no hope of escaping ultimate oblivion, making life pointless, purposeless, and without reason. Unless . . . there IS an eternal and benevolent Designer; One who transcends the laws of the universe. And if I WAS created, then there must have been a purpose behind it. And if this Creator made me to live once, then perhaps He'll make me live again. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but what does the alternative have to offer?

Well, that's my opinion and about all I have to say on the subject. It is time for me to move on to another topic in this forum.

Man, you really need to read up on the last 1000 years of European history, and find out just what the Roman Catholic church was up to during that period.

As for 'absolute truths' - "HCN is a deadly poison to humans." You can't know this with absolute certainty until you test it on everyone! What you have is an exremely high probability that HCN poisoning will kill you, based on past experience - but it's not certain.

I know this is not that right place for this but since the subject has been brought up visit the link
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/borgias/1.html
Though this is same Ceaser borgia that machiavelli taken as example in "Il princip"("The prince" in english) and I did like this character and his moves and tactics are good as a ruler, but doing things under the eigis of popery makes the entire act(I mean not mearly the act in the link,but acts of his entire life) a DISGRACE.

I do not believe in God. At least not as we know it. While reading up on Islam, I found this interesting little parable:

in the South Eastern region of the Amazon jungle in Brazil, South America, a primitive tribe erected a new hut to house their main idol Skwatch, representing the supreme God of all creation. The homage to the God, and while he was in prostration to what he had been taught was his Creator and Sustainer, a mangy old flea-ridden dog walked into the hut, The young man looked up in time to see the dog lift its hind leg and pass urine on the idol. Outraged, the youth chased the dog out of the temple, but when his rage died down he realized that the idol could not be the Lordof the universe. Allah must be elsewhere. he now had a choice to act on his knowledge and seek Allah, or to dishonestly go along with the false beliefs of his tribe. As strange as it may seem, that was a sign from Allah for that young man. It contained within it divine guidance that what he was worshipping was false.

I believe the church has been pissed on to many times(ie child sex abuse scandals and other hypocrises), along with any other organised religion. So if you really wanted to find God, he would not reside in organisation that promotes such hypocrtical behaviour. Lets see, that rules out all forms of christianity, Judaism and Islam. That leaves perhaps Hinduism and Buddhism. But then again, both these religions worship idols, so that rules them out.

I dont believe there is a God, but if you wanted to find it, try looking outside of organised religion. Or maybe inside a hash plant. Infact, I am suprised it has never been used as a basis for a religion, imagine a religion several thousand years ago, that would have gauranteed miracles. Now that would have been hard to ignore.

You forgot da Rasta, Mon!

My apologies to the prophet Marley PBUH (that's if he is dead already?).

I don�t believe in God. If God is so great why is there war and harm around? Why are the little kids starving? IMHO I think god is just a make believe thing that gets people through life. They believe no matter how hard life is in this �world� they will have a better one in the next. It is something they wake up and say I have no life now but I will later that�s what keeps them going. I believe that when I die I will just go into oblivion and there will be nothing, I will be nothing. If there is a god, I will just cut my losses and have a steam bath for eternity. But who the hell would like to be seated on a cloud when you could be blowing buildings up J

I also think religion has one major fall: They know the answer but just have to find the evidence. Science has the evidence now finds answer to fit.

Yet again in it�s very essence religion is good. They teach to be good and have respect for your fellow man but what really ticks me off is the other crap they put on top of it.

Don't blame God for all of the world's problems. Wars and starving children exist, because we created them. Men screwed up the world, not God. Besides, if we as a civilization don't want to have anything to do with Him, why should He help us? We wanted to be independent, so now we are.

So why did plague, suffer and incredible cruelty still exist when the general populace cowered at the feet of various gods/churches?

Loosely related to medieval "trial by fire and water". The idea being that God would not permit an innocent man to burn if forced to walk on hot coals or carry hot iron.

Funny enough, the only way to be found innocent was sufficient bribary. In which case the coals or iron would be reduced to a bearable temperature.

Is money therefore God?

It's strange and painful to see intelligent people suffer from reaction and mocking a concept for its misuse or foolish portrayal in past.What about science?There are plenty of documents of medievl age on alchemi that says "do ** and make gold out of **" or "follow ** procedure and make a substance that will rejuvinate/make younger/increase longevity blah blah..".Just based on this someone can not mock chemistry that "this is the kind of things chemists do,so what is the creibility of chemistry?".

Science evolved.It's modified and changed in course of time.And it is not the case that the reputed scientists all had that "scientific vision".IIRC lord Kalvin once written in his diary "I cant imagine something man made can ever fly" Or Bergilius who proposed the vital force theory.These things have been modified and changed and we have something called "modern science".

Moreover I don't see pain and meisery in death.In fact God(if he exists as one who thinks in human ways) has given you a free life,a sence of beauty,a beautiful world and free will.I can't understand why people expect God to make their life cool,calm and happy.You always have choice.If life become unbearable then die.And whats painful in death anyway.

To be personal,I've been unconsious for three days and doctors said I could have died.I don't remember any pain during that period(well I do remeber the weakness and helplessness AFTER I was awaken).I'm not saying one should go for death.But when it become a choise between bad life and death,why not go for death? One thing for sure,Death is NOT painful.

The herd of mindless people tolerating all the pain and suffering(natural and human both) without even TRYING to get out of it and there are some other people who see these people suffer and concludes that it's fault of God(or he doesn't exist since He didn't do anything about the pain of the people).

Well, personally I don't THINK there is a God that is a subjective entity that WATCHES people and intervene in day to day life of man.

Yet, all I don't understand is that existance God(and religion,sprituality and anything beyond "science") is denied altogether by the people who are supposed to be THINKING based on arguments that.....well,World is a strange plase na!
EDIT: of course Greeks were mistaken,and so the medieval chemists when they said about making Gold.But science stays and religion is wrong:rolleyes:

thrall if you could PLEASE be so kind to edit your post's so they are easier to read!

Im sure this is in the rules or guidelines, Its not like it's the first time either as all your post's are very diffulcult to read because of the lack of punctuation.

The Greeks use to have a god for everything, but to my specific point they had a god for lightning. We now know the lighting is caused by electric charges that occur in a cloud. See so what they thought was act of almighty god we now know as pure science.

Probably no-one will ever know the real reason why nations and individuals suffer, why it seems as though God's gotten bored of this little project called earth and just left.
If God appeared to me and tried to explain the meaning of life I'd probably just spin out. God trying to explain to me would be like me picking up a little ant and trying to tell it how a computer functions.
Impossible.

I believe that everything we know to be real and to be possible is limited to what we have experienced. For example, a hundred years ago, space travel was thought to be a fantasy. But now that it is a reality, it isn't so laughable anymore.
Could this be the case with God maybe? I have never seen him so it would be hard to understand if he exists.

These are my opinions.

I've always thought that it makes sense as to why man would create a God, but why the hell would God create man? All religious morality is based on some complicated structure of the "good" going to an eternal paradise when they die, and the "bad" going to a fiery pit of torment. If you really think about it... what the hell is the point? Why would god set up this stupid system? The only explenation I can think of is that we'd either be some puppet show, or an experiment in a petri dish. If that is the case, fuck God. But since that doesn't make sense for shit, I'm going to assume there is no God.

I have been wondering that is there a religion that leads after an afterlife? this question is a very complicated question. so lets just talk about it.......so real life is just life everybody has only one chance in a life time right?.....maybe there is more to it....like having a religion and goto heaven.

There are so many religions all over the world but which is the real one?
How can the religions prove their real possessing of their story of life?...... lots of religoins says that if you do not believe in them, you will go to hell..... so how can i find out the real religion?......so i say to myself....if i spend my life finding the truth like reading tons of books about different religions and their storys and then choosing the right one. but what if i chose the wrong one? i will end up in the bloody hell or maybe i spent all my precious life finding something that is not true at all and i wasted my life? maybe the religion is a unreal story made by the secret government organisation to keep all the religious people do what the government want them to do. examples like religious wars.

I really much believe the theory of eveloution. its not that simple that things evolves, it is scientific prove, research and comparing to the present.
for example: the continential drift. it took a long process to change the features of simalar animals.

Other thoughts might be god created everything but things evolved on the planet because god left the living things on the planet and god it self creats the future...however science does not see such powers.

my conclusion is.......stories about religions could be made up by people in the past telling it to generations or the mysterious work of the government.

"This topic just keeps on going"

I think that the only assumption that can be safely made without decent proof is that there is an afterlife, although my reasons aren't the most comforting. If there isn't an afterlife, this means that when you die, everything about you is erased; every thought, memory etc is gone, and it is exactly the same as if you never existed at all (to those who say your 'memory' lives on, what happens when the people who remember you die? In order to "live on" in this way, it requires that the human race survive for eternity). If this is the case, nothing really matters - things would be exactly the same no matter what happens - if Dubya were to start World War III tomorrow and cause armaggeddon, this would be the same as if the human race lasted for 5 trillion years in a state of permanent prosperity - it would all be erased in the end. Therefore, if anything is to matter, we must assume that there is an afterlife (afterall, if I'm wrong, the fact that I am wrong will end up erased). Note that this does not imply the existance of gods, titans, demons, fairies, elves, centaurs, cyclopes, hydrae, or Santa Claus (although he was based on a real person). Nor does necessarily imply that there is "Heaven" or "Hell" or anything. After all, what reason is there to believe that the soul is magically transported into some other universe, rather than staying in this one, simply because it has lost control of a body? Only speculation.

To the question "Is there a God?", frankly I think it is the wrong question to be asking. It is quite akin to asking, for example, "is the atomic mass of fluorine 35?", and trying to devise an experiment to check simply whether or not that assumption is true or not, rather than asking the correct question "what is the atomic mass of fluorine". True, if there is a God, then asking the question "is there a God" will save a lot of time. But if there isn't, well, that's 2000 years of thought down the drain. And consider how many possibilities there are for how the universe could possibly be run, of which there being a God is just a single possibility. Surely each of these are equally worthy of consideration, for they are each equally probable? The current approach hasn't had much success, has it? After two thousand years of asking "is there a God?" we still haven't got any idea whether or not there is. If we manage to prove there isn't (always difficult to prove a negative - try proving there isn't a horde of invisible faeries with no interaction with the material world inside your computer), that simply means another two thousand years of asking "is such and such true?". At that rate, it is obvious that the human race will never find out the truth behind the universe using that method. The solution is to ask the question "what is the truth behind the universe", and use scientific method to investigate it, making no assumptions (except the afterlife one out of necessity). To those who might try to argue some kind of "separation" between science and religion, that somehow science cannot explain that which is the abode of religion, we must look at what both science and religion are.
-Religion is the practice of blindly believing something simply out of desire for it to be true. It involves jumping to a baseless conclusion and then doing everything to convince oneself that it is true. Many people believe in religions simply because their parents told them that the religion in question is correct.
-Science is the practice of trying to understand how the universe works, through experimentation and logic. Nothing is assumed unless it can be proven, and science, unlike religion, is happy to admit that it doesn't know everything. Science sets out to correct ignorance, religion sets out to ignore it.
People may say that science cannot explain the "supernatural". Such a notion is artificial. Either something affects and interacts with the universe (it is natural), or it has no interaction with the universe, in which case it's existance or not is irrelevant. If it is natural, it can be investigated by science.

i believe in the infinity of time and space and EVERY THING, i consider sience as my religion, so i can say that the nearest philosophy to my beliefs is the raelian philosophy i agree with the sientific part of it. there is no spiritual immaterial god (a god without dimensions) the universe has no begining and no end so much like time, there will always be before as there will always be after also there is always smaller as there is always bigger, so asking questions like 1- if there is'nt a god then who created the existence ? well the existence has always been and will always be ,2- give me a proof about god non/existence? this is too a stupid question ,give me a proof that zeus do or dont exist , i dont believe in zeus but i cant proov that he/it does not exist.
i dont either believe in evolution coz our DNA has a self distructing gene when it comes to changing into other species, creatures can adapt but cant do evolution.
we are not alone in this universe thus we are not the first intelligent beings too, 10% of the stars have a planet in their sloar system which can support life.
i believe in the concept of infinity and the ancient oblivion , our universe is an atom of a bigger being who is wondering about his/its bigger universe which is also an atom of a bigger being...etc
as our atoms are a universes of a smaller beings.....etc.(pretty close like the ending of men in black 1 movie) ;P
we were created by an intelligent beings whom were created also by other intelligent beings...etc
when we reach a certain masteray of scientific progress we too will creat other beings......etc
we, they(the intelligent beings in this existence) are a part of this infinte existence there is no begining as there is no ending our one and only pupose is to progress and get better , discover , and learn....the creat the creators of the next....is it really that hard to understand and believe ?

i believe in the concept of infinity and the ancient oblivion , our universe is an atom of a bigger being who is wondering about his/its bigger universe which is also an atom of a bigger being...etcI also had this idea. Although I don't believe in it I consider it a very interesting theory to reflect on.

I hate it when religion uses the free will crap as an excuse for pain and suffering caused by their respective Gods. It is my understanding that most of the world would be happy to forsake their freewill for security and ignorance. At the other end of the scale; I have just experienced this from travelling abroad where 'it is the will of God' was used as an excuse for turning up late for a meeting to running up the back of someones brand new BMW.

Througout history people have always needed something to believe in, to comfort them, give them hope. They didnt have the science and veiw of everything like we do now. I feel that anyone that believes there is a god is not only ignorant but is a pathetic follower of those before him and amongst him. Yes the univers is an incredible and amazing thing to say the very least but thinking of that then thinking of how amazing a god would be that made it and............its imagenable.
My question to you religiouse morons is who made god? And do not fucking say "no one made him he's god he just is"
Anything with matter or energy is finite. The entire univers is finite. Everything that has the power to change anything will eventualy die, its undebatable.
Look at history, look at man kind, look at how we develope ways of comforting ourselves, look at how we behave and you'll understand why religion was created.

There is no God.

People feel the need for there to be a God for a variety of reasons:

1. Low self esteem

Many people feel indequate to face life's problems. They need a big brother to lean on. These are the folks who, instead of stressing, say "Gid will provide."

2. Fear of death

Death is the end not just of your body, but of your ego. Many people cannot emotionally accept that the world will get along just fine without them. They are comforted by the idea of an afterlife, and that leads to the idea of God. Religion prospers because it offers rewards in the afterlife for approved behavior today. It's a debt that never has to be paid.

3. A need for sense in the world

People feel that their world should make sense -- and it often doesn't. Years ago, it was "Why does the sun rise every morning?" and "Why does Winter happen?" Science has taken over those simple questions. Religion is still concerned with such questions as "Why is there evil in the world?" Many people feel there must be an answer to this question -- that there must be a reason for what they experience.

I could argue against religion -- but really it is important to keep in mind that people are weak and that religion helps many of them cope. With religion, they manage to get up in the morning and go to work and live their lives. Without religion, they might not be able to function at all.

I have a few final points to make that are somewhat related to this topic. One point relates to some of the negative references made regarding Church history. Check out The Science and Religion Quiz (http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan103.html) for an interesting read. Regardless of what you might initially think the point of this article is, based on its title, there is a very good non-religious point brought out in the last paragraph.

Secondly, it is my opinion that there is probably no one who is truely "open-minded", though many claim to be. Practically everyone harbors some bias towards that which they already believe to be true. Therefore, we each tend to find more evidence to support those beliefs or ideologies that we adhere to while filtering out evidence that supports that which we do not. It might very well be that it is impossible for anyone to know "the truth" with absolute certainty given that our capacity for reason is fundamentally flawed by virtue of self-serving emotions. This is just as true of science as it is of religion. And while I reject the notion that "truth is relative", I acknowledge the fact that "the truth" as we each see it is typically that which we are each individually most comfortable with and works best for our own selves. It may even be that we are each genetically programmed to believe the way we do. There is no doubt that there are many different ideologies represented on this board, and each person has a fairly high level of confidence that their ideology is the right one. We all behave within the confines of our personal ideologies and are to a large extent slaves to it. We all prefer to view ourselves as the authors of our own destiny, but I am inclined to believe that this is an illusion. We are who we are and could probably be no one else. There is a branch within Christianity that holds a similar view; it is called pre-destination. Most of Christianity rejects this view, largely for the same reasons non-Christians do: it is comforting to believe that we have purposely chosen the path we walk.

In a nutshell, the point of my rambling is that this topic and thread is largely pointless. Not because the overwhelming concensus of this thread is that there is no God (a view that I disagree with), but rather because no one's viewpoint or beliefs will be changed by it. There is no useful exchange of knowledge taking place IMHO. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed reading the diverse points of view expressed here, although they have effected no change in my beliefs nor do I venture to hope that mine have had any lasting impact on anyone else's.

There IS a God, but I don't have time to argue about it right now. I want to officially complain about baphomet's name. Since people are frequently insulted by member names dealing with God, I'm pretty sure that there is a rule against having one. Baphomet is an ancient Babylonian god, and I am offended by it. Change your name or something, man.

In case you didn't know, Baphomet's symbol is the pintogram (an upside-down, five-pointed star in a circle). It is a satanic symbol, and that user is probably a satanist.

Well since one of the Admin's (NBK) is a Satanist then it might be an idea for you to tread carefully Ossassin.

In any case, I hope you're not serious, as I may just change my sig to something blasphemic, just to wind you up. If you are serious, then you're no better than the mullah's in Iran who imposed a death sentence in Absentia on Salman Rushdie because of the Satanic Verses. Any religion that is not capable of ignoring a blasphemer is no religion at all.

Baphomet, I think your name is cool and I wish I'd thought of it.

Might see if I can change my name to Jehova (for those of you Monty Python fans who've seen The Life Of Brian)

I wasn't getting into the issue of religion. I simply pointed out that baphomet violated what I thought was a strictly-enforced rule.

my dear ossassin...although i'm not a satanist , satanic nor a follower of any thing that ends with -ism , i have only choosed this nick because i like it , plz let me know what is it that u dont accept in me is it my opinion or my nick ......? and whatever the disagreement might be i'm welling to discuss it with you (not in this thread of course ), but u also forgot that atheists could be offensed by theists opinions/nicks.
ARKANGEL...thx man , and BTW u can have my nick i wanted to change it since long time ago...

THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH....

That's very sweet of you to offer me it Baphonet, but I'm kind of attached to this one. Plus I'd have to change all the Merchandise;)

What you COULD do though, is try to put a little effort into tidying up your posts. Proper English is the norm here, not the abbreviated "irc speak" or whatever. I don't know if English is your first language, but that isn't an excuse for laziness. As someone else said "do your bit to keep the forum beautiful":)

I am proud to say that I believe in both religion and science, and that the two have never conflicted in me. I don't understand why people are so willing to attack religion, but then don't think twice before buying into the latest science theory. I've read about Miller's Experiment and Neo-Darwinism, and I still see too many flaws in it to be credible. With some revision, it may be a workable theory...but it relies on too many serendipitous events.

I'm not biased against science; I love science very much. I also love my religion. However, I have not yet seen a single theory to explain adequately what my religion can explain. And if I do, I will consider it.

Baphomet, your name was the only problem. I have nothing against you personally. MrSamosa, I agree that the theory has too many holes to be accepted as fact. I don't see how those "scientists" that not only assume that it is factual, but try to convince others that it is, can truly call themselves scientists.

I believe there is some universal force... Some call it God... some Karma... some Universal force... but it's the same: there is, in my opinion, something, which takes care about the world if things are going too bad.

Isn't this question: "Is there a god?" sort of along the same lines as one stoner asking another stoner, "How do I know that the color blue looks to you like blue looks to me, man?" :confused:

When someone asks me if I believe in god I simply reply:

"I hear voices in my head and they don't like you very much. Is THAT god?"

This usually ends the discussion and I walk away. Religion is a personal expirience. I have had an expirience, and it's MINE! No fellowship, no discussion, and DEFINITELY no paying hard earned cashola for someone to translate a book for me that's printed in a language I am fluent.

There was a god and god has created the world 15 billion years ago (Big Bang).
But today? I think, god doesn't exist any more... god is dead.

Is heaven even a good place to be? only priests, nuns, jeebus, and boring people up there.... Now hell thats where all the fun is...

There was a funny website that had a whole thing on how god didn't exist but i couldn't find the damned thing, so here is something more philosophical...

The argument breaks down like this:

1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2.If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3.If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5.Evil exists.
6.If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7.Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Tiac03, that list of what god is that you give us can in no way encapsulate his entire being. He may be morally perfect so why doesn't he remove this "evil"? Well your definition of his evil may and most likely will be different to yours. To remove evil, he will have to commit a certain type of evil anyway. My guess is that he chooses the lesser of the two. Since we have free will he may have to destroy us to remove that evil, thats why he will never do it. I don't believe in the church god, or a hell. It would be illogical to create something just to sentence it to eternal damnation. Anyway just food for thought. If there is a hell, whose to say thats not his own way of "removing" evil.

If God is omnipotent - i.e. capable of doing literally anything, so he should be able to eliminate evil without having to commit evil to do so. If he is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, then he cannot be omnipotent.

That is what faith is all about. Believing what you dont understand.

1.If we COULD understand these things, we would be godlike.(Last time I checked we arent)Were pretty uninformed.
2.Its an act of arrogance to even think we could comprehend our mighty Gods work. (IMO)
3.To be wise is not to "know everything" its to know that you know nothing.

My uncle used to say "Can God make a rock so big that he couldnt pick it up?"
And I wouldnt know what to say, because if I said yes,that that implies that he COULDNT pick up the rock. If I said he couldnt then obviously that means he couldnt do something else. He explained that he can do anything he wants afterall hes God. Our understanding of it is not a prerequisite of its possibility. I mean, if this is the guy who created ALLLL of the universe and all of lifes wonders including the human body. Which by the way is a mystery in itself considering the heart beats with NO outer force, defying science. Then what makes us think we could understand that? We barely have a hold on organic chemistry. :D

Which by the way is a mystery in itself considering the heart beats with NO outer force, defying science.

WTF? Its a bunch of muscles, arteries, veins and valves with its own localised nerve group providing the stimulation and synchronisation. Where's the mystery in that?

Yes the heart uses valves nerver stimulation blah blah. Thats basic biology, but what is NOT basic is the fact that there is nothing to initiate the heartbeat. Elementary science teaches us that there must be a fuel or a force to put something into motion or put something to work, a car goes because you put gas in it, the same goes with any automobile. Blood flows because your heart pumps it. But what is supplying power to the heart? Nothing. Well, nothing you can explain. If you can I'd love to hear it.

Comeon man! What supplies power to the heart? Who supplys power to your arm when you were typing this Strange Mystry?
Basic Biology
Blood tranceport carbohydrades to the muscles.
Blood supplies oxygens to the muscles.
Nerves control the signals going in a muscle.
SO when brain wants it gives the signal and energy is already there in the muscle. But one thing to be sure that if this is mystry to someone than even bibilical God might exist.

If you do the math of reletive posobilities for everything, man evolution.. Matter itself. Their is a chance. Though in practicality I say it is a coin toss. In the end it is a 50/50, a yes or a no. I will not waste my time podering.

oh yeha, PS I fell 99% of all religons I farce and crap, made up by man to atain power and control over others.

3.To be wise is not to "know everything" its to know that you know nothing.

So, by that definition, if you are wise (i.e. admit you know nothing), then you cannot possibly claim to know that there is a God.

Pyrovus, you misunderstood me. He may be able to do everything. He created humankind. He chose to give us free will. In giving us free will he effectively gives us the ability to do evil. Thats where one can see how to eliminate evil, he has to eliminate us, or our free will. Creating something without free would obviously be pointless to some extent. God created us for some other purspose which we will never know, we have to acknowledge that we will never know why we are here. You could say that well, as soon as someone chose to commit an evil deed he could destroy them. That could be raised as a valid point but it raises many things we could never understand. Life as we know it would not exist for a start. It is hard to imagine a life without evil, we would never know what good was. It would most likely be a very boring life. Secondly, if god did immediately kill the evil one he would infilict sorrow upon others anyway for in most cases someone is always loved by another. Ever wonder why so many children die as a baby? That could be him removing the more evil ones. As for his being omnipotent and choosing the lesser of two evils, well you see, if he were to simply remove evil, he'll have to kill us all. HE simply can't remove the evil without "corrupting" what he made. If he were to do that what would be the point in creating us at all?

I dont claim to "know" there is a god, thats why its faith. If I "KNEW" I wouldnt have to have faith. I trust there is a god and believe because there is too much in this world I know nothing about. Im not saying if you dont believe in god that you are wrong, because if I DONT "know" theres a possibility that I am completely wrong and when man dies, there will be complete nothingness. The way I see it, is if I believe and Im wrong, I really dont lose anything, BUT if I DONT believe and Im wrong, I burn in hell for eternity. And I DO know that eternity happens to be a very long time. But ultimately I still know nothing. But I hope someone,(my creator)does.

Dear Tiac03!
I heard very similar "proof" of God's nonexistence before. It was like this:
1, God, if exists, can do everything.
2, When he can do everything, he can make a stone which he cannot lift.
3, When he cannot lift it, he can not do everything and he therefore doesn't exist.

ZAPPPPP!
-the last sound which this "prover" heard was lightning from clear blue sky-

No, I'm joking about the last sentence, but like one of my friends said: "With enough enthusiasm you can proof everything."
And like one math rule says: "When you cannot proof one thing, you also cannot proof any thing going from the first thing."

My point is that a God capable of doing literally anything then he should never find himself in a situation in which he has to choose between the lesser of two evils. While it may seem that God has a choice between eliminating free will or eliminating us to get rid of evil, an omnipotent being should be capable of creating a third option, even if it is impossible for us to imagine. If he can't, then he can't be omnipotent. In fact, an omnipotent being should be able to do all sorts of things that are logically impossible, such as making an object that exists and doesn't exist simultaneously, creating round squares and four sided triangles. After all, presumably the laws of logic themselves must have been created by such a being. The fact that he does not change the universe to eliminate evil leads to three possibilities:
1 He is not omnipotent
2 He is not morally perfect
3 He does not exist

Or
4. He is actually a She.

Which would account for a lot of things...

Like...... color coordination, and the fact that Oprah is a billionaire. lol j/k

Interesting point Pyrovus. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a reason, we dont know what of course. If what you said was true, then evil existing must somehow fit into the reason why we are here. He may be able to create the third option, one which we cannot understand, it simply cannot affect us in the world that we see. Which leads to the fact that he is not omnipotent. My belief in god, is that he is not actually omnipotent. He is able to change whatever he wants though, but he is all knowing and he is not all knowing. He is all knowing in that he knows every possbility of what will happen, but he does not know what will. Humans have effectively brought in the element of doubt. Being all knowing, he simply tries to affect that which he must in order to shift us all into the possbility that is the best. Perhaps the reason we were created is because god was sick of knowing everything. :D

God is dead!
Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900

Good ol� Nietzsche. .. What a character.
Here is where I stand:

1.The Bible is total Shit

2.There is a general need for a higher power/greater state mainly because people can't believe that all of this is here by random chance in when you die it just 'ends'

All religion is to regional to be correct. No religion has global support, but all claim to be the one true religion. Does that mean God will send the newborn Muslim to hell just because he wasn't born in a Christian country? Or will all the pure/innocent/sinless Christian children be condemned because they were raised by 'The Big Satan'? If so then why the fuck should I worship any god? As either I bet on the wrong horse and get sent to hell, or I guess right and get to spend an eternity with an asshole that sends kids to hell. Either way I lose so fuck that.

Lastly I would like to point out that an eternity of anything would suck. If after you die you get to spend 'eternity' in the 'holy city' with no sun because the lord lights it and walls are laid on layers of precious stones and all that other bullshit, it would be fun for maybe...200 years. After about 6000, 100,000, 5 million years It would really start to suck. One by one they would turn to sin just for Varity. The only way eternity could be sustained would be if your memory was erased every so often. (or if you got to blow up the city over and over again ;))

I Definitely like that last idea! But Im a complete pyro. No but seriously. I think there could be the possibility of a further struggle between God and Satan. I mean after all, why doesnt God just destroy Satan? And why would he let him roam free for 1000 years like it says in the Bible when he could have just locked him up for good. AND if Heaven was so perfect then why did Satan, who was in Heaven with God rebel and try to overthrow him. People say because he wanted to be God. BUT, if hes supposed to be Soooo smart, then would someone that smart do that? Either 1 of 2 things...

1.He isnt that smart and he fucked up.
2.He is that smart and he did it because there was a chance he couldve prevailed over God and there still is, hence the ongoing battle we call life.

Does that make any sense?

The War of the Heavens isn't over yet! :)

GO SATAN! :D

Ya, how the hell would God win that war? All the bad-ass motherfuckers the world has ever produced are on one team, and some nancy-ass nuns on the other. Unless Jesus can turn water into VX he's in for an ass-kicking. :p

But how many of these "bad-ass motherfuckers" can be killed and come back from the dead in three days? Granted Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hitler, were some of the baddest mofos the world has ever know BUT, keyword there is "were" they died and that was the end.

Oh yeah and, not all of the "good side" is comprised of a bunch of nuns. Have we forgotten Sampson (strong as hell) Elijah (chariot of fire)which by the way just sounds really really cool oh and lets not forget the fact he can stop the rain for long peroids of time. Moses, with the power to bring plagues and turn water into blood, oh yeah and he can part large bodies of water, thats cool too. Theres also David, whos quite deadly with a sling, lets give him a sniper rifle and lets see what he can do. Then theres enoch who NEVER met death along with Moses and Elijah. Three men who have never died. Thats more than Napoleon, Alexander, and Hitler can say.

God is a father character to those, who can't face reality. They hide behind his back. If something goes great they praise him. And when something gets f*cked, they say "Lord works in mysterious ways."

They're mentally children. Or just complete idiots.

People who believe there's a character with a name "running the whole show" in their life should be shot, blown up, or something. Of course I won't take any actions to do this, there are many others more willing to do it. I actually don't care, so this post's no good in any way.

And to the War of the Heavens... if god even wanted to fight, he'd have to deal with all those pacifists who live with him the rest of their deaths.

A better question is: Our we created in God's image, or did we create Him in ours?

Under the belief that God did, in fact, create us and instill in us the ability to choose good or evil neccesitates the thought that God is TRUE NEUTRAL. He would intend (1)good and evil would either balance within the human psyche or (2) 50% would turn completely evil and 50% good (also balancing itself), with the possibility of a third intervention of peoples under the first (1) influence to help lean the proverbial boat to a true neutral and we as a whole go nowhere fast as a race. (kinda par to divying up the US congress so neither party may make grossly perverse decisions for us). :mad:

If you feel God was created by we mortals, this can more easily be rationalized than explained by stating that we idiots cannot freaking explain our existance...hence creating a story like the whole Adam and Eve BS to make us feel better a few thousand years ago and basing it on just enough truth to make it fathomable even today to die-hard morons who need such assurances. (Hey, what about those dino bones?).

All the stories written in the Bible are a pretty good read, and the Bible itself is kind of like the instruction manual that came with your microwave. (It tells the average idiot right from wrong and gives a pretty good idea on how to lead your life with as little conflict as possible! You didn't read your microwave manual, though, DID you?) :confused:

Hell is the most misunderstood concept of the Bible. We are HERE, people, can't you tell?

The problem I have a personal battle with is the possibility of reincarnation. Some core of my being wishes to except and embrace it as truth, though I have none, and I am as of right now believing that it is my own way of writing off the fact that when I die I may completely cease to exist. That is incomprehensible to me (I am human, at least partially!). However, in my last post on this topic I mentioned my own personal expiriences which were religious (to me). There were SEVERAL times I should have died because of carelessness by either myself or another and was mysteriously "saved" by some incomprehensible force and actually ended up with little more than a boo-boo. (this brings me to some conclusion about a possible life after death, yet with no proof.

Was it God who saved me from my numerous demises? Doubtful. But a fellow entity from my past (maybe in waiting for a new body to inhabit...perhaps).

I prefer to occupy my thoughts of whether or not I will live again than whether or not there is a supreme being. If there is a supreme being, though, I really do hope it looks like Milla Jovovitch (sp?) from "The Fifth Element"! :D

I don't actually believe in reincarnation, but the second you can define what's the "soul" or that thing doctors can't find inside your skull, you might become enlightened or something shit like that, and you can choose what do you reincarnate into, or maybe even get to Nirvana, where you're euphorically... dead.

The least possible thing I can imagine is that people go to heaven or hell, defined by those overly formal rules that "God," which people have created sometimes in the past... Maybe about 2000 years ago someone wrote a book he thought he could sell to keep his ribs from meeting his spine. And he named it Bible :D. Then some morons thought it was about something real, and got crazy about it, spreading it all around.

BTW, an old chinese teaching about Heaven and Hell says they are present NOW, just like fester wrote. Congrats, you may be a reincarnation of someone really wise.

And if you read the Bible and compare it to buddhists reincarnation and dalai lama -shit, you find MANY interesting things that fit together.

I'd rather go to Nirvana than Heaven. At least I'd stay dead in the afterlife.

God does not exist, I think!
But it's good to believe at him.
:)

My two cents:

Firstly, the argument �the universe exists because we are here� has come up a lot. This is the Anthropic Principle. It simply states that the only reason the universe it exactly the way it is is because we�re here to observe it. Think about it this way: if it were a little different and life couldn�t exist in the universe, there wouldn�t be any beings around to question the conditions. Thus, the only conditions it is possible for us to observe are the ones which lead to us observing them.

There is no universal right of wrong. This is a conclusion I have come to after much thought. To the radical Israelis/Palestinians, killing the other is morally right. To any warring faction, destroying the other is the right thing to do. What seems right to one person can be wrong to another.

As to where the universe came from: this can be explained (partially) by theoretical physics. This explanation, though, is difficult to understand, involves much complex mathematics, and requires you to change your views on common sense as far as physics goes. It�s not a bulletproof argument, though, but that�s why it�s called theoretical physics. If its complexity, newness, and lack of completion tell you that it�s inherently wrong, then you just have a lazy mind. Just because you can�t understand it doesn�t mean it�s wrong. These branches of physics make predictions that are extremely accurate, and certainly hold up to scrutiny much better than religion.

There is a number of people who justify their faith with things that boil down to �I know god exists because I want him to/it is common sense/there is a meaning of life�. This wishful thinking is, in my opinion, just laziness of the mind. This seems to be especially rampant in old people who know that death is approaching and want there to be an afterlife. There are many old people who say, �I didn�t believe in Him in my rebellious youth, but now I see things more clearly.� Throw in others with the same views, and you have a herd of old sheeple.

To me religion seems like an utterly brilliant way to control the masses. It keeps them subdued and passive allowing for easy control.
Why this control was imposed, and by who are questions which do interest me.

I apologise if this has already been brought up but admitedly I haven't read all 7 pages of this thread.

IMO only science,that describes god "at any angle" perfectly,is statistics..

and paradise-thing: only way/key to there is to have kids remaining on earth + we shall NOT convert earth to hell (if we want to remain in paradise with help of dna)

No One + nothing = everything! That is a fools equation!!!

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "there is no God."

Just think about it!

Most people who don't believe in God, do so because
they are afraid that if there is a God they may some how
be obligated to love Him or suffer the consequences of
rejecting him.

Just think about it!

Everyone knows in his heart that there is a God,
"they" simply reject him! And that's really too bad!
"They" really miss out, on the best of things!

Just think about it!

No One + nothing = everything! That is a fools equation!!!


If you don�t understand quantum physics, don�t complain about how it�s wrong. I�ll admit that it defies common sense, but when you look at the physics, it works.


Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "there is no God."



Translation: �The people who don�t believe what we believe are wrong. Therefore, we must be right.�

Classic circular reasoning.


Most people who don't believe in God, do so because
they are afraid that if there is a God they may some how
be obligated to love Him or suffer the consequences of
rejecting him.


True, there are many who simply don�t want to believe in god. On the other hand, many of the original Christians simply choose to believe in this one god which promised them heaven and vengeance instead of Zeus and all the others which promised them hell and/or a mediocre afterlife. The same argument could be used by the pagans, i.e. they simply choose to believe something else that is evil.

No. The original Christians didn't choose to believe in a God that promised them better things (in comparison to the Roman gods). In fact, no one belived in the Roman gods anymore. People usually believed in Mithraism (as a side note, Mithras was the first to be drawed with a light circle around his head; Christians stole this and put a light circle around Jesus' head). And Mithras promised good things for them; there was no reason to believe in the Christian God, if you think by this aspect. You said they choosed the Christian God because they didn't like Roman gods, but as you can see, the old Roman gods were no more. And Mithras didn't promise such a mediocre afterlife.

Instead, Christians choosed to believe in the Christian God because they were attracted by Christian doctrine of gloryfying the victim, the weak, the inferior; the doctrine of gloryfying the poor, not the rich, of gloryfying the retarded, not the genius, of gloryfying the crippled, not the athlete; the doctrine of promoting equality (after death all go to heaven and there will be no differences between them) in order to save the weak. Christianty is no better than Jesus - an illiterate Jew who said you should allow others to hit you two times, instead of striking back after being hit at the first time.

Similar to Christians are today's leftists; they are attracted to leftism and to the protection of anyone seen as a victim/weak/inferior (Negroes, woemen, cripples, retards, Indians, Third World dwellers - especially Africans, etc) because they feel inferior themselves and this makes them feel compassion towars others who they see as being inferior like themselves.

Both Christianty and leftism are a pathology, the result of widespread psychlogycal weakness (usually in the form of inferiority feelings) and both are the ruin of the West, together with "democracy" (the government of the numberical majority, ruled by a number, instead of the government of the powerful individual genius, ruled by someone such as Adolf Hitler). Obviously, the elimination of leftism, Christianty and "democracy" would save us from the fact that the world seems to be (and indeed is) going crazy.

As for a God, that any human on this planet worships; I believe no such being exists.

God to me, Is ourselves, we are our own god. The purpose of our existance is nothing more then self-worship. Appreciation and enlightment through expirience and thought.

If only we could reach some kind of omniscientcy....

I guess this thread proves one thing:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!"

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If you do not believe this than this is what Jesus says about you:

Matthew 22:29 You are in error because
you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

But God has also said:

Jeremiah 29:13-14 "You will seek me and find me
when you search for me with all your heart. I will
be found by you, declares the Lord."

And I say about you scientists who think there is no God:

Matthew 13:13 "Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear
or understand."

How can you prove the existence of God with a quote from God?

It's not exactly scientific rigour :) It'd be like saying "I have proven String Theory to be correct, as a fundamental law of String Theory, is that String Theory is correct".

Matthew 13:13 could equally describe a religious person's refusual to embrace science.

religion is matter of hope.
if a person needs more hope,then easiest way is to turn towards "someone ,who's always near and is able to help". a God. and He will help, if y are "chosen" at that moment ;)

ps.
what god should think about his children,who are grovelling and begging and do not want to 'grow up',to become creators like he is; to become sons, a father could be proud of?

IF you believe in this sort of thing, then when the first two humans ate of the tree of knowledge, God cast them out of Eden because "They have become as Us", meaning humans now had the ability to be as God, and God doesn't want the competition. ;)

Therefore, we, humans, will become Gods, as we are slowly becoming through our advances in science.

Are we not capable of amazing feats that could rightly be described as miracles? Can we not turn everyone in a city into a 'pillar of salt' (ashes) in a blink of an eye by creating a piece of the sun? Can we not give the blind sight and the deaf hearing through implants?

This will only improve and expand as we reach the Omega point, as is inevitable, thus God will wage war against the proto-god race of Man in an attempt to crush the usurper, but Lucifer is our ally, for he wants to destroy God in vengence for his exile, and we will cast God out of Heaven, and God will be slain, and the race of Man will become the 'Masters of the Universe' (and not the cheesy 80's cartoon variety either!).

The deeper you get into physics the more you will believe in god.
Not the way the bible or religions describe god but there are is way too much "random" (it can't be random because the universe is just too crazy)

To MrCool:

Those arguments are from Santo Thomas de Aquino (St. Thomas Aquino), to proof the existence of God.

It is imposible to proof scientifically the existence of God, but you can prove it indirectly with such things as miracles, where science has no explanation.

The beuty of this is that is a thing called "Libre Albedrio (I don�t know how to spell it in english, but it means the freedom of choice)", so can can choice to believe in God or not, and not to be judged by anyone.

Where I live 70% of the population are Catholic, 20% are Christian, 9% minority religions and the rest considered skeptic, if this is a democracy the people who beleive in God, Jheova, Alah, or any other entity considered divine wins the votation by 99%, so God exist? Yes, and I am a believer

I'm perfectly agree with 2,4,6-TNP and i believe in god for a lot of motivations. I know well the bible because i study it and i think that a lot of people are making a big mistake forgetting God. Well, this mistake has been made since the humans rebelled to god but something is going to change...the mankind is going straight to a judge...and it will be terrible.

To 2,4,6-TNP:
you have a good knowledge on bible i'd like to discuss about it with you, if you find it interesting please contact me on

gammablaster@yahoo.com

When exactly was the Bible written? I'm sure the exact date is open to debate, but IIRC it was several hundred years after the year 1. With stories being passed down for dozens of generations in a Chinese-whisper fashion, how can the Bible be accurate? There are many people who read into each individual word, when the entire book may only be the "jist" of the original teachings?

Likewise, what about the additions that have been made over the centuries? What about the countless translations? Translations aren't exact, they only relay the core message, so again, why hang off of every word?

As Eddie Izzard observed, the names of those who allegedly wrote the Bible: Luke, Mark, John etc. Those aren't very Middle-Eastern sounding names!

Also, Christ was born, 30 years later he's wandering around performing miracles, chasing greedy jews out of temples, and then gets killed by the jews because they claimed he short-changed them by a penny. What happened in all intervening years between birth and miracles?

As for something going to change and mankind going before a judge (I'm guessing you mean some sort of judgement day), I don't honestly see it happening. I've (briefly!) worried about machines or monkeys taking over, but not judgement day. Then again, if it does happen I'm sure I'll be heard saying "well, bugger me!" along with plenty of others.

Then all the religious people will be saying "see! We told you! We're saved, and you unbelievers are screwed". Then god will smite the worshippers for one of several reasons: a) god created life, and life is unfair b) he is a vengeful and angry god, and is irritated by grovellers c) for wasting time worshipping when they should have been spreading his creation throughout the universe by interplanetary colonisation d) for slaughtering millions in his name. The last one is a bit sissy though.

Is it true that hell is not actually mentioned in the bible? This might only apply to the old testamet, I can't remember.

Is it true that the devil was a fallen angel? And that the bible states that even a fallen angel is more righteous than man? By my reckoning, this would rank the dark lord above the pope in human kindness. Which wouldn't sound like someone I should fear all that much :)

There is no exact date of the writing of the Bible. It consists of texts written along ca. sixteen centuries.

There aren't much additions. As for the translations, they are good and accurate. Translations of the Bible translated from ancient greek, aramaic and hebraic to latin centuries ago were found to be as accurate as recently found translations of the Bible translated from greek, aramaic and hebraic to ancient ethiopic.

As for the names: the actual names in Latin are Lukam, Marcum and Ioannem. I don't see anything wrong about the names. (The only problem is the "translation" of names, that generates things such as "Luke," "Mark" or whatever, that really sound too familiar to be the names of people from centuries ago and distant lands. For a list of the untranslated names, check Latin Vulgate Bible Book Titles & Names from Hetzenauer. Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis. 1914. (http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/catholic/scriptures/lv-names.htm) Of course hebraic and greek names were translated to their latin versions; if you want the original names, you will have to look for the original hebraic, aramaic, etc., versions of the Bible.) Many writers of the New Testament had latin or greek names, not middle-eastern ones. As for the Bible in general, most of it was written by anomnymous persons or by middle-eastern people with middle-eastern sounding names.

Christ was killed because of his crimes, not because of a penny. Among his crimes there was the claim that he was son of God (he used to say that everybody was a son of God, which implies that he considered himself too to be one) and because he perfomed miracles during Saturdays. Romans didn't consider these to be crimes, but Jews did. They didn't directly control their country, but they had some influence - enough to kill him.

Since nuclearattack and 2,4,6-TNP are very knowledgeable about the Bible (they are even capable of providing a few quotes! :eek: :rolleyes: ), I'm sure they will prove me right.

It is pointless to try to arbitrarily try to prove God's existence
using scientific reasoning, which requires that God must be made
of some material substance with an exact atomic weight, color,
taste, and melting point. This is insanity. God is spirit! He is
not composed of carbon and nitrogen, hydrogen and helium, iron
and lead. He is the one who created all these things. He is the
one who is the mastermind of matter and energy. He gives all
substances their exact characteristics. He is the one that decided
that for instance Picric Acid would have a molecular weight of 229.104,
and that it would be composed of 31.46% Carbon, 1.32% Hydrogen,
18.34% Nitrogen, and 48.88% Oxygen. Do you think explosives are
an accident? No way. Niether are any other things that have an
ordered existence, which is everything!

I do not need to try to prove that God exists, he has proven that fact
to us already, by several methods of revelation. You do not have to pick
up the Bible and read it to know that God exists.

Here is a list of the ways God has revealed himself to all mankind
including you. I call them the lights of revelation.

1. We have the light of creation!
Romans 1:20 says: For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities-his eternal power and devine nature- have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse.
Psalm 19:1-4 says: The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they
display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their
voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their
words to the end of the world.
So simply said, you can understand there is a God and also who
he is by simply looking at all that he has made.

2. We have the light of Conscience.
Romans 2:14-15 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,
even though they do not have the law, since they show that the
requirments of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences
also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even
defending them.
So simply said, God has written his law on your heart, and your
conscience is that part of you that says to you "this is good or this
is wrong!

3. We have the light of the Law.(the law God gave to the Jews through Moses)
Romans 3:19-20 says: Now we know that whatever the Law says, it
says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced,
and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will
be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through
the law we become conscious of sin.
So simply said, The law both that written on your heart and the one
God gave to Moses is so that the whole world would be accountable to God.

4. We have the light of the Son of God.(Jesus Christ)
Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was
raised to life for our justification.
John 3:19 Jesus says: This is the verdict: Light has come into the
world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds
were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not
come into the light for fear his deeds will be exposed. But whoever
lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly
that what he has done has been done through god.
So simply said, Jesus is "The light of the world, those who trust in
him need not live in darkness.

Others include

5. The light of the Spirit of God
6. The light of God's Children
7. The light if God's chosen people Israel
8. The light of God's Church

You can easily see in all these things that there is a Wonderful and
Mighty God, who wants us to know who he is because he loves us.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one
and only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish,
but have everlasting life.

I would like to elaborate on these things I have said, but I've run out of time.

When Moses asked God who he should tell the Israelites that He was, God said "Tell them that "I AM" sent you". The worlds first reference to another dimension. (God is outside of time). That's pretty hard to steal from another religion.

I stand corrected on the names, although the observation wasn't my own :)

I liked your quote from Romans 3:19-20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin"

Surely, ergo, religion is not a path to righteousness? Which I thought was one of the main points. Observing the will of God will only highlight your own inadequacies.

I have just realised that I have a large hole in my knowledge - I have never understood *why* mankind was saved by the death of Jesus. I can't work it out, you make a matyr of a man and everyone's saved. Is it that his death prompted people to follow his teachings and become enlightened, thus saving themselves?

Something else I have never heard an answer for, is which religion is correct? Many religions worship many Gods. It is a deadly sin to worship false idols, so people of other religions must be at risk of damnation. But they all insist *they* have it right, and can all raise a convincing argument for their own cause.

So, who is right? What will happen to members of other religions, no matter how otherwise righteous they are? Do they all worship the same god, but in different guises, and so it's ok?

Why does baptism practically guarantee you a place in the afterlife, but a man who was not baptised for whatever reason is doomed limbo, not matter how good a life they have led? Surely the baptism ceremony is a creation of man?

God cannot make mistakes, else (s)he would not be omnipotent. So what explains evil men, or homosexuals? Homosexuality is a mental condition you are born with, so it is a function of creation, not perversion by an ungodly society. I hold up homos as an example as they are definitely "wrong" in gods eyes - the burning of Sodom etc.

Why would a god create a small worm that burrows into the eyeballs of a child, casuing extreme pain, and robbing the child of his sight? Where is the beauty in that?

How could god allow a priest, who conveys his very words, to sexually abuse a child?

What about all the things that are unacceptable when the bible was written, but are allowable now? Did the bible not instruct man to kill his neighbour if he was caught working on the sabbath?

Don't get me wrong - I think the basic principles of the majority of religions serve as a good moral code: Don't kill, do unto others etc. However I think it is foolish to read too deeply into words written by unknown men with unknown motives.

I think looking at the bible and trying to find contradictions rather misses the point. If its wrong it still hasnt proved the non existance of god.

The religions were created by people about a supposed god not by a supposed god. Religions are subject to evolution and fundamentally any religion knows nothing more about the testable side to the universe than its members however much it may claim divine inspiration.

Disproving a religion, which in scientific terms is fairly trivial tells us nothing about god.

A question that mostly seems to go ignored in debates is - irrelavent if truth, is nonexistance a good thing to convince people of?

Sirs,
I generally don't discuss the essense of religious matters, but I can't help adding some trivial ideas to this discussion. I say trivial since this type of discussion has no primary implications for the real life but secondary implications.

IMHO, in order to define a point scientifically you need two coordinates (Carthesian coordinates). However, the members who try to prove/disprove existence of god and truth of this or that religion only use a single point for defining another point.

IMHO, presence and truth of god and this or that religion is analogous to Complex Arithmetics. As you may know in certain cases, result of arithmetic operations give the result of -1^1/2 (square root of minus one) which is in essence is indefinite in mathematics. In order to make complex arithmetic calculations, the mathematicians use i for representing square root of minus one.

The religion and existence of god is an issue very similar to this very i. It is indefinite and cannot be calculated scientifically.

IMHO, existence and truth of religion is not an important business but who exploits, (ab)uses, benefits from and mongers the so called gospel (of any religion) is of utmost importance.

Now the things which I actually mention about:
Recently on a fundamentalist local channel of my country, I by chance came across a discussion panel. I normally do not watch fundamentalist channels since there is no funny TV programs, but when I saw the discussion panel consists of two Moslem bigots, one Moslem (but secular) researcher, and two local Christian pastors (one of whom is a pastor of an ethnic minority and the other was of ethnic majority) and a spokesman of local Protestant Church Union, it drew my attention. There was also a moderator.

The subject matter of the discussion panel was also interesting. It is about a new phony religious book called True Furqan (furqan is another name of Koran) which is intended to replace the Koran. (BTW, I don't give a shit to the essence of the discussion, but there are some other implications regarding the issue, which I shall give my ideas about them.)

Anyway Moslem Bigots and local Christian Priests gave their opinion about the issue which are trivial and classical religious interpretations/discourse etc.

What strikes me most was the opinion of Moslem (but as I said before, Secular) Researcher.

He said that there are certain marginal bigotic groups in US who are generally in power of the country, who, due to religios aspirations, try to (1) to reconstruct the Solomon's Temple in Jarusalem and (2) to create the Armageddon by themselves to induce resurrection and return of Jesus Christ.

In addition he also claims that the Christians (according to religious posture of those marginal groups) shall cooperate with Judaists to attain above mentioned aims. And when Christ returns they shall invite Judaist to believe in Christ and if they object they shall massacre them. The researcher says that's the very reason why US is always a keen and faithful supporter of Israel.

This issue is very interesting. In all my researches regarding the freemasons, I always see something like about recontruction of Solomon's Temple and some final and decisive battle. And this observation is not only about the Christian versions of freemasons, I also see similar tendencies in the non-Christian versions of the freemasons.

While I saw there is a physical book called True Furqan (which is a trivial matter for me), I see the opinions uttered by that researcher quite important and in line with my opinions. And it also shed some light about the fact that while majority of the members here are generally antisemitic why US is a true and faithful supporter of Israel.

If this phenomenon is true and genuine, then this is another type of religious bigotism, i.e. a mirror image of queer Osama.

What do you think about it? Regards

P.S. Sorry for such a long post.

Edit : I forgot to add that according to researcher's point of view, the book True Furqan is an attempt of provocation/agitation in order to start that very Armageddon. And recent events (Queer Osama's terror campaign, invasion of Iraq, etc.) are all intended for starting the final and decisive battle.

How tiresome is the argument that since "(The sun/universe/blood cells/etc) work, there must be a master planner behind it".

Right...Picric acid is composed of exactly those ratios and explodes because GOD 'planned' it that way.

Just like the earth is in JUST the perfect orbit and rotation and type of star (etc, etc, etc) because GOD planned it that way.

It'd have absolutely NOTHING to do with there being a nearly countless number of stars, planets, and the almost certainty that life (in some form) will emerge anywhere there's liquid water+carbon+radiation, plus billions of years for these events to interact. :rolleyes:

Face the facts that you evolved from a monkey that itself evolved from sludge that slithered up out of the ocean.

There is no grand purpose, nor grand designer (AKA 'God'), just a coincidence of infinite events in an infinite universe during infinite time that resulted in you sitting at your computer believing in a non-existant supreme being.

Anthony, I think you were partially correct about the names. Anyways, that's a trivial issue.


It is interesting to see that religion today can be split into a few subgroups:

A) Money-making religions. Example: Evangelist religions, such as the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God. Their priests shamelessly take money from their followers through brainwashing. There is not much to say here; they simply get money, then more money, then a little more money.

B) Irrational religions. Example: Moslem fundamentalists, such as the Taliban. They want to impose nonsensical orders that must be followed to the letter; for example "teddy bears, statues and anything made by man that resembles the living creatures created by God must be destroyed." (The Talibans really destroyed teddy bears and statues.) Cleary their beliefs make them get out of touch with the world.

C) Stagnant religions. Example: Roman Catholic Church. They keep "singing the same song," all over again. No matter how the world changes, how people change, how values change, they are inflexible in their beliefs based on centuries-old ideas. They want aborption to be illegal, even if the woeman was raped and don't want the child. Why? Because, two thousand years ago, through a prophet, God said so.

Also, most people who claim to believe in religion X usually aren't true believers. (If they are, they usually belong to group B - irrational believers.) The average "Christian," for example, wouldn't let you hit him, rob him, rape him, kill him, without at least complaining. But a true Chrisitan, who follows the teachings of Christ, should not complain nor resist.

Someone who really believes in a religion that promises afterlife should, as a proof of his faith, jump from a window saying "God is going to save me, you will see." As you can see, people don't really believe, or they have irrational beliefs. Simply because rational religious beliefs are incompatible with modern world.

Humanity knows too much to be deceited by simplistic irrational lies. In the Middle Ages, when most people were illiterate and didn't know a shit about the world, it was easy to believe that things happened "because God wanted it to happen." Just like cavemen, who revered the sun and the moon as supernatural entities. They had little knowledge and, the less knowledge you have, the easier it is for you to believe in something without serious rational explanations.

Note that providing a few quotes from "prophets" or apostles do not fit in the category of a "rational explanation." Can you prove that such prophets and apostles were really talking what God wanted them to talk? They were probably liars or madmen. People like Jesus suffered from serious delusional beliefs of grandiosity.

Jesus said: "I was chosen by a supernatural force to save the world and anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with this supernatural force and will therefore be destroyed. I hear voices that tell me how humanity should behave, and those who disagree are sinners. The voices in my head tell me that you can move mountains with faith. This is true! The voices in my head! I am not a common person like everybody else, I am a celestial being born from a virgin miraculously impregnated by this supernatural omnipotent force!"

Moses said: "You know, yesterday I went to the mountains. And there I heard some voices. The voices said that humanity must behave like this!" But Moses, why don't these voices talk to everybody, so that there would be no problems of someone saying that you are *cough* lying? People may think that you are inventing this God stuff to make people act like you want them to act. "Infidel! Only I can hear the voices because I am better than others! I was chosen by a supernatural force to hear supernatural voices, the voices tell me exactly what everybody must do, they only talk to me, and everybody must believe me because I'm not a liar! And I... the voices... in my head! They are telling me that you are evil. Please, kill him."

Mr. prophet or apostle full of shit said: "I heard voices. The voice said he was God. He told me that I should write this so that, one day, someone can quote my text as a proof that God exist!" (That is exactly what TNP is doing know: he is quoting texts from people who were SUPPOSEDLY inspired by God to write that. But in fact, the texts were written by common men, such as Paul, or Jeremiah, or whoever. No one can prove that God told them to write that.)
Is it so hard to admit that NO ONE KNOWS if God exists or not, as I stated on the second post of this thread?

Yes, we don't know what is going to happen when we die, we don't know where we came from, we don't know anything. Not knowing the answer to a question doesn't mean that we should INVENT an answer just to have one.

B) Irrational religions. Example: Moslem fundamentalists, such as the Taliban. They want to impose nonsensical orders that must be followed to the letter; for example "teddy bears, statues and anything made by man that resembles the living creatures created by God must be destroyed." (The Talibans really destroyed teddy bears and statues.) Cleary their beliefs make them get out of touch with the world.



Bastard Taliban destroyed a 25 thousand year old Budha carving in Afghanistan :mad:.

How that invaluable historical remains shall return :mad:.

We say every day :
"Oh my Goooooood..... this f***** up sh** !!! God d**** it
go to Hell b***

So there MUST be God .
:}

There is one thing I agree with TNP on: we have different ways of thinking. A pure scientist looks at the world and knows that it was created in the big bang, is all made of matter and that it all interacts by predictable laws. A pure theologist looks at the world and knows that it was all created by God, it is all run by him and anything that happens can be explained by his will. A person can have varying degrees of these two traits within him, but there is no middle ground between them.

As a direct effect of these views, the scientist looks upon the theologist as a fool whose views can�t stand up to scientific scrutiny. The theologist looks upon the scientist as a heathen, a fool whose views can�t stand up under religious scrutiny. One tries to disprove the other�s beliefs with his own ideology, but the other sees the differences in ideologies as flaws in the other�s.

I forgot to add another subgroup:

D) Performing religions. Examples are New Age religions,
Gaia/nature religions and neopaganist religions. People in the
past really believed in Zeus, Odin or something similar; they
thought such beings existed and should be revered. But today
we know such beings were mithological figures created by mortal
men like us. Primitive people used to believe that the sun or
the moon or whatever were supernatural forces, gods, etc.
because they didn't really know what the sun is. Today, however
, we know the sun is just a ball of hydrogen in fusion; it is
not a supernatural force nor the home of a God. Clearly someone
who has the knowledge we have today about Zeus or the sun
isn't going to believe in Zeus nor revere the sun as a god.
But some people (followers of New Age religions) SAY they
believe such things. Obviously they are perfoming, play-acting.
They don't really believe such things.

Because of the fact that no one believes in religion anymore
(except for a few irrational people, like the Talibans or
2,4,6-TNP) thing such as leftism, feminism, democracy* and
other sick ideologies arise: people need something to believe
in; even if this belief is based in feeding cocaine-crazed
aidetic Negroes, in ignoring the fact that woemen are NOT as
intelligent as men or in thinking that a country should be
ruled by a number.

* People are going to say that democracy existed before this
age of disbelief in religion (The Twilight of the Idols,
accoding to Nietzshe), because some cities in Ancient Greece,
such as Athens, were ruled by a democracy during some time. But
this is not true. What the Greeks called democracy wasn't
exactly equal to today's democracy. Poor men didn't vote, woemen
didn't vote, slaves didn't vote, idiots didn't vote, foreigners
didn't vote! Only a handful of decent people voted. Thus
spending money on propaganda or something wouldn't help a Greek
to be elected, because the electors where a few highly
intelligent people, not a mass of idiots, like today's electors.

People who tried to solve this problem (i.e. the lack of
something to believe in), among many other problems, like
Hitler (Mein Kampf (http://www.nsdapao.com/MeinKampfEnglish.zip)) and Nietzsche (The Antichrist (http://www.voidspace.org.uk/philosophy_books/Friedrich%20Nietzsche%20-%20The%20Antichrist.txt)), were either
destroyed or ignored.

While supermen heroes like Hitler and Nietzshe (promoters of
individual power, master morality, and strenght) are despised,
submen monsters like Trotsky, Jesus and Buddha (promoters of
sheep mentality, slave morality, and weakness) are admired.
OUTRAGEOUS!

While the rule of the powerful individual genius who works to
lead mankind to a superior state is called "dictatorship," the
rule of a handful of money-addicted bastards, elected by a
numerical majority of idiots who were convinced to do so by
the mass media (who did that because it gained a lot of money
to do so), is called "democracy." DEMOCRACY IS A LIE! Without
the void slowly created by the lack of religion, a lie full of
shit such as this would never come to be.

Hitler produced a fantasy the people of germany people wanted very badly to be true as a result of the mishandling of the end of the first world war. I'm not sure thats the same as promoting self empowerment. Telling people to bilieve in themselves is one thing, telling someone they can survive a truck collision because you know the traffic jam will let you buy an icecream is something rather different.

Trotsky was not a promoter of sheep mentality, quite the oppasite. He wanted a repressed people to stand up and fight for a better way of life. He was perfectly sincere and an idealist, like Lenin. He made a mistake though, he knew he was a lot cleverer and this was true but he underestimated Stalin. He could have had Stalin ousted but instead he chose to make a deal and the rest is a lot of rather bleak russian history.

Pb1,
"the scientist looks upon the theologist as a fool whose views can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny."
No, thats how a vocal atheist would look at it. A scientist would see him as an animal evolved over millions of years with a mind and religion that coevolved over thousands of years to need eachother.

Who is being hypocritical though, the religious zealot that lives his life in the knowlage that he will live eternally if he has total trust in a way of life, or the atheist that knows nothing matters in this life or any other but spends 80 years trying to avoid its end.

As an atheist we know there is no good, no evil, no self, no pleasure, no pain and no point. Our minds arnt designed to function with so much evolved tautology stripped away. So we limit our analysis, we tell ourselves the end is final but we may as well enjoy the ride. We eat the steak and ignorence really is bliss.

A fantasy! Hitler created jobs, eliminated poverty, destroyed faggots,
retards, Jews, communists, democrats and capitalists, gave hope to
decent people who couldn't stand the fucked up place this world was
slowly becoming, converted a humiliated defeated shithole to a prideful
superpotence and gave the world, for the first and last time, an
alternative to the sick distorted ideologies of group #1 full of shit
(USSR, China & friends) and group #2 full of shit (USA - the major
promoter of international judaism -, England, Jews & friends)... But
this was all a fantasy! It was not real! Reality is all about licking
the balls of some filthy evil communist like Trotsky, isn't it?

"He wanted a repressed people to stand up and fight for a better way
of life." This is communist speaking. Sounds like the promoters of
French Revolution (Robespierre & friends). Interesting to see that,
when non-communists are in power, communists (like Fidel Castro,
Subcommander Marcos, Stalin, Robespierre, etc.) say "people must fight
against its oppressors!" but when they get in power, we all know what
happens (think of all the non-communists who were murdered by Stalin,
Pol Pot, Fidel...).

Anyone who agrees with the communist ideology (like Trotsky) is, on
the long run, stepping on the side of "equality" (in the name of
justice for the oppressed) and "equality," on the long run, always
equals sheep mentality. You can't have people being equal if they
think like individuals. If people think like individuals, people are
not going to be equal because some people are just better than others
and then there will be poverty, "discrimination," etc.

In other words, people like Trotsky want people to think and to fight
ONLY when it suits their distorted, demented communist delusions. After
they get the power, people must revere the picture of the communist
leader and be forced to work to death because the government needs an
extra penny. (Remember Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.) Communists like
Trotsky are so filthy that they managed to portray Hitler as an enemy
of the workers! (Trotsky's letter to german social democratic workers (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330223.htm)).

He wasn't a promoter of sheep mentality because he wasn't in power. If
he managed to get the power, like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lula (the
president of Brazil; a crippled mestizo northeastern communist who
banned firearms, who openly states he admires Fidel Castro, who started
"affirmative" - i.e. kiss a Negro's superior ass - action and who is
going to be responsible for the waiting-to-happen murder of many decent
farmers by the hand of the Movement Of The People Who Don't Own A Land
- sorry for the shitty translation), etc. he would start to promote
sheep mentality because only through herd mentality communism is able
to succed. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm (http://moshkow.rsl.ru/koi/ORWELL/animal.txt) to better understand this.

Whatever. That was the last time I gave my pearls to pigs.

Buddha himself wasn't around 25,000 years ago. Hell, written history doesn't go back much past 5,000.

I belive you're thinking more like a thousand years.

He told the german people they were decended from a superior race and were destined to wipe all inferior people from the earth, you dont consider this a fantasy?

If you are in a deep recession it must seem a very attractive offer. It taps into one of the deepest evolved drives, if someone does not look like me, they are not related to me and so they are my enemy.

Castro, Stalin, Pol Pot, this is not communism, this is a dictatorship with the word 'communist' wallpapered over by each side for different reasons. Likewise you have missunderstood Animal Farm. The 'sheep like' behaviour is not required, or intended for communism, but it is required for a dictatorship. The power structures and methods Napoleon uses only have to do with subverting the grand plan, not reinforcing it. In communism proposed by Marx there is no leader, no power structure, no money. Bakers would produce bread out of social responsibility, farmers would grow and supply the grain and the bakers would just take what they needed. The people would take what bread they needed and not more, not because they are not allowed more, but because they do not need it. Its almost certainly unworkable, but nothing like it has ever been actually tried.

In other words, people like Trotsky want people to think and to fight
ONLY when it suits their distorted, demented communist delusions. After
they get the power, people must revere the picture of the communist
leader and be forced to work to death because the government needs an
extra penny.

This makes sense as an argument only if you have no idea how communism is supposed to work. If the snowballs of this world offend you, I suggest you keep your freshwater pearls.

"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand is the anti-thesis of communism, a glorious testament to the triumph of Capitalism. :)

Sarevok you are killing again all that poor people slaughtered by that fucking piece of shit called Hitler. What you are saying is a shame! :mad: Hitler was only a pathetic silly dumbass with a deviated mind, he wasn't a normal man, he caused also a lot of sufference to german people and to the human mankind, he was only a fool that had the occasion to take advantage of the disperation of the nation Germany. You are also killing again all the allied soldiers (thanks to USA,England and all the allied forces!) that lost their life to liberate us all! That's a shame! :mad: :mad:
I cannot believe that there are people that believe in Hitler yet!
And about Trosky and communism i'm surely with Marvin because communism is a very good system but it was ruined by dictators (like Hitler Stalin was only a fool dictator) and by the desire of the man to excercise power on other man. Communism has never existed in the world, nations only called communism something bad to drug people mind. This system is always used from totalitarian govs and dictators...it has been used also from Hitler.
If real communism will exist in a nation be sure that this nation will be the best and that gov will never end because people will be happy to live in that manner. I'm pretty sure (knowing the human mind) that real communism will never exist. :(
Asta la victoria siempre!

You make personal attacks on Hitler, yet you have never known him, had any contact with him, nor has he ever done anything to you.

History is written by the winners. Your opinons of Hitler are based on 3rd hand accounts told to you by people who you don't know.

Hitler did some strange things, maybe he was a bit of a fruitcake, but he also did some good things. What saverok says is pretty correct. Don't always confuse the actions of Hitler with the actions of those around him. E.g. Hitler did not order the extermination of the jews.

The world was a different place in 1938. It was still and age of empires and imperialism. Hitler went too far, and so prompted other countries to take issue with him. If he'd backed things off a bit, WW2 *might* not have happened, and Germany would simply be a far larger and more powerful country today.

The funiest and to a certain point most true answer in this 8th page is one made by simply RED.

I'm still trying to figure out how this thread turned from theological to political debate. Anyway you proved in it one of the things said in the start that religion is something that society need in order to function properly as the basis of moral issues (like is it moral to kill a person for it's nationality/skin colour/wealth).

I order to stay as much as possible on the subject and in the same time not sound like someone didn't read this page I can only conclude that I don't believe that democratic system exist anywhere (this is a system devised for Gods...and we are far from that). Sarevok said that in Athens right of vote was selective...true but there were considerations in UK in XX century among conservatives that voting right should be given only to those who pay more than 20000 british pounds of taxes per year - it is also true they didn't put that law through parlament...yet, but you can see in this example that things aren't what they are named. If you see a bottle full of green glowing liquid and on the label is written distilled water, will you take it and use it as it is really H2O.

Communism is utopia and I agree with Marvin. Nice idea but material that it should be made isn't durable enough so basically it never existed. There are some elements that are man made and detected in some particle accelerators, but as far as we (and I meant by this those who actually make something in the lab that can be seen as existing substance) can say it is still an idea...a non-materialised matter. There should be some gigantic quantum jump before we could make it work.

Fascism is the proof what can be done in a state full of desperate people and in the name of people, it also proof that above said that humans as material of society are the weak link. Anyway attacking or defending Hitler is pointless because I doubt anyone of us knew the man if you start from the thesis of falsified history. But the records remained after him said a lot about state made terror created by someone in the state which was ruled by Hitler and it certainly make him responsible for those things anyway you look at it (1) he was a monster as presented by winners of the war if he ordered it and knew about it or 2) he was incompetent leader who let the things go out of control leading the world and his country in disaster).

I think it would be better to start another thread about this, or to
forget the issue completely, since this thread is about God (and
therefore about religion and, to some extent, society in general too).

I'm sorry if I am deviating it more away from the original issue, but
I have a few things to answer.

Marvin, I don't think that the concept of Aryans as the Master Ramce is
a fantasy. The more I read the more I see it is perfectly true. Tell
me, do you believe that races do not exist or that all races are equal?
Anyways, the idea of White superiority, Whites as the Master Race, of
race quality as being the major support of a civilization, of
interbreeding as a civilization's suicide, etc. wasn't introduced by
Hitler. One of its early thinkers was the French ethnologist Joseph-
Arthur de Gobineau (Born a little after 1800 and died a little early
than 1900).

Darwin too, in a subtle way, in "The Descent of Man," said that
gorillas and Negroes are evolutionary intermediates in the process of
human evolution.

It is clear that Hitler didn't create this "fantasy." If you believe in
equality or in the non-existance of races, we can talk about it. If you
don't believe in neither but still thinks that white superiority is a
fanstasy, too bad.

As for the things Anthony said:

"Hitler went too far, and so prompted other countries to take issue
with him."

He could not back things off a bit! The interests of international
judaism forced the world to destroy Germany. He was only protecting his
people. As for the countries who attacked Germany (England, USA, USSR):
they were tricked in the most monstruous way to die killing their
germanic* brothers in the name of Judaism. Only Israel and
the Jews managed to get something good out of the war. (Israel, in fact
got its existance out of it). For Germany, England, USSR, France, USA,
etc. there was only pointless suffering and death. Most deaths in WWII
were of young white men and young white women, dying in the name of
ZOG.

* The original Englishmen were all killed by Romans. Modern Englishmen
are descendant of Normands, Anglos and Saxons, all of germanic heritage
As for Americans, the white ones mostly are descendant of germanic-
descendant Englishmen. As for USSR, the white Soviets were mostly
descendant of vikings who colozined regions around russian rivers.

Now one might think: But Hitler attacked first! Let's see this more
clearly:

First, England and France said they attacked Germany because Germany
attack the good and innocent Poland without a reason for attacking
such a pure and saintly place. England and France are very altruistic
countries and they would never endure seeing someone suffering. Right.
So why they let the USSR also invade Poland? They didn't do a shit
about it. Clearly, there is something about this. Some hidden motive.

James Forrestal, ex-Defence Secretary of the USA, in the book
Forrestal's Diary, said that after WWII, Kennedy said that in 1939,
British Prime-Minister Neville Chamberlain said that the Jews of the US
and of other parts of the world forced the USA to attack Germany.

Neville was the man who ordered the attack against Germany. A puppet
used by ZOG to start WWII.

Read here (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-13-39.html) the unquestionably mighthy, triumphal and powerful speech
by the F�hrer Adolf Hitler himself, in September 19, 1939, about why
he was forced to start a war. Not only it explains everything, it is
a beautiful speech. (There are some typos, such as "this d=E9b=E2cle of
peoples" -- It should read "this debacle of peoples".) Also, read
Hitler's testament (http://www.hitler.org/writings/last_testament/). The testament is clear: WWII was started by the
interests of international judaism.

Also, think about Versailles. What started WWII, Hitler's "excessess"
or Zionist-created Versailles' Treaty?

In August 26, 1939 (six days before Poland's invasion), England had
already signed a treaty with Poland. A conspiracy to destroy Germany,
the mightiest enemy of judaism. Poland attacked Germany
before being attacked. After the war people said that this was a
scheming by the evil Hitler to attack Poland. How far lies can go?

Mussolini tried to sign a peace treaty with the "Allies" (notice that
they are always called THE ALLIES, THE COALITION FORCES or something
like this... pathetic. The real name is ZOG's Army Of Idiots) in August
8, 1939. As you can see, the Axis wanted peace.

On the Allied side there was only Zionist-inducted thrist for blood:

August 9, 1939, from a British newspaper: The Polish army is heroic,
and the Allies are going to fight Germany until it is defeated. "The
Allies will only rest when the Hitlerist regime is destroyed."

Times said that, while a Hitlerist regime existed, the world would be
in a state of constant alarm and there would only be peace if this
Hitlerist regime was destroyed.

As you can see, Hitler and Mussolini begged for peace, while the
Zionist worldwide massa media demanded blood. Of course Zionist-
controlled newsmen don't fight in wars, don't die like so many simple
decent soldiers died. But they talk a lot.

Jerzy Potocki, Poland embassor in the USA said in January 12, 1939
(yes, many months before WWII) that: in the US reigned an enormous
hatred against national-socialism, Hitler and Germany. The propaganda
who promoted such views was in the hands of Jews, who controlled nearly
all the media, radio, TV, etc. (today they control everything. When
will American heroes like Tim McVeigh manage to freed the USA from
ZOG?) They exalted the American "freedom" and badmouthed Germany as
much as they could. They also said that war was INEVITABLE (remember,
it was months before WWII!). They tried to make Americans believe that
they had to destroy Germany to protect "democracy and freedom." (The
same old lie!) He said that Roosevelt liked this anti-Germany
propaganda because it was useful for him. It distracted people from the
problems of capitalism vs. workers. It was also useful because that
would enable him to start a weaponist program (which exists still today
still demanding blood of the enemies of Zionism, like Saddam). About
the Munich pact (pre-WWII treaty in Europe) Roosevelt said that
France and England were surrendering under the "threat" of Germany
militarism. (NOW ZOG SHOWS ITS UGLY FACE -->) Roosevelt was
overconcerned with the "unfair" treatment of Jews in Germany. Many
Jews, such as the New York governator and the chief of the Supreme
Court, posed as defenders of the interests of America. (It is a lie!
They were clearly more concerned with the interests of International
Judaism and the Jewish race. The Jews portrayed the American president
as a defender of humanity. How pathetic.)

More lies. Chamberlain said (December 10, 1939) that the freedom of
small nations was threatened by Germany. Also threatened was the
freedom of British colonies. Don't make me laugh. They were concerned
with the freedom of India??? It is like having a man saying that he is
going to conquer another man's land to protect the freedom of his
slaves!

Hitler asked for peace many times, all offers where ignored. One of
the offers was ignored because (according to Daladier's radiospeech in
France, a few months after WWII begun) "we have to protect civilization
." Peace-lovers like Churchill said "We shall starve Germany. We shall
destroy its cities. We shall burn its crops and its forests." Doesn't
sound like a protector of democracy and freedom.

The only force that urged for a war was International Judaism, not
Hitler. If you don't think so, your mouth may fall down now: The
Zionist Wladimir Jabotinsky said, in January 1934, in the newspaper
Natscha Retsch that "Our Jewish interests demand the definitive
annihilation of Germany; the whole German people poses a threat for
us."

You are correct about the Final Solution. Hitler really didn't order
it. It was conducted by people like Himmler and Eichmann. I think they
were right in doing so.

I think Anthony has a respectable opinion. He is a fine example of
someone who doesn't support Nazi ideology, but he does so because HE
doesn't believe Nazi ideology, not because mass media/public school
system/Bush/Marx/whoever told him not to like it. He disagrees, I think
, because of his own opinion. However, most people who disagree with
Nazism (or with any other thing) do so not because of their opinions,
but because of the opinions of the people who are in power, which are
easily passed into the minds of the common people. Megalomania once
said that opinions are set forth by those who are in power. This is
true.

Think about it: Most men today who disagree with slavery do so because
slavery is bad for modern society. Centuries ago, slavery was good for
society and most people agreed with it. Most people who agree with
having women being treated like men (this is good for society) would
disagree with it, if they lived a few centuries (or perhaps even
decades) ago (this was bad for society). People claim their opinions
are based on morals or ethics but, in fact, their opinions are shaped
by media/government/school (AKA "the system") and "the system" wants
people having an opinion that is useful, not harmful, for society.

The majority of people is ALWAYS composed of idiots. As we can see, the
majority of people think like society wants them to think. A proof of
this is that their opinions would change, if they were born in other
society in another time.

Now I want to list and discuss what nuclearattack said. He claimed (the
list was ordered according to my convenience):

A Claims: Hitler.
Claim A1) Hitler was a fucking piece of shit.
Claim A2) Hitler was a pathetic silly dumbass with a deviated mind.
Claim A3) Hitler was only a fool.
Claim A4) Hitler wasn't a normal man.

Claim A1, A2 and A3. Hitler was an avid reader, a vegetarian, never
used drugs, never smoked, never drinked alcoholic beverages, was
interested in art, music, poetry, was caring for his mother, was highly
intelligent, managed to raise the greatest of all nations from the dead
and threaten Zionist worlwide media and governments, and did all I said
before (eliminated poverty, unemployment - please, do you know what
being unemployed because of the money-making interests of ZOG?
Remember that Hitler was a socialist, thus not a money-maker)... To
sum it all up, "he was a fucking piece of shit, a pathetic silly dumbass
with a deviated mind. He was only a fool" Right.

In Claim A4 you said that Hitler was not a normal man. By this I think
you mean something bad. (i.e. "not being normal is bad, he was not
normal, therefore he was bad.)

What to you mean by "normal?"

In USSR, it was not normal to disagree with the government, no matter
what the government did. In Taliban-controlled Afhghanistan, not
wanting to destroy teddy beards was not normal. In today's United
States, not wanting to see a powerful country being slowly corroted to
death because of the presence of Negroes and because of the mass
imigration of Mexicans is not normal. In Vienna, where Hitler suffered
a hard time, poverty, starvation and unemployment (consequences of
Zionist capitalism that puts money above the decent worker) it was not
normal to hate Jews, even if they managed to get all the money while
putting the Austrian men to work to death for a penny, to pervert the
local culture, to control the media and the political scenario and to
seduce and impregnate innocent young Austrian women.

As we can see, "being normal" is linked to what society considers
normal. If you analyze the examples I gave now, you will see that what
society considers normal is not necessarily good. So, Hitler not being
normal doesn't mean anything.

Think about it: People in the German army, in WWI, talked about
fornication and beer. Hitler didn't talk about that. In the civilian
life, people seek entertainment by reading and watching very vulgar and
low-quality simplistic shit (just like people today); Hitler read books
, listened to the opera, and watched good and old germanic theatrical
pieces. He was a worker, a common man; because of this, unlike the
jewish elite, he had little money. He used to starve a little only to
have a small amount of money left to buy books. All of this was not a
normal behavior! Who was right, who was better, who was more decent:
Hitler or the majority of Austrian men, who did what society considered
"normal"?

Megalomania, NBK2000, Anthony... They are intelligent, most people are
not. They are interested in explosives ("Explosives are evil." -- The
Government). They have their own opinions ("If you don't think like we
want you to think, you are evil." -- School System and The Mass Media).
They are not interested in being fair and good to everyone ("If you
don't treat everyone fairly, people will not like you and you will be
an outcast. Outcasts are evil." -- Society). They are NOT "normal"
people.

So, if you think not being normal is bad, then all the Staff is bad
because they are not sheep kissing the ass of their governments and
doing what TV tells them to do.

Not being normal doesn't say that Hitler was bad.

B Claims: Hitler's actions.
Claim B1) The people slaughtered by Hitler were poor people.
Claim B2) Hitler caused a lot of suffering to his fatherland Germany.
(Yes I know he was born in Austria, but I think the existance of
Austria is an excuse to keep Germany weak.)
Claim B3) Hitler caused a lot of suffering to mankind.

Claim B1. "Poor people?" They were retards, cripples, fags, feminists,
democrats, communists, capitalists, Zionists, enemies of the German
people, etc. As for the decent people who died because of the war: They
were killed by ZOG, not by Hitler. He never wanted the war.

Claim B2. He made Germany suffer? A lie! ZOG made Germany suffer, ZOG
made Versailles, ZOG asked for the destruction of Germany. Hitler only
tried to save his country and the world from the secret force of
international judaism. Germany was like a man dying of cancer. Zionism
is the cancer. Hitler was the doctor who tried to eliminate the cancer.
You are the guy who says: "NO! Don't remove this cancer, you will only
make the ill person suffer! Let him die! Medicine should not exist,
cancer must not be removed, because that only brings more suffering!"

Claim B3. Wrong. ZOG brings suffering for the world. How much Americans
and Iraqis are dying? (Don't forget the 600,000 Iraqi children who
starved to death in between the two wars). Why are they dying? For ZOG.
Only Israel is gaining with this fight. "But the US needs oil."
Pathetic. They have money to buy all they want, no matter the price.
"They need to protect democracy and freedom". Don't make me laugh.
"They get rid of an evil dictator." Hussein was protected and appointed
by ZOG; when he became dangerous and useless, they managed to get him.
Like they did to Stalin. With ZOG there is suffering, with Hitler there
was no suffering. Only a few painless necessary deaths (fags, Jews,
retards...).

C Claims: Allied soldiers.
Claim C1) Sarevok is killing again all Allied soldiers. (If this is bad,
then I suppose he is saying that the Allied soldiers were good people
and didn't deserve death.)
Claim C2) The allied soldiers liberated us all.

Claim C1. I am killing again the Allied soldiers because they died for
ZOG. I'm sorry if they were foolish to die for Zionism. Personally I
consider most of these soldiers (not only the Allied ones) to be pretty
simple and decent people. But they were on the wrong team.

Claim C2. HAHAHAHAHAHA! They "liberated" us? I can't believe this. When
Hitler invaded France, X people died. When the Allies "liberated"
France, Y people died. Y is much higher than X. Change "France" for
nearly any other country and the statement remains true.

D Claims: Communism.
Claim D1) Communism is a very good system.
Claim D2) Communism has never existed in the world, nations only called
communism something bad to drug people mind.
Claim D3) If real communism will exist in a nation be sure that this
nation will be the best and that gov will never end because people will
be happy to live in that manner.
Claim D4) Men have the desire to exercise power over others.
Claim D5) I'm pretty sure (knowing the human mind) that real communism
will never exist.

Claim D1. Now I understand you. Behind the mask of anti-Nazism, there
is always a Marxist or a Jew.

Claim D2. I accept what you say. I will not again consider Stalinism,
Castroism, etc. to be real communism. Sorry.

Claim D3. No it will never exist because of human nature and of the
natural laws. It is a rebellion against natural and such things never
come to be.

In claim D4 you, talking about dictators (Hitler - not really a
dictator, IMO - and Stalin), mentioned the need men have to exert power
over others. This need is natural, healthy, it is everywhere, it will
always exist... Not only dictators "suffer" from this need. Because of
such need, Marxism will never really exist. The only way of making it
exist is to force it on people, and this can only be done through
dictatorship. (Like Pol Pot, Fidel, Stalin & friends did). Saying that
that was not real communism is true, but don't forget that real
communism is never going to exist, because of the inflexible, iron laws
of nature and human behavior.

In claim D5 you said that, according to human nature, communism will
never exist. This agrees with everything I'm saying. Communism is
either not real and full of shit (such as Cuba today) or it simply
doesn't exist and will never exist because it is completely
incompatible with the real world.

So why the fuck Marxism was created? It is clear that this shit is
never going to work. If you read Mein Kampf (I hope you are reading
the books I'm linking here) you will see that Hitler powerfully
unmasked Marxism's ultimate goal: To destroy all races but the Jewish
one. The same is valid for Christianty, created by a brown-skinned
illiterate Jew. Don't forget that Marx and Trostky were Jews too. A
coincidence, perhaps?

Equality, tolerance, Marxism, feminism are not the creation of lazy
utopian intellectuals (but of course they are followed by utopian
intellectuals). They were carefully created by the Zionists to destroy
the only force that thwarts their need of world conquest: the Master
Race.

Why is Marxism incompatible with nature and humanity? Hitler
explains best. He said: "Struggle is the father of all things. It is not
by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve
himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most
brutal struggle. If you do not fight, life will never be won."

The Romans didn't build their empire through of kindness, tolerance,
equality... They build their empire through savage BRUTAL FORCE! They
killed, plundered, enslaved, destroyed, raped ( Rome's legendary
foundation is linked to mass rape! :) ) and annihillated anything who
stood in their ways by any means necessary. If they based their
society on slave morality (Marxism, Christianty, etc.) they would
easily be replaced by other civilization. Their women would be raped
and impregnated by others and their race would cease to be. A race is
gone, its culture is also gone. And race doesn't come back.

Spain and Portugal achieved greatness because they had the balls to
built ships and travel the ocean (remember that gooks and similar shit
didn't had the courage to do so!) despite all hazards (both real and
imaginary hazards). After traveling, they found all kinds of Indians
(both people like the Aztecs, who were as advanced as europeans, and
also people who were stuck in the stone age). What did they do? If they
loved them and tried to achieve equality and happiness, they would be
destroyed by the Indians and would cease to be. No! They killed,
enslaved, burned, stole and fucked and impregnated young virgin Indian
women by force. That is why Spain and Portugual achieved greatness,
managed to get more money than many nations could dream of, etc. If
their beliefs were based in distorted delusions of slave morality
(Christianty, democracy, Marxism, political correctness) Spain and
Portugal would have been destroyed and forgotten.

The British empire had more power in the world, a century ago,
than the US (which is a very powerful country) has today. They were
highly powerful, influential and respected. A few englishmen were able
to hold thousands of Indians back in their places, as Anthony once said.
How they managed to get so much power? By fucking and impregnating
gook and Indian young women, putting bullets in the heads of their men,
stealing, destroying, conquering, burning, and anihilating everything in
their way no matter the consequences. If they believed in slave morality,
in the achievement of peace or equality, there would be no British empire.
England would disappear in the sands of history.

So, any ideology who defends peace, happiness through equality, or
something similar, is doomed to fail (like real communism - Marx's
style - is always doomed to fail). An ideology MUST be made in a way
that it suits itself to the needs humans HAVE, not to suit itself to
the needs of humans SHOULD have. (Democracy and Marxism are meant to
suit beautiful needs humans SHOULD have. That is why they are both sick
and doomed to fail on the long run. National-socialism, on the other
hand, is based on ugly, yes ugly, humans needs, but what matters is
that it is based on needs humans HAVE, not on illusory needs humans
should have.)

Human evolution is all about war, military conquest, brutal struggle,
brute force, violence, pillaging cities and fucking young virgin girls;
humanity is all about gold, fire, weapons, sperm and blood. If instead
of this you want a peaceful, "happy" communist community where
everybody is equal, you ARE promoting slave morality, you are
promoting weakness, you are dreaming with delusions that will NEVER
come to be because such delusions have nothing to do with human
nature and the real world.

Basing your beliefs in peace, equality, etc. will never be a good thing
. Only through violent, bloody, widespread brutal struggle and
overwhelming brute force will humanity succeed. Humanity will never
achieve a higher state if we embrace Marxism, Christianty, anarchism,
democracy, equality, tolerance, leftism, feminism, political
correctness... More important of all, humanity will never achieve a
higher state if we don't stop international judaism as soon as possible.
(Read some books about judaism: The International Jew (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ijtoc_.htm), by Henry Ford,
The Culture of Critique (http://us.share.geocities.com/sarevok_ftw666/The.Culture.of.Critique.zip), by Kevin MacDonald (cut and paste the link) and
The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion (http://www.aztlan.net/protocols.htm), by the Zionists themselves
- the fact that they claim so vehemently that this is false, together
with the fact that it explains everything that is happenining today,
is more than necessary to tell to that maybe the book isn't so false
as ZOG wants you to believe.) There was also a good page,
http://www.anti-semitism.net/, but it was deleted by ZOG. You can see
the main page and the titles of very interesting issues through it's
google cache (http://www.google.com.br/search?q=cache:4MRr6AHMnCIJ:www.anti-semitism.net/+%22international+jew%22+%22henry+ford%22+download&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8).)

E Claims: Misc.
Claim E1) Stalin was only a fool.
Claim E2) "I cannot believe that there are people that believe in
Hitler yet!" (Emphasis added.)
Claim E3) Sarevok should be ashamed of defending Nazi ideology.
This claim was made two times.

Claim E1. Stalin was a fool?

He managed to eliminate idiots like Trotsky, to dominate a great
country like Russia, to remain in absolute power for all his life
(until he died a mysterious death, exactly when he started to plan
pogroms against Jews - in other words, ZOG decided to eliminate their
puppet when he was no longer necessary, just like they did to Saddam
Hussein), to defeat the powerful German war-machine; he was one of the
few men who kept the powerful USA in check...

He may be anything you want. Anything BUT a fool.

Claim E2. By "yet" I think you mean "this is ancient, it is old, it is
not modern, therefore it is bad!" In other words, old beliefs must be
cast away; we should believe in "modern beliefs." (Prefereably what is
freshly coming from TV.) Personally I don't like or believe something
just because it is ancient or modern, I like what is good (modern or
ancient) and don't like what is bad (modern or ancient). Just saying
"it is old, it must be forgotten" is pathetic.

Claim E3. Why should one be ashamed of his opinion? Even when people
suffering from distored, demented comunist delusions talk about Marxism
, I don't tell them "you must be ashamed of this!" This is pathetic.
In fact, this is how socialization (i.e. the process of training a
child to think and act like society wants it to) works. You make the
child be ashamed of itself when the child speaks "bad" names, does
"bad" things or thinks "bad" thoughts. Sorry, I'm not a child and, if
the mass media, my parents, the school sytem and the government didn't
manage to brainwash me through making me feel ashamed of myself, you
are certainly not capable of doing it.

Now the stuff FUTI claimed:

Claim 1) Communism is utopia.
Claim 2) Hitler was incompetent or he was a monster.
Claim 3) Democracy doesn't exist anywhere.

Claim 1: Correct. Agrees with everything I said before.

Claim 2: Neither. IMO he really killed some of those "poor human
beings" and EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THIS he was the greatest hero of all
history. Only by eliminating the inferior and the enemies one is able
to succeed. Anything other than this is based on utopias, dreams,
distorted delusions, filthy lies and is only going to bring failure
and disaster.

Claim 3: Also correct. Real marxism, real democracy, real Christinaty
(i.e. real slave morality) is never going to exist because it is
utterly incompatible with human nature. That is why society suffers
when someone introduces deluded ideologies such as this. They try to
make the ideology work, the ideology is incompatible with human nature,
they force the ideology into people, people suffer, society is
disrupted, the ideology never really comes to be... Natural ideologies,
based on natural, primitive human impulses, are the only ones that
work. An example of such natural ideology is national-socialism (i.e.
kill the inferior, kill the enemies, don't let woemen pretend to be men
, kill faggots, let society be controlled by a strong powerful
leader...)

FUTI also mentioned "skin color." No one is talking about skin color
here. I talked about race, and that is more than skin color. It is
about skin color, muscles, bone structure, skull structure, brain
structure, nature and weight, penis and testicles size, body size,
intelligence, predisposition to overindividualized behavior... It is
all about everything. Don't distort the word "race" into "skin color."

You people remember what I said about Hitler being despised and Trotsky
being gloryfied? Notice the number of Marxists here. How correct I was.

Sarevok Sir,
First of all I would like to express that I am not writing this post in order to disprove Nazism or any White Supremist opinions of yours, but to express some of my opinions regarding some contradicting statements of yours. I mean you belive in Nazism and White Supremism and that's all no one can say anything against or reproach you for that!

However while you are saying international judaism /Zionism is cancer and Adolph Hitler is there to eliminate that cancer, you are also saying in another paragraph that Adolph Hitler did not order extermination of Jews (for the obvious reason of exonerating him from the infamy of genocide). This is an explicit contradiction. If Fuhrer Adolph Hitler is Surgeon General of the Nazism Hospital to eliminate International Judaism Carcinoma, how do you claim that he did not order elimination (aka extermination) of Zionism Carcinoma?

In addition, as you may know there is scientific genious called Gauss. He invented something like a gaussian curve (a bell shaped curve, which expresses distribution of standard deviations amongst a set of numbers). And all societies are subject to this gaussian curve (not only with respect to their physical percentiles but also with regard to intelligence). While (generally) 5 percent of the individuals of a society is at the topmost section of this curve (which means they are superior) the rest of the individuals is at lower part (which means they are mediocre and consequently inferior).

So even we assume that you have created a throughbred Arian society, again a few percent of them shall be really superior but the rest shall be mediocre and inferior. e.g. although Dubya the pedocide is an Arian, is he a scientific genius, can he talk intelligebly or at any rate a superior man? (He was choking while eating crackers :D).

While I am sympatizising with the racial pride I don't like the harsh and monstrous ways of racist people. I mean loving your kin and kith is always a good thing which must be assumed by everybody. The problem with Nazism, IMHO, is not the issue of race I believe, but the brutality which eventually causes all non-Nazi forces to unite and beat the Nazis with the grave results for the ordinary German people. The brutality assumed by Nazis was so intense that it caused German Army officials (which are even purely Nazi, and amongst them there are war heroes) to conspire against Adolph Hitler (which I shall describe below).

Sir, as you may know there were several attempts on the life of Adolph Hitler. (an important sidenote : I have a great respect for Adolph Hitler since he reviwed an entirely toppled nation from reverie she had fallen in. and created an industrial nation out of a befallen and defeated nation.) In an instance, there is an attempt by the Nazi Army officials (a possible military coup), anyway to cut a long story short they failed (the bomb the officer (which was a war hero) planted, blasted in a non concrete building (a wooden barrack) and Adolph Hitler was saved) and what was the order of Adolph Hitler regarding the conspirators? "Have their family and children sent to concentration camps. Execute the perpetrators." As a result of his order the conspirator's families (including children) had been sent to concentration camps and the perpetrators are hang on meat hooks. (A terrible death).

Given this historical account, how do you claim that Adolph Hitler did not order extermination of cancer-people (which not only includes Judaists, but also homosexual, socialists, communists, social democrats, gypsies, and anybody that the Nazi regime deems untermensch)?

In addition, you claim that the power attained by world superforces (in past Rome, and recently by Spain, Portugal, United Kingdom), is based on the brute force (which I agree). But did this attitude prevent them from falling? Of course not! (An important side note, while I don't know so much about Portugal and Spain, I know that Romans were a quite cosmopolite nation consisting of many different ethnic groups, even Arap Pagans)

And let's look at the example of US. How do you claim Albert Einstein is somewhat inferior? Or recently I watched Robot Wars on Discovery channel. There was a 16 years old black boy who constructed a robot to fight in Robot Wars. How do you claim that this boy is inferior. (But I must admit that I had some occasions to meet some African blacks, and they are mostly corrupt trying to cheat me on business matters, however I think this might be something cultural, since they are Moslems.) How do you explain that there are many Judaists who made great scientific contributions to US, if they are untermensch?

While there is a huge flux of useless people into US, there is some people amongst these immigrants who rendered US more prosperous.

And this statement is not a contrary opinion but a request: Maybe I am dumbass but I really don't understand why so much hate against Judaists? Please someone shed a light upon it. I asked this question to many people I know (including some Israelis), but nobody gave me a clear, satisfying and non-biased answer! I say satisfying since the people I asked this question is generally say I hate jews since they are untermensch or something like that. This type of answer is neither concrete nor scientific.

And another psychosociologic observation regarding the racism. (A sidenote : I claim that no races, ethnic groups or individuals are equal since there are myriads of qualities in every individuals, but the people must be equal at only one place, courts!) Even I admit that this or that race is superior than the others, a superiority may become inferiority/weakness when you become blinded by your superiority. Similarly Adolph Hitler was blinded by his ideas about racial superiority. He thought since He and Arians are �bermensch and all other races are untermensch, he may easily defeat them and made the mistake of entering Russia to defeat untermensch Russians. At first he was really progressing very well (Russians were surrendering before the superior German forces). But at that point he made another mistake and ordered the untermensch slavs to be ill-treated. And when the Russians learnt that they resisted incredibly causing the German forces be stuck in the monstrous Russian winter. If he was not blinded by his aspirations about superiority, he would not make the very mistake that Napoleon did in past. (As you may know Napoleon invaded a great part of Russia even reached to Moscow but had to return with his tail between his legs when the winter came.)

And in the post you made you stated that the International Judaists benefited from WWII. And this statement and confirmation revived my doubts regarding geniunity of Adolph Hitler's ideas and philosophy.
As you may know I am a conspiracy freak :). During my searches about freemasons I came across this site (http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/). This site is about freemasonry movement (aka invisible empire) throughout the world. According to this page (http://freemasonrywatch.org/thenewage.html), there is strange relationship between Adolph Hitler and freemasons.

And I always wondered why Adolph Hitler who crushed all and any states (even brotherly states like Austria and Nordic States which are almost purely Arian) avoided invading Switzerland which is a banking state holding world monetary and gold reserves (i.e. money of International Judaism). If he had invaded Switzerland he would have imparted a great blow on the Cancer, causing a great financial collapse not only in Europe but also in US. And whom Adolph Hitler killed? The cancer people he ordered to be exterminated was generally poor (i.e. non-wealthy) Judaist. The wealthy and influential ones had already fled the country.

Since I believe you are quite informed about this issue I would be very pleased if you shed some light upon it. Regards.

P.S. : According to that site, included in the freemasonic organizations are not only explicit freemasons (like infamous P2 Lounge of Italy) but Nazis, KKK, Black Panthers, Muslim Brothers (a leader of which (Karzhai I believe) was second man in Al-Qaeda network) and there is a separate section about the Skulls and Bones.

1) I said Adolf Hitler didn't order the killing of Jews because I "want
to exonerate him from genocide; genocide is an infamy."

I don't want to exonerate him from genocide. I don't think the genocide
to be wrong. I said the final solution was leaded by other people like
Himmler and Eichmann because is that what I think that officially
happened. Hitler had some important part in it, of course. If Hitler
did ordered and conducted the extermination personally, he would be
even greater in my sight. I said Himmler did it because that is exactly
what happened. If my objective was to exonerate Hitler, why would I
point out that if he did that personally (i.e. if he took an assault
rifle in his hands and proceeded to kill Jewry one by one) he would be
even greater?

Can't you see that trying to portray Hitler as "evil" doesn't work
against me, simply because of the fact that I am beyond good and evil?
The filthy concepts of good and evil were created by the non-white
Persian philosopher Zoroaster (AKA Zarathustra) and were unnecessary
for the Master Race for millenia. We didn't need to classify some
things as "evil" and we still don't need it.

2) Gaussian curve.

This is beyond racial matters. Any past-stone-age society is going to
have this curve (or, as some people point out, a social pyramid).

3) Nazi brutality made the world unite against them.

I don't think the world unites itself against nazism because of nazi
"brutality." Bush and his father are responsible for nearly a million
deaths in Iraq. Stalin was responsible for dozens of millions deaths.
Yet the world never united itself against their brutality. If people
were really concerned about stopping brutality, why they didn't do shit
about Stalin and why they don't do shit about Bush? What made the world
unite itself against nazism wasn't exactly their "brutality." (Again,
another slave morality concept. Someone is more successful than you
through the measureless use of brute force, you call him "brutal.")

4) Officials opposing the F�hrer.

Yes, since the beginning many German officials opposed Hitler. Fuckers!
What is wrong about sending their families to work camps? They opposed
him, must be destroyed.

5) Hitler ordering or not ordering killings again.

As some people pointed out, history is not completely clear (remember
Napoleon "history is a set of lies agreed upon"). Hitler may have
ordered everything, maybe. If he did that, than he is ten times
greater. If the cancer people doesn't include only Jews but also fags,
etc. (and this is certainly true), even better. Again, I never wanted
to exonerate him. Again, if he did it all personally, he would deserve
another Iron Cross.

I think it is more realistic to divide the responsibility for the glory
of killing Jews, fags, etc. among Hitler, Himmler and all others. No
one did anything alone.

As for the cancer being more than only the Jews (i.e. it was also fags,
communists, etc.), I already talked about it before. If Hitler did
order their deaths too, better.

Again, I don't want to exonerate Hitler. What you call a crime I call a
glory. If he killed them all, I kiss his feet.

6) Brute force and empires.

As for Rome et al, their brutal attitude didn't prevent them from
falling. Obviously, empires don't last forever. As I said, life is all
about struggle. In a struggle, one can't win forever. Sooner or later
all thrones crumble. But before crumbling, they can have had achieved
greatness or not. Just like a human being: you can be an important,
powerful person, or an unimportant person. Anyways, you die in the end.
That is what I was talking about: brute force makes you achieve
greatness, but it will not make you exist forever; nothing makes you
(be a person or a state) to exist forever.

Rome was indeed cosmopolite, and that could be one of their reasons for
falling. Portugal and Spain were also a little cosmopolite and
interbreeded with Indians and Negroes. Wonder why they fell and are
now poor countries?

7) Einstein and the unnamed Negro robotic genius.

Just because a few non-white INDIVIDUALS (Einstein, black who made a
robot), etc. are intelligent, this does not mean that their race is
better. This negroid did make a small robot, right? Why Africa is so
full of shit then? The Negroes could all be making robots now, yes?

As for Jews such as Einstein: I never questioned Jews' intelligence.
Even on intelligence matters, they may have Einstein and a few others,
but what about white scientists? I am not going to make a boring
infinite list here. :)

First, not only intelligence is what makes humans superior to one
another. The will to exert your power beyond good and evil, the
will to take part in brutal struggle to achieve what you want (the will
to power), also denotes superiority. IMO, it is even more important
than intelligence itself.

Second, if you take individual X, no matter what race he is, there are
no limits for his intelligence. You can take a single black who is smarter
than a given white, just like you can take a woman who is physically
stronger than a given man. I am always talking about averages. In
other words, in average, men are physically stronger than women,
whites more intelligent than blacks, etc. Talking about a single
individual is not important when you are trying to guess racial and
sexual differences.

8) The US and its immigrants.

The US has an absurdly high crime rate, for a First World country. It
is also suffering some setbacks, such as having a debt of 1 trillion
dollars to pay. Even if the US was perfect, having immigrants inside a
White society, on the long run, always equals death. We will have to
wait a few centuries to really see how bad the existante of Mexicans in
the US really is.

9) Why anti-semites hate the Jews?

Because Jews corrupt and destroy cultures. Because they declared war on
Whiteness. Because they "prove" that races do not exist. Because they
distorted Darwinism, natural selection, human evolution and the brutal
struggle that drives it. Because they promote interbreeding (through
the mass media, either by writing "intellectual" papers or making
fancy movies that portray Negroes as supermen).

Because they created and spread slave morality (Christianty and
Marxism) to weaken the Master Race. Because they attack masculinity by
promoting "alternative" lifestyles (i.e. faggotfullness). Because they
attack feminility by making women think they are equal to men. Because
they weaken families by making the woman work out of her home, thus
letting the unprotected child be brainwashed by the Zionist-controlled
school system and mass media.

Because they have an important role in today's white slavery (which
includes, but is not limited to, decepting young white women from ex-
Soviet countries, bringing them to Israel, destroying their documents,
and forcing them to be prostitutes).

Because they are responsible for the fact that the Arts, once beautiful
and respected (think about Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Michelangelo
Buonarotti) are now deteriorating (think dadaism, cubism, "modern" art,
"popular" music). What once was all about beauty is today all about
decay.

Because they have a part in political correctness. Because they promote
"affirmative" action and blame Whites for the "crime" of black slavery.
(First, it was not a crime; second, many Jews took part in it.)

Because they dominate governments and the media to achieve their filthy
end of subjugating their masters. Through direct conflict they wouldn't
be able to do it. Just like rats (Jews) can only kill a lion (Whites)
by spreading disease (Christianty, democracy, Marxism); they can't
defeat the lion in a bite-fight (direct brutal conflict).

Because they don't commit suicide now and cease to be a disease for the
world.

It is not about hate, it is about survival. If there is a snake trying
to bite you, you have to kill it. You don't hate the snake but, if you
don't kill it, it is going to kill you. So you must strike a killing
blow.

If you had read The Culture of Critique and The International Jew, you
would have a number of reasons to oppose Zionists.

10) USSR.

Hitler didn't attack Russia because they were submen. If so, why he
never attacked Latin America? He was not a fool. He attacked USSR
probably because he suspected USSR was going to attack him and decided
to attack first because that would give him a higher chance of victory.

It was precaution or paranoia, not foolishness.

He knew of Napoleon's mistake (attacking England, not winning, going to
Russia, facing the winter, being defeated) and tried to avoid that
problems; it didn't work anyways. :)

11) Conspiracies.

I am sorry but I don't know a shit about freemasons, Skull and Bones
or whatever, so I can't talk anything about it.

I do know that the Nazis kiled mostly poor Jews, while the rich ones
payed to flee. This is very natural. Rich people usually get away with
it because they have money.


You may disagree with me (you probably will), but you can't say that
I consider genocide against non-Whites a crime, that I want to
exonerate Hitler from doing so (as I said he had some part in it; a
pity he didn't do it all alone so I could say he killed them all, give him
a medal!) or whatever. I think you misunderstood me. As for the
conspiracies, I really don't know anything about it, sorry. I think the
rest is also clear.

Please Sarevok although this is issues and oppinions forum, this thread is about something else... is there a God?

If you want other issue to discuss start a new thread. There you can debate about choosen issue. Your long post that are out of place start to look like CocainRocks adventure that ended abruptly after making almost all angry. I can only admire your determination to persist in this matter but you are falling in some logical traps that in the end leads to using certin logic when it is needed or suitable and completelly ignore it when it could be used against the thesis you defend.

Dear Sir,

First of all, I honestly would like to hail you since you are one of the rare and intelligent fascists who is capable of elaborating on the very ideology s/he is following. Majority of the fascists I know (both local and foreign) cannot do that other than parroting the mottos taught to him/her.

Though FUTI is right about the deviation of this thread, I believe this is the most informative thread about the issues and opinions. And what I am trying to do is not to oppose/disprove/blot the Nazism but to try to understand and grasp its meaning (1).

3) Nazi brutality made the world unite against them.

I don't think the world unites itself against nazism because of nazi
"brutality." Bush and his father are responsible for nearly a million
deaths in Iraq. Stalin was responsible for dozens of millions deaths.
Yet the world never united itself against their brutality. If people
were really concerned about stopping brutality, why they didn't do shit
about Stalin and why they don't do shit about Bush?

You are exactly right about it. However I think I failed to express myself. If the Nazis would stay at home and do not attempt to invade the other countries, the most probably the world (and especially US) will not give a shit about it despite the general chorus of calls to stop jewish holocaust. I believe the Judaists of the US, though seemingly cry for the help, waited almost till the end of the War to cause US to enter into war since the merchants were collecting huge profits out of it. And this also served to another purpose: it was also intended for enticing the world that Judaists needs a country leading to establishment of Israel.

The reason why the world did not unite against US is IMHO they have no guts. I belive there are only two countries who may challenge US, 1) Russian Federation 2) China, the rest is trifles and generally a bitch of US (including my country, which is not only bitch but also an anal bitch).

4) Officials opposing the F�hrer.

Yes, since the beginning many German officials opposed Hitler. Fuckers!
What is wrong about sending their families to work camps? They opposed
him, must be destroyed.


I don't mourn for the victims of the war. What I am trying to say the Nazi regime was so harsh that it even treated its own heros very badly. And common sense of some officers tried to stop Adolph Hitler. Even if I mourn for the victims, then I should also mourn for the victims of a US Airforce COmmander's infamous bombing campaign of civilians. I don't remember the name of the that airforce commander but the history shall remember him very well. He ordered the bomber planes to first drop small bombs to create holes at the ceilings/roofs and windows of the buildings (which are located in old cities of Germany) and then drop incendiary bombs to create firestorms. Many civilians lost his life due to his actions.

7) Einstein and the unnamed Negro robotic genius.


The first statement I made about the post is valid here (see 1 above). I made those statements not to prove that this or that guy is superior than this or that guy. But I am again looking at the issue from the utilitarian point of view. The persons I referred to above migth be useful for the common well being of the society. And wasting such people in concentration camps may have grave consequences for any given regime. As far as I know there are many expatriates who are exiled from their country for not being politically/ethnically/religiously correct but made enormous successess and contributions to other (and mostly Western) countries.

9) Why anti-semites hate the Jews?


This is a better answer I received (at least better than answer of my country's local fascists /shitheads). I shall find the references you referred to and read them.

The problem with my lack of understanding anti-semitic hatred is that although there is a minority of judaist in my country, I never saw any of them physically. Since the majority of the population is Moslem they are not involved in state affairs, they are generally very rich merchants attending their own business and do not interfere the politics. But I suspect that they are most probably involved in freemasonic activities of my country. I have got some cyber Israeli friends who are avoiding that very question preferring to mention something other. Regards

Hitler is an example, as are many people throughout history,
who by simply believing things that are not so have destroyed
themselves.
Proverbs 14:15 says: A simple man believes anything, but a
prudant man gives thought to his steps.
and Proverbs 14:12 says: There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end leads to death.

If Hitler pleased God would he have fallen?

All this talk of the dead, yet what of the living?

As we see in Luke after Jesus was raised from death to life he said:
Luke 24:38 "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your
minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and
see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Hitler was wrong! We did not evolve from apes as some men may
have told you; negroes are not some "in between" state of "evolution".
No, certainly not! I recommend you read Genesis Chapter 11 to see
how God made men into different races and gave them different languages,
and scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Acts 17:26-27 says: From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them
and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men
would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he
is not far from each one of us.

Malachi 3:18 says: And you will again see the destinction between the
righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.

A creationist, huh? I can see that you live in one of the central states in the US where this kind of thing is common. As I said in a previous post, there is no sense in trying to argue with you. The only advice I can give is to move to one of the coast states and maybe learn a little science. It's sad in a way, that this kind of thought is so prevalent.

Here's an example of how pervasive the Jew is.

I'm downloading some stuff on an associates computer, and using one of those P2P clients that has adware in it (:rolleyes: ), and while looking for something that had the word "jew" in it, what pops up but a webpage for "Jewish dating services". :mad:

Like I'm looking for a she-heeb. :p

Ah, i love these debates.
First off, i thought that there are 9 gods. All with the power to ban me at will. More terrible a fate there is not.
Ok, but really. I'm eh. Unclassified as far as my religion goes. Which is a cop out so i'll try to explain. I'm wiccan, as far as that goes, although i hold more closely to a broader sense of it, so i'd define myself as Pagan, since so little of Wicca attracts me. I believe in god for comfort. I don't want to believe that this is all pointless. But i accept that reality. Being the youngest of five might have an impact on all this as well. My mother can't remember if i was baptized. I haven't gone to church since i was 5. Unless you account for a onetime attendance to a catholic church(stand up sit down stand up sit down... Eat jesus... repeat), and the fact that i'm a Unitarian Universalist Priest. Legally allowed to marry people in Utah(but who isn't?). The bible is a horrible book. Completely inconsistent, and thrown together by several rich bankers a few hundred years ago. Parts were picked and written by different people. Not any kind of thing i buy into. Not to mention all the christians i'm surrounded by are the bible thumping hypocrites.
I believe in science, but i hope for more. I respect others beliefs so long as they don't force them on me. And above all Morals are ENTIRELY seperate from religion. If they weren't explain the catholic priests raping little boys. Does that fit into the catholic moral system?

Hitler didn't invade the Swiss because:

A) They were neutral, and had been for centuries, thus not a threat Germany needed to defend against.
B)The entire male population were just as capable soldiers as the germans (being Aryans themselves), and would have been very costly to subjugate, thus would be an additional drain of scarce Germanic manpower.
C)They were entirely white, thus not in need of racial purification.

The Norwegians were neutral too, but the British and french got them involved in the war by violating the Nords neutrality by mining their harbors and waterways to deny German shipping the use of those waters.

The Norwegians were, for the most part, OK with the german presence.

My grandmothers family was in Norway during the Nazi presence, and they were at no time under any apprehension of danger, according to my grandmother. The people, as a whole, while rather upset at the presence of 'outsiders' (as anyone would be by uninvited guests), didn't consider them a terrible scourge of foreign invanders, more like obnoxious relatives who'd invited themselves over for christmas.

The Danes were neutral, but the Germans (by neccesity) had to violate that neutrality in order to secure Norway against allied invasion, because of the need of overland access to the arctic waterways.

While they did 'invade' the Danes, they didn't depose the existing government, nor impose themselves upon the population, and the Danes didn't resist them. The Danes were smart this way as, if they had actively aligned with the Axis powers, they would have suffered as well at the hands of the allies. But, by playing at being 'neutral', they had RTPB Plausible Deniability. :)

The vast majority of the human casualties from WWII did NOT happen at the hands of the German 'invaders' (Jews and other untermensch don't count as humans), but at the hands of the allied bombardments/invasions/deprivations against the Aryans and the surrounding locals, and subsequent neccesary Nazi reprisals.

Aside from the jews, fags, gypsies, retards/cripples, and other furnace fodder, very few europeans were killed during the Nazi occupations, relative to the size of the empire they were building. Alexander the Great killed more people in his final battle with Darius then the entire Nazi campaign until 1940.

It wasn't until the allies began to 'liberate' europe from the Nazis, by bombing the shit out of it and burning everything burnable, that the slaughter began.

And while a few million jews were exterminated, many times that many Whites were killing each other, all while the war profiteers (jews) got richer on the bodies of dead Aryans. :mad:

As to the Gaussian distribution curve...it's not a perfectly symetrical curve, like you usual see in the textbooks, when you're dealing with people.

If you made a gaussian curve for the numbers 0 through 10, you'd have 5 as the midpoint where there's an equal number of numbers on both sides of the curve.

However, when dealing with populations, your concern (with regards to intelligence or whatnot) is with where the midpoint is and where that midpoint is relative to what you're comparing against. This is dependant on the breadth and accuracy of your sampling. You're certainly not going to get an exact 5 when when dealing with 10 (or 10 million) people, regardless of the subject.

If comparing intellect between Whites and the negros, the midpoint for whites is higher than that of the blacks. Read The Bell Curve for a much better explanation than I can give here. I'd like to also note here that my local library has just a single (defaced) copy of TBC, a huge book with many footnotes and references to other reputable sources, and about 8 books that purport to refute it, all of them much smaller, with almost no supporting documentation to refute TBC, mostly anecdotal (SP?), and all of them by jews, niggers, or other untermensch trash.

To me, the fact that so many mud written books exist to say that it's wrong tells me that it must be right, for why else would they be screaming so loudly about it?

This gets terribly repetitive, everyone screaming about how bad National-Socialism is, and what monsters the Nazis were.

Please note that the word "Genocide" didn't exist as a word until after the Nazis LOST the war, when the Jews came up with it as a buzzword to draw attention to themselves afterwards, when they were interested in getting western support for their israel, by playing on western guilt.

Many more people had been killed in other purges throughout history, but the jews were the first to ever have been the victims of "Genocide". :rolleyes:

Personally, I'd give Hitler an A for effort, but an F for failure, because the jew still exists. While one man, or a few men, can get the ball rolling, it'll take the concerted effort of the entire race to root out every jew from every hidey-hole they'll be hiding in, everywhere on the globe, as the jew is as crafty and tenacious as a New York sewer rat when it comes to surviving and hiding from the claws of the cat.

In the movie Schindlers List (made by a jew), you see how the jews hid in every nook and cranny they could when the Nazis came to remove them from the warsaw ghetto. This is historically accurate fact.

Could you imagine, for a second, not an individual, but hundreds of White people in a small neighboorhood, all hiding inside of beds and pianos, crawling underneath floorboards, or through sewers? Sounds like something a rat does, not a human being. White people fight with whatever they got, and die with their dignity intact (like Humans), not screeching in terror like a rat trapped by a cat underneath the floorboards .

The Nazis ended up having to gas, burn, and raze other ghettos (and the sewers) to completely eliminate the jew vermin that infested them.

When the allies came into berlin, the germans fought them tooth and claw, making the allies pay the butchers bill for every inch, not hiding in the rubble to save their asses like the jew vermin would (and did). The German people fought, and died, like Aryans do...on their feet with their backs unbent!

National-Socialism is a form of government in accordance with natural law:

>One strong leader for everyone to follow.

>Obedience enforced not through words, but by force.

>The good of the species ahead of the individual.

>The elimination of the weak, stupid, and inferior.

>Only the fittest are allowed to breed.

>Violent opposition to the presence of the foreign amoungst yourselves.

>Aquisition of resorces needed for expansion of your species through conquest of other, weaker, species.

Whether an ant hill or a pride of lions, this is natural law, and Man, as the most highly evolved animal on the planet, should have the most perfectly evolved form of natural law as its government.

And seriously, trying to disprove natural law by quoting from the bible, a book written against the very nature of man, is absurd.

But...does not 'God' tell us to not stand for the presence of the wicked amoung the righteous? And what did he do to the wicked and unrighteous? SMITE (kill) them.

On what basis does god decide who is wicked and unrighteous? Simple...anyone who doesn't follow him. What does he do to those who don't follow him? Kill them.

And if you want to talk about genocide, how about the 'Genocide' of the entire human race (with the exception of Noah and friends) by flood?


And the Lord said:
I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.

And behold, I myself am bringing flood waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life, and all that is on the earth shall die.


And you say Hitler was evil and insane?!

Hitler wanted a pure, vigorous, healthy, and prosperous human race to inhabit the entire earth. God (if you believe the bible) has already destroyed it once in a flood, sparing only his ass-kissing toady, and promises to do it again at Armageddon! This is the person you follow?! Who's the lunatic now?

Lucifer wants Man to be his partner, not his slave, like God does. God did not want Man to eat of the fruit of knowledge, for he wants obedient little pets to worship him forever and stroke his vain ego, not someone who'll be his equal.

Lucifer gave Man the fruit so that he could decide for himself what he wanted to do, not exist as mindless slaves, and God has been tormenting Man in petty retribution ever since.

Everything you rail against the Nazis for being or doing, god has already done many times over.

IF you believe in this sort of thing, then when the first two humans ate of the tree of knowledge, God cast them out of Eden because "They have become as Us", meaning humans now had the ability to be as God, and God doesn't want the competition. ;)



The way Jesus put it is that we ARE Gods, John 10...
33: The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

It's all part of something I am yet to fully understand... I have gathered as much as that the LORD gave us the world and to live forever, but Adam and Eve messed it up and he's fixing it according to HIS plan.

I'm having enough trouble with the FTP, so my "wisdom" compared to most here is foolishness. I just believe and love and have fun. :)

I stand corrected on the names, although the observation wasn't my own :)

I liked your quote from Romans 3:19-20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin"

Surely, ergo, religion is not a path to righteousness? Which I thought was one of the main points. Observing the will of God will only highlight your own inadequacies.

I have just realised that I have a large hole in my knowledge - I have never understood *why* mankind was saved by the death of Jesus. I can't work it out, you make a matyr of a man and everyone's saved. Is it that his death prompted people to follow his teachings and become enlightened, thus saving themselves?


How could god allow a priest, who conveys his very words, to sexually abuse a child?

What about all the things that are unacceptable when the bible was written, but are allowable now? Did the bible not instruct man to kill his neighbour if he was caught working on the sabbath?


Don't get me wrong - I think the basic principles of the majority of religions serve as a good moral code: Don't kill, do unto others etc. However I think it is foolish to read too deeply into words written by unknown men with unknown motives.


The way I look at it is (as revealed to me by God) is that NOTHING we can do will ever make us worthy of heaven, or his love, but he gives it to us freely. The law or Torah existsfor a few purposes (1) to provide the legal code/social framework for the ancient Israelite society, (2) to know when we have sinned and to confess it before the LORD and not some "Priest".

The Torah does instruct a sabbath breaker to be put to death, and those who commit adultery, those who swear against their parents. But as Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Now some may say this is you know pacifism, or how do you punish anything then? Later Paul mentions that rulers are there to punish evil. I try to "temper my faith with judgement", so the way I look at it is "On the truly harmful sins - action, on the small ones - love." I know the objection is that being stoned implies a pretty BIG sin, but I think this answers your first question: �For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.� � Romans 6:23.

We accept Christ because our own righteousness is a joke, we are like the Israelites in Egypt at the first Passover (God's judgement passed over those homes with the sheep's blood) likewise we use Jesus' righteous spilled blood instead of our useless works (religion) when we plead our case before God. All the theology is just pointing you in the right direction - "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9 KJV

The one TRUE religion is Judaism, but I am a Gentile with faith in the Lord Jesus, thus I have a faith and a relationship with the true and living God - I wear the spirit of the law in my heart, so Kosher is moot to me, I sabbath in my way, but I love the LORD my God and my Neighbor and have a free gift of eternal life.

* People are going to say that democracy existed before this
age of disbelief in religion (The Twilight of the Idols,
accoding to Nietzshe), because some cities in Ancient Greece,
such as Athens, were ruled by a democracy during some time. But
this is not true. What the Greeks called democracy wasn't
exactly equal to today's democracy. Poor men didn't vote, woemen
didn't vote, slaves didn't vote, idiots didn't vote, foreigners
didn't vote! Only a handful of decent people voted. Thus
spending money on propaganda or something wouldn't help a Greek
to be elected, because the electors where a few highly
intelligent people, not a mass of idiots, like today's electors.

While supermen heroes like Hitler and Nietzshe (promoters of
individual power, master morality, and strenght) are despised,
submen monsters like Trotsky, Jesus and Buddha (promoters of
sheep mentality, slave morality, and weakness) are admired.
OUTRAGEOUS!

While the rule of the powerful individual genius who works to
lead mankind to a superior state is called "dictatorship," the
rule of a handful of money-addicted bastards, elected by a
numerical majority of idiots who were convinced to do so by
the mass media (who did that because it gained a lot of money
to do so), is called "democracy." DEMOCRACY IS A LIE! Without
the void slowly created by the lack of religion, a lie full of
shit such as this would never come to be.

Nietzsche's points about democracy in the Twilight of the Idols are similiar to those traced to the the root as Socratic philosophy over the Sophist - the decay of the older Hellenic instinct, in the Problem of Socrates.

One can't love Nietzsche and Hitler, Nietzsche loved Jews (he said something trash about Polish Jews at the end of the AntiChrist), but he is mostly in awe at them especially in the older times. Hitler just got caught up with Nietzsche's loser sisters and their edited texts. He's to Nietzsche's philosophy as Mohammed was the scriptures, a collective "UGH".

Democracy is a joke, but that is why the US was supposed to be a REPUBLIC - the mob does not win.

And JESUS is the ULTIMATE Superman - the WORD was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, and is who should be worshipped, and ultimately we will all bow before.

The Pharoah lost to stuttering Moses, Haman tried to kill the Jews and failed by one of the Emperor's harem hoes (Esther), Rome crushed Jerusalem in 70AD but fell by a jewish carpenter and someone who killed his friends, Hitler failed, Arafat is dead, and shucks the Jews live on - all failures and losers. I love how people preach survival of the fittest/evolution and then bitch that other's find ways to survive (crawling in gutters/sewers). Heck, I'd do it too if I knew the "Ubermesnch" were running from "Untermensch" (Slavs). What the Hell makes Aryans so superior anyways? The Jews outsmarted them based on your own testimony and then Aryan intelligence is somehow so superior? Savagery only gets you so far it seems.

Egypt is a pile of sand and former glory. Rome is well Rome, it wasn't built in a day so deconstruction is a bitch. Germany is neutered to deal with the Infidel-hatin' cult, people will bitch holocaust again, so guess what that means? Your "superior" country is again smoted by purveyors of religious anti-semitism (evil ALWAYS turns in upon itself).

Hitler sounds like a dork, no alcohol and no red meat and no art school make little Adolf cry.

As you are all familiar with the bible, I shall point you in the direction of both Godwyn's Law and Job 38:11.

In any case, the existance of a god can neither be proven nor disproven, as faith is required in either case (barring the breaking of 7 seals to the sound of trumpets and the appearence of a 7-headed beast with a whore upon its back, etc, etc.). Therefore, go with either Pascel's Wager, or agnosticism, if you think the first is just philisophical bull.

And nice to meet, all.

Now that the thread has finally taken a turn toward religion, I will just rant some more on the subject:

One thing I�m getting sick of is how the various Christian religions (maybe Judaism and Islam too, but I have not encountered too many examples of those) always seem to emphasize how the human being is utter and worthless garbage. Come on people, get a brain! Otherwise, remove the human trash that is you from the gene pool, preferably in a humorous way to leave something valuable of yourself�a page in the Darwin Awards!

In any case, the existance of a god can neither be proven nor disproven

You have a good point here: religion cannot be tested. This is even engrained in Christianity (Jesus said that this was a sin, or something along those lines). Now, what�s a theory that cannot be tested? Nothing.

In biology, what�s a thing that spreads rapidly, can be transmitted from person to person, and uses the host�s own body (in this case the mind, as reason is completely lost with blind faith) to spread itself? A virus! One could argue that it is mainly spread from parent to offspring, thus making it a parasite.

I dont believe in god for the same reason most everyone i know doesnt, it cant be proven that he exists.

like Pb1 said "In biology, what�s a thing that spreads rapidly, can be transmitted from person to person, and uses the host�s own body (in this case the mind, as reason is completely lost with blind faith) to spread itself? A virus! One could argue that it is mainly spread from parent to offspring, thus making it a parasite."

the only real reason anyone has believe in this for so long is because it has been passed down through the generations. people still know about rome and things that happened way back then in history, so its not significant that the bible has been around for 2000 years and that people still follow its teachings.

Well, is there a God? Different people have different beliefs on the subject. But I would like everyone to have a look at this news video clip on the BBC and ponder over it. It seems that the tsunami that hit Aceh in Indonesia destroyed everything in its path. But strangely, none of the mosques and churches were destroyed. They were left intact. Another thing to be noted is that both the muslims and christains (and the jews) claim to be the decendants of Abraham, and should supposedly worship the God of Abraham. Was that the reason both the churches and mosques were left intact? I would love to hear your views on the subject.

Here is the link to the video clip (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/shared/player/player.stm?title='Religious%20explanation'%20for%2 0tsunami&clipurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_web/video/40733000/nb/40733913_nb_16x9.ram&cs=news)

Of course there is a God he is the one true God he made everything. Christ Jesus is his son. Where do you all suppose that all the religions came from? If you believe in the big bang theory where do you suppose all of that matter came from? Did it just appear? Well if you can explain it just "being there" please do tell. The big bang theory in concept nullifies itself!

If you believe in the big bang theory where do you suppose all of that matter came from?

It was obviously created by the One True GodTM, who mysteriously came out of nowhere with no explanation for his existence.

Oh wait...that theory nullifies itself too. :rolleyes:

Looks like this guy was pretty convinced :p

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2006-02.html

�Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.�
- Jesus in Luke 22:36

So it matters not in the least whether god exists or not - we're on the right path. Every religion condones the sword (given particular circumstances).

With regards to the big bang - Brahma dreamed matter into existence. This is the dreamworld. Abraham is part of Brahma's dream. Religious structures survived because the unscrupulous masters of religious institutions played on stupidstitions, ammassed wealth, and built sound structures with this wealth. Devotees couldn't afford to build to code.

Listen well when Brahma talks to you directly. Ignore individual's interpretations. If god wanted you to know he/she/it would advise you directly.

I am no religeous fanatic or anything, I dont go to church, I dont worship giant buddas or believe that some races of people are satan's messengers, I am mearly a mild mannered Canadian. However, I have seen too many signs, or occations were I think an unknown force has been involoved. I'm not crazy, but call it as you will, I think that there may be some higher force than us. If we were created from scratch (the big bang, big blow job, whatever it was is what created us) Occured to this solar system, then why couldent it have occured to others as well? I mean, there is plenty of room! We have only traveled to our moon, inside our solar system, so we know that we live in a galaxy, but what is after that? The closest galaxy to us is Andrommeda (sp?) Which can be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope, what is after that?? Other galaxies, all contained in our universe, what contains our universe? And what contains that? Then there is black holes and all kind of other crazy shit. The human race is so fuckin lame, the East would do anything to blow the hell out of America, because these Sadists think that we are evil doers under Satans command WHAT THE FLYIN FUCK GAVE THEM THOSE IDEAS?!! Muhammid? We know so little about everything, yet we think we are so great, wouldent it make sence to step back and take a look at what we attmpt to do to each other? Yet we fight our little wars and bitch about the way things are runned, we should really think over everything in my opinion.

Yes you do need to “think things over”
The human race is so fuckin lame, the East would do anything to blow the hell out of America, because these Sadists think that we are evil doers under Satans command WHAT THE FLYIN FUCK GAVE THEM THOSE IDEAS?!! Muhammid?

Do you really think that about all Muslims or just the jihadies who (in Iraq) have a reason for aggression now that their country has been invaded and thrown into civil war?

If all Muslims like lots of brainwashed fearful western sheep believe :) no offence. Last time I checked America is doing the destruction to the East along with mine and many other countries, too bad you only see one way on that.

I don’t support suicide bombers in any way just stating the points of view from some of the people who’s country was invaded in an unprovoked attack supported by government propaganda (known fact).

Also they don’t believe in Satan, their Islamic :p ;).

And paragraph breaks are a rule around here.

Is there a God? For myself, I think you have to separate organized religion from the question. Organized religion plays on the fears and insecurities of society in order to control behavior. If you believe in Jesus as the son of God, why did he build no large buildings or churches and take collections every sunday?
If you are knowledgeable in science, you are aware of the tremendous number of things that have to be just right in order for life to exist.The earth has to be just the right distance from the sun, the atmosphere has to be just right, etc.
What made all these things just as they had to be? I don't know what you want to call it but there seems to be a creative force with a plan that is a lot smarter than we are.

If we were created from scratch (the big bang, big blow job, whatever it was is what created us) Occured to this solar system, then why couldent it have occured to others as well?

That's way too funny not to deserve a quote.

The human race is so fuckin lame, the East would do anything to blow the hell out of America, because these Sadists think that we are evil doers under Satans command

So it's not because our governments support the Jews, Mideast Monarchies, and other things that Arab Muslims consider oppressive? Or that we have the gaul to preach democrazy whenever we want to invade someone despite our backing of non-democracies?

, wouldent it make sence to step back and take a look at what we attmpt to do to each other? Yet we fight our little wars and bitch about the way things are runned, we should really think over everything in my opinion.

Upon the island of Java there is a remarkable valley of death. It is literally strewed with the bones and skulls and skeletons of innumerable dead animals and creeping things. In the due season, giant turtles, five foot by three in diameter, travel up through it from the sea, to lay their eggs. En-route, they are set upon by packs of wild dogs and these dogs roll the turtles upon their backs and then devour them alive, by tearing out their unprotected entrails. When the dogs are gorged, they in their turn, fall an easy prey to ambushing tigers. Then hunters kill these tigers for their variegated skins. Rank grass springs up after the rainy season, through the skulls and the bones that litter this tropical Golgotha and droves of cattle gather there to fatten. Again the cattle are hunted for their hides, horns, and flesh, and their bones are also left where they fall, to manure the valley and prepare it for new generations of hunters and hunted. Such is in miniature, a picture of the every day world as it actually is. All living beings are pursuing and, being pursued.

Woe unto those that stumble! Woe unto ye who fall!
They who accept the �Equality, Faith, Hope, and Charity� ideal, in any shape or form whatever, interpret the facts of mortal life as they are not, as they never have been, as they can never be. Indeed when the animal world becomes �moralized� and �equalized� it will be extinct. No doubt when contemplating the dark side of all this, Pascal was impelled to write with superstitious medieval diapason: �I am affrighted like a man who in his sleep has been carried unto some horrible desert island, and there awakes not knowing where he is, nor how he shall escape.�

Degenerates only are thus affrighted at the tragic majesty of their surroundings.

If this struggle is ordained of us, why not enter into it with kingly courage, with dauntless delight? Why not go forward, daring all things, to conquer or die?

Source (http://might-is-right.blogspot.com/)

The concept of Intelligent Design, with such arguments as 'With all the things necessary for life to exist, how could it not be planned that way?', is flawed.

Given the infinite number of stars and planets that exist in the Universe, how could life NOT exist?

And isn't it the height of arrogance to assume that OUR lifeforms are the only kind that could exist? Could it not be that there are forms of life in the Universe that exist as coherent X-rays beams, or particles of gas?

In an infinite Universe, there must be an infinite variety of life, and all of it accountable by the fact of infinite monkeys will, given infinite time, produce all the works of Shakesphere.

If we were created from scratch (the big bang, big blow job, whatever it was is what created us) Occured to this solar system, then why couldent it have occured to others as well?

Because there is only one Solar system in the universe. The rest are star systems. Our star system is aptly named "the Solar System" because all the planets within our system orbit the star named SOL. Get your facts straight, ya Lunatic. :p

Given the infinite number of stars and planets in the Universe, how could life NOT exist?


I agree.

Given the fact that you don't know how many other planets have evolved life you can't say if it is a rarity or a commonplace thing. I would rather put my money on things having a reason for being than random chance. You could wait for an infinite number of monkeys to write Shakespeare, but I would put my money on a human being do it, in much less time.
I happen to believe that the intelligence at work did not make all those other galaxies just for us to look at.

Instead of looking at the whole universe/god approach, why not take a look at each seperate religion closer?

Can you prove/disprove the Bible, Koran, Torah, or other religious texts? Humans are erroneous, so there must be a mistake, contradiction, or bias somewhere. Who affirms these texts to be true? What were they like? How did they live? Can they be trusted?

Well, I believe that anywhere that life can exist, it will.

We already know that it is possible to create life from simple chemical compounds such as would be found on a primordial planet, having already done so ourselves.

Self-assembling protein structures, amino acid synthesis from gases and lightning under UV irradiation, and all the other building blocks for life happen without Divine intervention.

To see just how insignificant a speck we are in the larger scheme of things:

http://rapidshare.com/files/8525890/The_Universe.jpg.html

Well, is there a God? ...I would love to hear your views on the subject.

Not to be a scientific hater, but, in those regions, the church is probably the most well-crafted building. The houses are made of wood and cardboard, the mosque is a hundred years old piece of gold-plated concrete. They probably weren't left totally intact, but they're strong enough to withstand the tidal wave and they have large first floors with large open doors so the water vents easily.

I'd like to see a tsunami hit NY, my guess would be that the skyscrapers would still be standing mostly undamaged. Divine intervention?

+++++++++

Don't quote whole posts! NBK

Absolutely not. Religion, like all superstition, is for the weak and stupid.

"The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth." --Ayn Rand.

The existance of a god, as a hypothesis, is weak in the extreme; it can neither be proved nor disproved, it contravenes Occam's razor and provides overly complicated, human-centric answers to questions which are either invalid or can be answered more fully and rationally by science.
As such, I am an absolute atheist.
In addition, as uncovered by MENSA's meta-analysis, there exists a clear link between low IQ and religious belief.
On the other hand, whilst I do long for universal scientific education and the death of religious dogma - what self-respecting sociopath can fail to admire the sheer power religion wields over the masses? An entire population in the thrall of insensible terror. This is simply the ultimate in terms of social control, and potentially one of the greatest unifying forces in humanity; capable of mobilizing entire nations against 'enemies of the faith', or turning the weak-minded into living bombs . . .

When I think of the power of religion to control entire populations, I think of the Jesuits.

Ignatius Loyola, their founder, was quite the strategist in setting them up as educators, for that allowed them to shape the minds of their charges (usually aristocracy) to fit the direction the "Soldiers of Christ" wanted them to go.

I've read elsewhere (and mention it here too) that Christianity is an ideal religion for taming mass populations and make them mild enough to allow civilization, and all its fruits, to florish.

However, once a civilized culture has established itself, the religion retards further progress because of religious taboos - such as we've seen with stem-cell and cloning research. :(

Islam, on the other hand, doesn't tame. Rather, it inflames, making its followers fanatics bent of destroying anything that doesn't conform with the teachings of their pedophilic goat-herder prophet, Muhammad.

'Failure is its own proof', and since they haven't progressed on any level in the last thousand years, there's a thousand years of proof of what a failure it is as a religion.

This isn't to say that everyone who believes in islam is a failure or uncivilized, just the general trend of what is caused by belief in such a religion.

I believe there is a god. The Jesuits used it as an excuse to go and go "witch and heretic" burning. Whenever Christianity has been in power (control of governments), It has been a disaster. Christianity requires a step of faith to take the initial step. You have to see and believe for your self. No one can show you it.

Is there something wrong with "witch and heretic" burning?

Also the latest news: insurgents in Iraq shot down four helicopters since January 20, 2007. Allegedly Allah is teaching new military tactics... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Of course. Allah has taught the dissidents tactics that were pioneered in Rhodesia in the 50's. Yes... Of course Allah is all mighty and powerful.

Is there something wrong with "witch and heretic" burning?

Rule #506: Organize witch hunts and lynchings as often as you can afford to. Be sure to kill people of all creeds and colors, so no one complains.

Do you mean the real God; or just Dog-Spelled-Backwards, the one whom worshippers claim orders them to kill themselves and as many other people as possible, for rewards (such as the services of 72 virgins) in some future spirit life? Both Muslim suicide bombers, and Bu$h & Co., worship the latter one.

For the benefit of all you budding clinical criminologists/sociopsychological profilers out there (Hi, Scott!) I just thought I'd point out the fact that this thread is doing an excellent job of separating the schizotypals from the antisocials.

Please make careful note of this distinction in any future Roguesci group profiling studies, as I'm sure I speak for many of the latter when I say I profoundly resent having my opinions in any way, shape, or form aggregated with the former. LOL

P.S. Be sure to throw me a shout-out in a footnote...it's the least you can do. ;)

Let's try expanding the statement "There is a God" and "There is no God" using Russell's theory of descriptions as a guide:

a. There exists some x such that x is God; and that no other x is God (actually the longer version would be "that there is no y, other than x, such that y is God").

b. There is no x such that x is God

If you look at both statements carefully you would see then that using one or the other does not necessarily presuppose the existence of God (i.e. ontologically commit one to the existence of the entity God). What you commit to ontologically is the description/property/attributes of the object x. In essence the theist admits that within his ontology there is an object x satisying the property of "Godness" while the atheist admits that there is no object x in his ontology that satisfies said property. And needless to say, an ontological commitment to the property of "Godness" is not neccessarily equivalent to an ontological commitment to the entity God. And thus non-theists can use the word "God" meaningfully.

Might I recommend Quine's essay "On What There Is". The explanation I gave above is something of a paraphrase (though shoddy) of his explanation. I'll see if I can try to dig it up from my big pile of school stuff...

I believe, you'd be a damn fool to believe in such fairy tales.

While I am a Catholic by name, I do not agree with it's beliefs. I feel that religion and science are interwoven. For instance, things that religion cannot explain, science makes up for it, and vice versa. In my opinion, the laws of the universe are infinitely complex, but they all derive from one basic principle, which is to fulfill your destiny.

I have studied a number of religions the past few years, and I see points from all of them which make valid sense to me. I cannot say which religion is correct, and I will not go far enough to say there is a "God," but I know for certain there is an invisible set of laws the universe follows.

EDIT- After a moment of thought, it seems the line between philosophy and religion can get pretty blurry.

Definition of religion:
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Definition of philosophy: (all of which make sense)
1. examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
2. school of thought: a particular system of thought or doctrine
3. guiding or underlying principles: a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
4. set of beliefs or aims: a precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody's practice or conduct


I will probably edit this later when I think about it some more, but it seems as if you are either someone who believes in one of these so to say, or the other.

Being an athiest, I despise when other athiests pull the "You have no proof, therefore its not true card". Its true, but immature, ignorant, and absolutly worthless for a good debate. Religion is not based upon proof, or truth, but faith.

Just throwing that out there...

Jesus existed, lived, and ran a cult.
Religions are cults, and absolutly absurd.

I also belive religion deserves less respect than it has. Although it is an enormous chunk of our history, it doesn't deserve to be respected the way it is now-a-days.

Religion is for the weak.

Religion is for the weak.
And for suicide bombers, and false justifiers of wars/whores like Bu$h.

Religion to me is just hassle that is not needed. The world would be a lot better of without it, however if you follow it it's completely up to you.
Personally I wouldn't waste my time with it.

Most of the beliefs are so far out there, and just pointless. Why prey to something you don't know exists. Can't see, Hear or anything?

I think a lot of religious followers are religious because their parents have bought them up like that, which I think is totally wrong. Brainwashed from birth.

Religion will probably be the cause for the world to end as well, beings as it spreads so far with so many different beliefs

Allow me to play devil's advocate here for a minute and show an alternate way of looking at religion, for there is an importance to religion (as well as a strong family structure) that I think many here have not thought about...

Religion of any type is hated and despised as much as a strong family structure by the governments of the world and the powers that be because it allows people to remain unafraid, even in the most severe and extremest of danger. It affords them reinforcement of strength and will within their fellowship which they often do not have while standing alone.

You cannot make a man fear you if he believes that no matter what you may do to him there is his God looking down on him and looking after his best interest. It's blind faith, yes, but this is a bond which some men share with one another which allows large groups of men to resist tyranny much better than individuals ever could.

In the eyes of the government and TPTB, this will not do. No, this is bad bad BAD and must be discounted and destroyed, even criminalized (eventually)! So is strong family structure, which, if you look at the events of even just the past century both have been under brutal attack.

Religious fellows (not just leaders) over the many years have been made to look foolish, kooky, money-grubbing, and sometimes quite insane. The Ten Commandments have been forcefully removed from walls of courthouses, religious sayings and songs forbidden in schools (along with even silent prayer being openly banned!). The pledge of allegiance removed from schools because of the phrase "One nation under GOD"! Women's liberation movements and related actions designed to destroy the patriarchy have been praised and their agendas pushed through quickly now and almost without opposition, also, and for the same reasons.

It's divide and conquer tactics, my friends, on both counts. Plain and simple. Destroy the unity, isolate, then attack the individuals while they are weaker opponents, having not the strength in numbers or faith alone to back them up.

Now, most of us here at RS are more inclined to believe in science over theology, granted, but please do consider at least the fact that religion is NOT your enemy, but moreso in your best interest in the long run, even if you personally do not partake in it. At the very least consider that the enemy of your enemy could at least be considered a friendly defensive advantage your own brethren might need to rely on for strength and endurance while you do not...

My bottom line is: Don't hate, discourage, or try to destroy or discredit what works best to your own future advantage. That in itself would be the act of only a fool...

I don't really definitively believe or not believe in a god. I don't like to rule it out, I mean hell, if there is and I rant about how there isn't one I would sort of be screwed later on.

However, I do believe organized religion blows. I don't want some appointed guy in a costume telling me what's right/wrong or what to believe in.

Pretty much I figure that if I'm not an asshole and at least try to be an okay guy then not only will people not resent me, but also if there is a god then I'm not screwed in the afterlife.

Fester - While I certainly understand your argument (even if you don't believe it), what is the deal with politics being mixed with theology? For instance, look at the Jewish presence in American politics.

Why would Jews want to dissuade others from their own religion?

And also, while religion may give some the strength to continue past others, isn't that dangerously like people watching television in place of actually living? Their belief in something false (television/religion) certainly gets people off the street and out of "gangs" but then just puts them under the control of someone else.

While religion may serve some purposes, it is an excuse and a fa�ade created by the upper class in any society to justify the down trodden and the atrocities that such an upper class commits.

Terrorism is the new religion, being used as a justification for anything and everything, because Jesus just doesn't cut the cheese these days.

Now, when I talk about religion, I'm talking about established religion such as Islam or Christianity. I think that everyone believes in something, whether it is themselves, God, whatever, and that is a necessary part of human existence.

Charlatans have just capitalised on this, and abused it.

Well, that's my view anyway.

I personally don't believe in "God" (in the classic sense, surely not), but I am a great fan of religion. Without religion humanity wouldn't have evolved socially and industrially in the ways it did. Religion bounded together communities and nations. Enforced strict rules, control and the promise of afterlife (hope). So you could work yourself to death for the benefit of the community, without having to have second thoughts about it. Its even better than politics...

Why would Jews want to dissuade others from their own religion?

The jew approach to enslaving the world does not require everyone convert or die like muslims (even now) or catholics and christians (of the world past). It requires only wrenching the proper controls from the right people and using misdirection to keep the finger from being pointed directly at them while they do their deeds, until it's too late.

Jews could give a flying fuck whether any goyim or non-jew wants to believe in THEIR belief system or not, so long as they ultimately do their bidding.

What they definitely don't want is for anything non-jew to have in place a 'tie that binds' so as to help resist their efforts to enslave the world. The fact that it is indeed a jewish plot to enslave the world is never really denied outright or even confronted headon. There is no need. Instead, a group of accusers are simply discredited as anti-semites and more "holocaust" tributes put up. That's all that's required to completely sidestep any accusations for them. The pity party parade is the best tool in their shed, and look how well it works for them! The fact that to even deny the holocaust openly in some countries is a CRIME shows how well they've got that working for them. Un-fucking-believable! :mad:

And also, while religion may give some the strength to continue past others, isn't that dangerously like people watching television in place of actually living? Their belief in something false (television/religion) certainly gets people off the street and out of "gangs" but then just puts them under the control of someone else.

While Christianity does seem to have become a corperation instead of an actual bonafide religion, it does seem to provide some relief from the steady syrup flow of jewish propaganda from the boobtube. The majority of them still have a relatively good message to share between passing the tithe plate around and for that I forgive them in one hand and yet still remove myself from their acquaintance with the other.

I denounced any and all Christian faith many years ago, even having been raised in a strongly protestant family. I have my own spiritual belief system, but it is mine and I do not preach it nor like to go into detail about it. It's just what I believe personally from what I have experienced in my lifetime.

Terrorism is the new religion, being used as a justification for anything and everything...

I completely agree with you on this.

Religion bounded together communities and nations. Enforced strict rules, control and the promise of afterlife (hope). So you could work yourself to death for the benefit of the community, without having to have second thoughts about it.

Yeah, this is true, too. Without peer pressure from the church community alot could never have been accomplished in the past.

http://vho.org/dl/ENG.html

A big list of downloadable PDF's regarding the holohoax, jewish influence in the US government, etc.

I believe that God must exist because I define God as being whatever created and governs everything. If that is just a series of laws of physics, then that is God. If God is some form of omnipotent being, that is just fine, too. If there is a heaven and hell, then I really hope that I have appeased God. If there is not, then it does not matter because I would be dead, or possibly reincarnated, in either case, I would not maintain the same mind and would therefore never know. It does not matter to me whether God interferes with human existance or not, since it is impossible to tell. I do believe that all religions are made up by humans for various reasons, but because of their ambiguity, all of them are right. Religion is not as limiting as people think. I am Catholic, but I feel that it is very obvious that unless there are two gods and one of them has a uterus or God is a hermaphrodite, Jesus cannot literally be the Son of God. In either case, we will probably never know. Even though we will never know, it is critical that ideas must be discussed, since the root of all philosophies and sciences came from religion. Even the most atheistic philosophers, like Nietzsche could not have existed without organized religion, since all philosophers are essentially defined by their support or criticism of religion. Science developed simply because people became sick of accepting the "God did it" answer to every question. As far as souls go, humans must have something deeper than intellect simply because we are able to ask questions like these. If eventually computers develop a similar ability, then they, too will have "souls." In any case, if no one ever asked this question, what would there be to live or do anything for? For all we know, God could exist simply because someone speculated if He exists and because of that, we came into existance.

+++++++++++++=

Could we have gotten at least a couple of paragraph breaks in that multi-hundred word monoblock of text? NBK

Perhaps everything always was, like some never-ending cycle......sort of like these religious debates.