[Gank]

I believe the 7,000 year timeline is based on the lifespans of the prinicipal charachters in the bible. Apparantly the life expectancy was much better back then with moses living for nearly 1000 years.

Btw its nice to see Bush has his prioritys straight:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Ace
BTW Su-tehp the universe has been measured out to 13.7 billion years old based on the background radiation observations.

Yeah, I only knew that the Universe was somewhere between 12-20 billion years old the last I heard. But that was ten years ago or so that I heard that; I wasn't sure if the scientists had come up with new measurements or not. Thanks.

See, Libby? Background radiation measurements! THAT'S what I mean when I talk of scientific proof. No Bible quotes here, no sir.

[Liberator]

Trying to explain what I mean to you people is impossible because any evidence I bring would be immeadeately ignored as right wing propagandist BS because you have made up your mind that we are wrong in believing as we do and idiots for not adopting your moral and ethical viewpoint.  You accuse us of not having open minds and being hateful bigots.  

I wish we could leave it a state issue, but there are politicians, judges and other individuals who would have it otherwise.  

I don't mind giving same-sex some of the rights that a married couple has, but Marriage is a ceremony designed to sanctify the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God, which can't happen in a same-sex relationship.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't mind giving same-sex some of the rights that a married couple has, but Marriage is a ceremony designed to sanctify the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God, which can't happen in a same-sex relationship.

By the same definition Hindus or buddists cant get married, this right?

[Kazan]

the "evidence" you would brring up wouldn't even QUALIFY as EVIDENCE Liberator


YOU ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF YOUR POSITION A PRIORI - I DO NOT

Therefore I am atheist, you are not

I have debated with THOUSANDS OF YOUR ILK including with with DOUBLE DOCTORATES -- your KIN LOOSE MISERABLY -- even the 2x PhD made dozens of logical fallacies to try and make a single point

Go ahead, try and make your argument - i dare you - i will completely and utterly slaughter you at formal logic - and you won't even be able to try and claim A Priori bias like you just tried to

[Knight Templar]

Why is there and arguement in this thread?

And arguement implies that someone has taken the side that Gays aren't full people and don't deserve full rights...

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
And arguement implies that someone has taken the side that Gays aren't full people and don't deserve full rights...

because people, like liberator, have taken that position

[Liberator]

@ Kazan
Somehow I doubt it, if so I doubt their capacity.

May I suggest this book, it was written by a former atheist.


@KT
Gays are not being denied rights, the biggest gripe they have seems to be certain federal financial benefits that come from being married.
(I don't think they are including taxes in this however.)

And also, certain social benefits such as hospital visits.

[Kazan]

Liberator: make the arguement yourself (will be back with analysis of that page in a few minutes)

any "former atheist" never was a real atheist

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Liberator
@KT
Gays are not being denied rights, the biggest gripe they have seems to be certain federal financial benefits that come from being married.
(I don't think they are including taxes in this however.)

And also, certain social benefits such as hospital visits.

Are those not rights that would be applied to any other married couple?

And former aetheist? Maybe you mean non-beleiver?

[mikhael]

That would be Liberator. Gays don't get the same rights as everyone else, because his God says so.

You know, white people used to say that God approved of slavery. And of course, there was a time when the Church said that God only wanted priests reading the Bible.

I dunno about right wing vs left wing. All I know is that I was allowed to marry my wife--not by a priest or by a church. Because of this, my wife and I are accorded certain rights and priveleges by the state and federal government. I really don't give a good goddamn what the Church has to say about it. We're still married.
Gay people are exactly that: people. In this country, we have a wonderful document that begins thus:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not "We the straight people", or "We the People of whom God approves". Nor does it say "people of the Church" or "people of God" or "people of the United States (except gay people)".

Further, that same document goes on to say:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that it says "nor deny any person", not "nor deny any straight person", or "nor deny any person except those of whom we disapprove". Equal protection under the law is the guaranteed right of EVERY person in the United States.

Or how about this part:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Only a Constitutional Amendment can take away someone's right to marry. Can you imagine that? An amendment that DENIES the rights of a minority?

Oh, and here's one of my favorite bits of that grand instrument. It tangetally relevant, as it discusses the role of God in the governance of this nation:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Try as you might to change it, your God has no place in my government or the running of my country. Your God stands apart, seperate, disconnected, and irrelevant to her governance and the lives and liberty of her people as a whole. Individuals may believe in your God, but your God will never be in any way necessary, or of value to the my country, her goverment or her people.


Side Note: I find it rather ironic that Liberator endorses the EFF and its defense of the rights of the people in his sig, yet seems to be arguing that gay people can be denied certain rights (marriage and its attendant priveleges) on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Kazan]

Liberator - I'll start with his most basic claim "God Exists" -- if he cannot make this argument without commiting a logical fallacy then clearly all his other assertions are utterly pointless


====================================================================

Answers to Questions - God

How do we know God exists?

There are at least 2 objective, yet certain ways to know God exists.

I'll let him get away with not justifying that number

The first is through his Creation. Imagine finding a new, hi-tech watch in a forest. There would be no doubt in your mind that it was created, though you have never seen anything like it before.

This is a logical fallacy, it has an explicit name and is known as "The Watchmakers Fallacy" - it is saying that "complexity cannot arise naturally"

This is a fallcy for several reasons - the biggest of which
1st) It relies on a false understanding of the laws of Thermodynamics

Thanks to the electron microscope, we now know that a single living human cell is FAR more complex than the most modern factory. Creation of life, now is obvious - especially to experts in biochemistry. This necessitates a Creator (God).

This is assuming the conclusion a priori - he is dismissing all other options - such as naturally occuring events caused the first "biological" molecules to be created - and then the process of [micro]evolution took place.

Complexity can be increased by Work (physics term - Force multiplied by displacement) -- natural forces, such as gravity, electromagnetism, chemical reactions - can do work

But you don’t need a degree in molecular biology or quantum physics. The Bible says Creation by God has been obvious since the beginning of time... that we are "without excuse" [Rom 1:20].

Circular Logic - he's quoting from the bible which ASSUMES god exists to support god existing

Second, we can be certain from the statistical "proof" of divine inspiration of the Bible. Only a supernatural God, beyond time and space, could provide the hundreds of specific prophecies and insights, written centuries in advance.

"Statisical Proof" preposterous -- i want him to cite all these "specific prophecies" IN ORIGIONAL TEXT on PARCHMENTS, PAPRIUSES, etc DATED TO THE CORRECT TIME

HE has absolutely no evidence to suppor this claim, and yet again is relying on a document that ASSUMES god exists

Perhaps you think the Bible is biased, inaccurate, mythological or unprovable. Many of us felt the same way... until we investigated the evidence from the "eyes of a skeptic."

It is biased, inaccurate, mythological AND unproveable -- I want him to support any claim the bible makes without trying to appeal to the bible and without making logical fallcies

Mathematical analysis literally "proves" the existence of God’s inspiration many centuries in advance.

I want to see this proof - if any such valid proof existed then science would be all over it and I wouldn't be arguing this position



=========================================================


[SIZE=8]Kazan 1 - Religious Fruits 0[/SIZE]

[mikhael]

You know, one day, I promise, We'll teach Kazan tact.

Kaz, you're right, but damn, man, we really gotta teach you how to deliver the message on something other than a hand grenade.

[Kazan]

mikhael: i used to have tact - when I still have patience with the religiously insane, sadly the day my patience ran out was many years ago



every time a new one tries to argue with me they try to shrug of all their predecessors are incompetant - and now he tops them all cause he's the first since the Double PhD, thats taking the cake!


And they all repeat the same old arguements, over and over and over - i am sooo tried of refuting the same arguements overand over and over!

[Rictor]

You are free to do whatever you want, as long as that something does not infringe upon someone elses freedom. Anything. Everything.

You can not, must not force your beliefs on other people. its not up to the state government, the federal government, the church or the courts to decide in matters of personal morality. Its up to you. No one else. You.

If humanity is to move forward, this idea must be embraced. If humnaity is to evolve and become enlightened, this must surely be one of the major principles. Live and let live.

_____________________

Liberator, I respect your opinions though I disagree with them. I think you're wrong, but that's your thing. So, why do you not think that everyone else is entitled to their own opinion? You may think gay marriage or anything else is wrong, but by what right do you think that you have the authority to decide how someone else should live.

Even if you believe that it is God's command, you are not God. If He wants something done, you can bet He's going to do a far better job than you. So, according to your own belief system, if God does not act on an issue, that must mean He's ok with it.

For all I know, you could very well be right. If you are, I'm screwed come the Second Coming. But, in the meantime, you can not pass judgement. OK?

Try to be more like Steak. He's the reason (and people and groups of people like him) that I more or less like Christianity. Despite all the hate, all the intolerance and the vast history of Very Bad Things, I still have nothing against Christianity. Why? Cause of the people who strive only to better themselves and better society, and leave all the judgement and hate to God.

Oh and, next time you want to prove a point, don't link to two of the most radical right-wingers on the Earth

___________________

DG, I'm going to have to agree with Stryke here. Your position is that either you do something about a matter that displeases you or you shut up about it. However, the way I see it, being politically active and aware is in and of itself a political act. Even more so if you make an effort to inform those around you. Double kudos points if you succeed.

Blowing up mailboxes and holding protest isn't going to accomplish ****. Knowledge is a greater weapon than anything else. Behind every gun, behind every policy, behind every dollar in the world is a person. The ability to influence people is the most effective method getting what you want.

Fortunately, people are all raised to be in possession of this powerful weapon. Every person can, at will, employ this weapon to devestating effects. Its called communication.

_____________________

Regarding gay marriage, I pretty much agree with what everyone esle said. Though, I am concerned about the effects on a child raised in a homosexual family. My opinions are far from scientific, but I think that it would affect the child.

____________________

Su-tehp: Leave Nader alone. He's what the Dems SHOULD be like, but are too cowardly and self-serving to be. Dems and Reps are moer or less the same. Take a look at how many Democrats support Republican policies. They're supposed to be the opposition damnit.

Every time someone does not adhere to The Formula*, they're branded a radical and a maniac. Just look how the media did the Dean thing. I mean, Kucinich and Sharpton were actively marginalized by the media. You can't possibly claim that the reason they were never serious candidates is because of their policies alone. The media intentionally, systematically discredited them. Please, please don't claim that the media (being the Big Four news corps) don't have an agenda. Just don't.You'll look like a idiot.




The Formula

1. Be best buddies with Big Business
2. Make promises, then break them as soon as you're elected.
3. Slander your political opponents
4. Reject any view other than your own. Moderation is for the weak.
5. Have no solid set of ideals. Be whatever will get you the most votes. If the people change their minds, you change yours.
6. Emphasise The War on Terror and Nation Security. This is all THEIR fault. We haven't done anything to deserve this. Damn terrorists.
7.Assert that AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE! Yeah! Woo! Despite the fact that the world hates the USA and that is actually not that good a place to live.

[Liberator]

Kazan, I look forward to reading your analysis.

All of you, 38 states already have laws that prohibit same-sex marriage, Activist Judges, who legislate from the bench, would still force those states to recognize a SS Marriage from the other 12 states.

Another example of Activist Judges is the Roe V. Wade decision that is used hammer the Pro-Abortion agenda of the radical far-left.  It's not an actual law, it's a judicial decision on one case from the 1970s.  It's treated as a law though, and unscrupulous individuals use that misconception to murder hundreds of thousands of babies every year.

There is a small, very vocal minority who are using the general apathy of the American people to steal their country from them.  That's what this is really about, the very future of America herself.

[Kazan]

Liberator: look up - i already posted my analysis


YOU DID NOT JUST BRING UP ABORTION!

I knew you were anti-choice -- a featus is not a life, it is a cluster of cells still dependant upon it's mother - life begins when you're born, not when you're conceived.

Your opinion is that life starts at conception - FINE so be it - take it up with your god that more babies naturally abort than are ever aborted by humans - YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHEN LIFE BEGINS ON ANOTHER PERSON - YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE A WOMAN TO DO SOEMTHING WITH HER BODY SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DO - YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO RESTRICT OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS


WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YOU FREAKING FANATIC

[Kazan]

Don't have any retort against my analysis Liberator?

[Liberator]

Kazan, take a deep breath, count to 10 and please calm down, I don't want you rupture something.

I entirely agree that life doesn't begin at conception, but neither does it wait until full term either, however that doesn't stop it from being an act of murder.  You see, if left alone that mass of cells will eventually develop into a fully functional human.

You misunderstood my example, I was using Roe V Wade as an example of what Activist Judges are capable of.

As far as the proof you want from that author, that book has been out for a while now and should be in a public library near you.  Or ask him yourself:


        Ralph O. Muncaster
        PMB-108
        2560 E. Chapman Drive
        Orange, CA 92869

        Phone: 714-628-8767
        Email: [email protected]



I do have one question, as I've never had a conversation like this with an actual atheist, what do you believe will happen to that unexplainable something that makes you you when you pass beyond the veil of death?

[Kazan]

Liberator: there is no "unexplainable something that makes you you" or as you would say it "soul" -- you simple cease to exist.  That is the scarriest piece of knowledge any human can posses and the reason why religions create afterlives -- elitism (heaven vs hell) is just a corruption


Did you see my analysis above?  Where i dissected his basic claim supporting god



---------------------

If left alone the mass of cells will die - it must be a parasite upon it's mothers body for many months to become a life.  Until it is no longer dependant upon it's mothers body is it PART of the mothers body