Guest Martin Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > proof that it ever happened. errr HELLO! You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not evolved) from non-life What the hell are you on about? Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Steve O wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> It would be great if I could avoid all >> sins but that's difficult. There are lots of beautiful young women in this >> town and they dress in such a way that it's difficult to not take a second >> look. I am a member of a co-ed health fitness program. >> > Go for it. > You can always ask for forgiveness later. > That's the beauty of your particular scam. > Some of those evangelical ministers would be screwing the ass off them by > now. Only if they are muscular boys, but you got the 'arse' bit right Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 <snip> > >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get > >> caught. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Steve, > > That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to > > a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin > > which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. > > Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no proof that it ever happened. Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution took over. > > > I try to do it at least once a day. > > You sin every day and have to ask forgiveness? Yes, many of the sins are related to my thought processes. Example: thinking about Angela Jolene. One elderly lady that I heard about was concerned about her sin which were negative thoughts about a bad neighbor. Don't worry--I have never killed anyone or robbed any stores or banks. Some Christians believe that all sins are equal. I disagree--I believe that murdering someone is a more serious sin than having a negative thought about a neighbor. > Why? > I haven't sinned at all today, or yesterday. > What are you, some kind of repeat offender? ;-) Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. > > >I know the story of one elderly lady that called her > > pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor wondered > > what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The > > lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. > > Jason > > Why would that be a sin? > Maybe the neighbour was an asshole, and deserved far more than a negative > thought. That lady considered it to be a sin and she was correct. The Bible says that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Bible does not say that we should hate out neighbors as we hate outselves. I do believe she was over-concerned about her sin--perhaps even obsessive. She should have asked for forgiveness and not obsessed about it--that's what I do. I also avoid committing major sins. It would be great if I could avoid all sins but that's difficult. There are lots of beautiful young women in this town and they dress in such a way that it's difficult to not take a second look. I am a member of a co-ed health fitness program. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>>> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >>>> caught. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Steve, >>> That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >>> a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin >>> which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. >> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > proof that it ever happened. Facts support the theory. Could not be shown to be wrong so far which is one property of a valid scientific theory. > Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. Even > Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution > took over. Facts do not support that theory. In fact it lacks all properties of a scientific theory. > >>> I try to do it at least once a day. >> You sin every day and have to ask forgiveness? > > Yes, many of the sins are related to my thought processes. Example: > thinking about Angela Jolene. One elderly lady that I heard about was > concerned about her sin which were negative thoughts about a bad neighbor. > Don't worry--I have never killed anyone or robbed any stores or banks. > Some Christians believe that all sins are equal. I disagree--I believe > that murdering someone is a more serious sin than having a negative > thought about a neighbor. Well, at least a bit of reason. > > >> Why? >> I haven't sinned at all today, or yesterday. >> What are you, some kind of repeat offender? ;-) > > Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has > already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for > their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. Classic scapegoat. I suffer for my "sins". Since I am responsible for what I do anyway (other than you, it seems), I "suffer". Oh, I could take more of that. And I am no masochist.... >>> I know the story of one elderly lady that called her >>> pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor wondered >>> what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The >>> lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. >>> Jason >> Why would that be a sin? >> Maybe the neighbour was an asshole, and deserved far more than a negative >> thought. > > That lady considered it to be a sin and she was correct. The Bible says > that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Bible does not "neighbor" is a pretty specific term, don't you think? > say that we should hate out neighbors as we hate outselves. I do believe > she was over-concerned about her sin--perhaps even obsessive. She should > have asked for forgiveness and not obsessed about it--that's what I do. I Ask for forgiveness? For what? If said neighbor is an idiot, so what? Why should I "love" him? Ok, I might not say to his face that I think he is an idiot (just theory, in fact, my neighbors are quite nice), but thinking that? And would it not make much more sense to ask the neighbor forgiveness than a totally unrelated sky pixie? > also avoid committing major sins. It would be great if I could avoid all > sins but that's difficult. There are lots of beautiful young women in this > town and they dress in such a way that it's difficult to not take a second > look. I am a member of a co-ed health fitness program. So you like what you see? Hey, thats cool. Maybe they like what they see when they see you. No idea. They might be a little put off, once they talk to you. No sin there that makes any sense, though. Hm... come to think of it, the women I would find attractive actually would think that (pardon my french) "jesus-freaks" are not admissable. So we are in a different ballpark, concerning that. Good thing, in my opinion. Tokay -- The one good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to cringe. Quote
Guest Dave Oldridge Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:ad01i.1076$t7.843@bigfe9: > > "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote > in message news:ru874398mppthnb45lrnpq7hj3feddtpip@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:53:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <5oN0i.947$t7.60@bigfe9> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >In reference to Kim, what lies did he express? I will admit I'm >> >no expert on Slot. I dug out my first College thermo textbook >> >entitled "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics", authored >> >by Gorden J. Van Wilen and Richard E. Sonntag, copyright 1986. >> >I did, at one time understand most of this stuff, but it's confusing >> >now. >> >I guess, it's old age setting in. : ( >> >> You should see my initial response since the distortion and errors in >> Kim's copy/paste are numerous. The initial sentence is wrong when it >> says that thermo says that systems will get corrupt, the 2LoT says no >> such thing. >> >> The following sentence is flat out wrong, wrong to the point that >> anyone with the relevant scientific knowledge should realize it right >> away: >> "Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific belief >> that utterly contradicts with this law." >> > Obviously, here he was expressing a personal opinion, based > upon what he read. >> >> In the following sentence someone has deceptively put in the word >> "planned", something that is not part of the science: >> "A system's >> entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organised, and planned >> state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. " >> > Using the word "Planned" is tantamount to acknowledging a creator. >> >> The following, again, is so wrong as to be sad: >> "Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics." >> > I think one explanation for why he does this is that he confuses > the origin of life from inanimate matter with change. >> >> They deceptively add the word planned in this sentence: >> "According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which >> yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised >> structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural >> conditions. " >> > Certain words are anathema to scientific naturalism such as: planned, > purpose, design and direction. They are not anathema so muchas just not accepted as explanations of observed phenomena unless there is evidence of such planning and purpose on the part of actual sentient beings KNOWN to exist (in the scientific sense of the verb "to know."). If you have a theory that claims that some unseen entity did something, then it is up to you to explain how you tested that theory against all the others. >> The following show, at best, an abysmal knowledge of thermodynamics: >> "Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever >> form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with >> the second law. " To make it clear: since the context is >> thermodynamics complex organic molecule form spontaneously all the >> time. (Spontaneous has a specific meaning in thermodynamics.) >> > "Under ordinary conditions" is rather ambiguous. Spontaneous? > I do not recall a specific meaning as it relates to thermo. But one > defination is that in a closed system entropy spontaneously increases > over time towards total equalibrium. Yes and so does the overall entropy of the universe, we believe. What I won't accept is puerile, unsupported assertions that this law is violated by organic evolution. Not unless someone can show us how. >> The following is wrong since no biologist does any such thing: >> "Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the >> second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", >> and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law." >> > Ok, I understand this. >> >> This is similarly wrong: >> "Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is >> constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of >> entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, >> complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and >> inanimate structures." >> > So far, this is the only point I'm unsure about and it's a point Kim > made. Complex living beings can be generated from inabinate > matter. As far as I know this has not been demonstrated > scientifically. Amino acids and other molecules can form spontaneously Ever meet an oak tree that didn't start as an acorn? If the formation of living systems from inanimate matter is not happening there, then what IS happening there? How does inanimate CO2 and inanimate ions in solution become a tree without violating the CREATIONIST version of the 2LoT? And let me tell you, a "law" that is continually observed to be violated is no law at all, just a bald assertion known to be false. > under certain conditions, but this is not organisms which can undergo > metabolization and reproduction. A template (rna/dna) is needed in > order for this to occur. Template, schmemplate. If the law is violated by ANY physical process, then it is not a law. Of course there is a REAL 2LoT, but that one has no relation to the creationist straw man version. >> What biologists and chemists say, which is absolutely correct, is >> that in open systems (or, alternatively, systems far from >> equilibrium) entropy can locally decrease. >> >> This is wrong, again so wrong that anyone with knowledge of thermo >> can see the problem: >> "The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make >> that system ordered." >> >> Sorry, but thermodynamically an input of high temperature energy will >> add order to the system. To put it in concrete terms: the hot Sun >> evaporates the ocean and causes storms. >> > I agree, but a storm is hardly a highly complex edifice on the orders > of magnitude of even the simplest single cell organism. You might be surprised. They are phenomenally complex at times. >> Sorry, but that is enough for me now. We can argue whether this is >> large amounts of ignorance rather than lies and whether deliberate >> ignorance like this is a lie, but the material is quite far from >> valid. >> [snip] >> >> >> >Ok, I'm rather new to this, subject. I don't know where he went >> >wrong. I did not see anyone actually rebut him. >> >> I have. >> >> >I know that the 2nd law is >> >absolute fact. >> >> Actually, it is not. It is well supported, but if evolution, an >> observed process violated the 2LoT (which it does not) then the >> 2LoT would be wrong. In science observation trumps theory. >> > True _unless_ there is actually an incompatibility with Slot then all > bets are off. We are dealing here with two versions of this law. One, the REAL one, is not violated by any known biological process, INCLUDING the evolution of man from microbe. The other--the creationist version--is refuted by the observed growth of plants and animals. >> >But his arguments did make sense to me. It frustrated >> >me that his points (right or wrong) were not really addressed. >> >Instead he was called a liar, willfully ignorant, and other >> >accusations against him. I accept that life evolved. This make sense >> >to me, but the post by Aaron Kim and especially the treatment >> >directed at him causes me to ponder what is really going on here!. >> >> What is going on is lots of people who have gotten tired refuting the >> same errors over and over. If you want more go here: >> >> The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability >> "Creationists have long argued that evolution violates the second law >> of thermodynamics and thus is impossible. The following FAQs address >> why that is not true." >> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html >> >> CF001: Second Law of Thermodynamics >> "Claim CF001: >> The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward >> disorder, making evolutionary development impossible." >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html >> >> Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics >> "Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific >> theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, >> possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example >> of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific >> principles into meaningless gibberish." >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html >> >> >> There is nothing of value in Kim's claims, nothing. In short, he's lying, either about the science or about knowing something about it. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 <snip> > >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > >had a plan prepared. > > But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. Good point. They were NOT created perfect. God did not want programmed robots that would be programmed to worship him. Instead, God created people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love him. Millions of people love and worship God. Free will is an important doctrine. > > > His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > >thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he > >prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird > >sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood > >needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross > >and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. > > Wrong. It violated Levitical law. It was an invalid sacrifice. I disagree. It was a valid sacrifice. God can establish his own laws--remember the 10 commandments. I am not an expert related to Levitical law--is it true that those laws were established by people? > > > It > >was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb > > Jesus was a lamb? A REAL lamb? No wait--he was human. Only a > REAL lamb would do--not a metaphor. I don't remember the correct term for it--perhaps "symbolism". That technique is used quite a lot in the Book of Revelations. Terms like "great red dragon" and "beast" were used. That book is confusing unless you know what the symbols mean. Solomon used lots of symbolism in a book in the Bible entitled, "Song of Solomon". It's about his love affair with a beautiful woman. He writes this information about his lover--note the symbolism: Chapter 5 verse 4-6: Thou are beautiful...thy hair is like a flock of goats...thou teeth are as a flock of clean sheep. > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <hsi943553o8ljbgtp3dlbntd72lsaos8og@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:47:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <5aiqn2F2p378jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > >> > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > >> > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > >> > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > >> > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > >> > sins. > >> > jason > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > > >> > > >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get > >> caught. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >Steve, > >That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to > >a major sin like murder or stealing. > > Murder and stealing aren't sins. They are simply immoral. They are also sins--both are violations of commandments. > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>> proof that it ever happened. >> We do have proof that life happened, and it would be fair to asume that >> before life existed, there was no life. >> What other explanation do you have? >> Creationists believe the entire universe was waved into existence by a >> supreme and magicial invisible sky fairy. >> >> >>> Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. >> So who created God? > I have been asked this question before: My answer is "That I don't know > how God came to be--when I get to heaven--I'll ask God or an angel how God > came to be." Which is hardly proof of anything. > >> Be careful if you answer, "God has always existed" >> >> >>> Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution >>> took over. >> Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? None, of course. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories. > > Lots of evolutionists seem to idolize Charles Darwins---perhaps you are > one of the ones that don't idolize Darwin.I have never idolized Darwin. First, what the heck is an "evolutionist"? Someone who thinks evolution is a valid theory and not disproven to date? Sorry to diappoint you. That would be a rational human. And/Or a scientist. Second, "idolize"? Where did you get that notion? I might think he had a great mind to see what nobody before him saw. But I don't idolize him. What he did in his spare time is of no interest to me. (Side note, totally unrelated. Why it should be important how many times a politician did marry? He did not get the post of prime minister or chancellor or president because of his private life. But because what he stands for on political matters. Ex german chancellor was married three times (IIRC), once during his term. Ex foreign minister five times. Nobody cared.) So why should I care if Darwin liked blond women? Or obese ones? It has nothing to do with his work, namely evolutionary theory. This is far from "idolizing". Tokay -- The one good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to cringe. Quote
Guest Dave Oldridge Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1178866679.831844.82990@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On May 11, 2:08 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> "Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1178806728.032464.171000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May >> 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > > Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his >> > > positions rather than attacking him personally. >> >> > Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such >> > myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the >> > sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people >> > said this already, by the way. >> >> Then these many people made a "knee-jerk" conclusion based >> upon this statement "Myth of the open system" and read nothing >> that followed. >> >> The "myth" Kim was in reference to was the myth perpetuated >> by some evolutionist that "open systems are beyond the scope >> of this law (2nd law of thermodynamics)". >> >> On this, Kim is correct. The SLot applies to open systems >> and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized >> by about 100%. > > Actually, he's wrong. The second law of thermodynamics applies to > closed systems. There's nothing preventing open systems from getting > energy from outside (by definition) and using it so long as less than > 100% of the energy coming in is used. The percentage of energy put to > good use is called the efficiency of the system. True, but the 2nd law of thermo still applies. It's a bit more complex, that's all. But it does NOT prevent evolution from occurring in open systems. >> Also if these people had read his post they would realize that >> he wrote, "It is true that life derives its energy from the sun". > The point is that while he admitted that the Earth got energy from the > sun, he denied that this meant that the entropy of the Earth could > decrease. This is 100% wrong. Yes, because when you include the sun, the only closed system involved is the entire universe and there is no process in evolution that entails a decrease in the total entropy of the universe. >> My problem is that Kim is not taken to task for what he >> said, but rather for things he never said. I see no honesty >> in this. > > I see no honesty in your defense of his deliberate dishonesty. Nor do I. A parrot may not be guilty of lying, but a human who claims knowledge he or she does not possess is lying. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <5541i.979$y_7.393@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <Ca%0i.925$y_7.424@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people > >>>>> that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after > >>>>> they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of > >>>>> job opportunities. > >>>>> There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the > >>>>> hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. > >>>>> That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was > >>>>> called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and > >>>>> cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for > >>>>> punishment. > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>>> It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. > >>>> > >>>> Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? > >>>> There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can > >>>> be a good thing. > >>>> > >>>> But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities > >>>> form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, > >>>> families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as > >>>> positive or as dysfunctional as any community. > >>>> > >>>> But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of > >>>> personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or > >>>> not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be > >>>> genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and > >>>> embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a > >>>> muscle that they had to learn to use. > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> You made some good points. Yes, I agree that there are lots of different > >>> reasons for getting involved in criminal behavior. A person's religion and > >>> "upbringing" does play a role. > >> I don't think that religion plays a role in criminal behavior, except > >> for people like Jim Bakker and Kent Hovind, who used their religion for > >> theft. No doubt others have used religion as part of their criminal > >> actions as well. > >> > >> For example, people raised in stable home > >>> environments are less likely to get involved in criminal behavior than > >>> people raised in disfuctional family situations. > >> Agreed, but religion has nothing to do with the functionality of a family. > >> > >> I agree that prisons are > >>> a wonderful place to discover Christianity. > >> Perhaps we should send all unbelievers to prison? > > > > > > Only if they are involved in criminal behavior > > > > > My point was that maybe non-Christians would discover Christianity > there. You seem to think it's a great place for that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are better places such as inside a good church. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <f22lad$bsi$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the > >>> god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. > >> I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems > >> are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average > >> Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get > >> away with it (or vice versa). > >> > >> Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and > >> see what results they came up with. > >> > >> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html > >> > >> "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in > >> Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all > >> secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen > >> homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low > >> rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due > >> to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not > >> consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and > >> Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the > >> 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that > >> retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard > >> (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates > >> of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass > >> student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since > >> the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School > >> Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. > >> Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in > >> rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; > >> Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this > >> regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide > >> (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in > >> the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation > >> between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, > >> especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life > >> spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), > >> especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only > >> exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by > >> Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious > >> affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- > >> adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> > >> > >> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed > >> in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), > >> rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred > >> times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular > >> developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in > >> the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from > >> uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are > >> starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure > >> 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly > >> secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show > >> positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, > >> and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of > >> evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). > >> Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) > >> are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent > >> pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et > >> al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher > >> in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad > >> correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and > >> birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial > >> exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number > >> of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide > >> disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies > >> they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual > >> practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except > >> that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat > >> more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." > >> > >> JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society > >> > >> Martin > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Martin, > > Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider > > > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > > 1990 was 1,148,702 > > > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > > 2003 was 2,078,570 > > > > Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: > > In 1950--that figure was 4.4 > > In 2002--that figure was 5.6 > > source: 2005 Time Almanac > > > > These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. > > Jason > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Pick the same friggin' time-frames, idiot. > > In EVERY category crime TOTALS (not just per-capita rates but the actual > TOTALS) DROPPED from 1990 to 2003 (the time frame during which you cite > that the prison population rose.) > > Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery > assault Burglary Larceny Car-Theft > 1990 248,709,873 14,475,600 1,820,130 12,655,500 23,440 102,560 > 639,270 1,054,860 3,073,900 7,945,700 1,635,900 > 1991 252,177,000 14,872,900 1,911,770 12,961,100 24,700 106,590 > 687,730 1,092,740 3,157,200 8,142,200 1,661,700 > 1992 255,082,000 14,438,200 1,932,270 12,505,900 23,760 109,060 > 672,480 1,126,970 2,979,900 7,915,200 1,610,800 > 1993 257,908,000 14,144,800 1,926,020 12,218,800 24,530 106,010 > 659,870 1,135,610 2,834,800 7,820,900 1,563,100 > 1994 260,341,000 13,989,500 1,857,670 12,131,900 23,330 102,220 > 618,950 1,113,180 2,712,800 7,879,800 1,539,300 > 1995 262,755,000 13,862,700 1,798,790 12,063,900 21,610 97,470 > 580,510 1,099,210 2,593,800 7,997,700 1,472,400 > 1996 265,228,572 13,493,863 1,688,540 11,805,300 19,650 96,250 > 535,590 1,037,050 2,506,400 7,904,700 1,394,200 > 1997 267,637,000 13,194,571 1,634,770 11,558,175 18,208 96,153 > 498,534 1,023,201 2,460,526 7,743,760 1,354,189 > 1998 270,296,000 12,475,634 1,531,044 10,944,590 16,914 93,103 > 446,625 974,402 2,329,950 7,373,886 1,240,754 > 1999 272,690,813 11,634,378 1,426,044 10,208,334 15,522 89,411 > 409,371 911,740 2,100,739 6,955,520 1,152,075 > 2000 281,421,906 11,608,072 1,425,486 10,182,586 15,586 90,178 > 408,016 911,706 2,050,992 6,971,590 1,160,002 > 2001 285,317,559 11,876,669 1,439,480 10,437,480 16,037 90,863 > 423,5557 909,023 2,116,531 7,092,267 1,228,391 > 2002 287,973,924 11,878,954 1,423,677 10,455,277 16,229 95,235 > 420,806 891,407 2,151,252 7,057,370 1,246,646 > 2003 290,690,788 11,826,538 1,383,676 10,442,862 16,528 93,883 > 414,235 859,030 2,154,834 7,026,802 1,261,226 > 2004 293,656,842 11,679,474 1,360,088 10,319,386 16,148 95,089 > 401,470 847,381 2,144,446 6,937,089 1,237,851 > 2005 296,410,404 11,556,854 1,390,695 10,166,159 16,692 93,934 > 417,122 862,947 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 Get those same statistics for the year 1860 and/or 1960 and/or 1970. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <f22l0f$bfg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f222v4$n6c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I > >>> was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. > >>> People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone > >>> ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one > >>> that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. Those > >>> people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge > >>> you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of > >>> people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of > >>> people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH > >>> higher. > >> Do your OWN homework and PROVE that it's higher instead of simply coming > >> up with your wild-assed guesses and assertions. > >> > >> The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 > >>> and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. > >> DUE TO INCREASED USE OF MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS! (How often does this > >> need to be repeated?) The crime rate was DOWN during that same period > >> (again, how often does this need to be repeated?) > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Homicide Rate per 100,000 from 1950 to 2002 > > 1950----4.6 > > 2002----5.6 > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm > > National rates for the past 10 years (during the time that you said > prison population was increasing. > > 1990 10.0 > 1991 10.5 > 1992 10.0 > 1993 10.1 > 1994 9.6 > 1995 8.7 > 1996 7.9 > 1997 7.4 > 1998 6.8 > 1999 6.2 > 2000 6.1 > 2001 7.1 (includes the deaths from 9/11) > 2002 6.1 > > > Notice anything happening over the past several years (i.e. during the > time frame you were talking about prison populations doubling?) You had > to go back to 1950 to find figures to try and support your crap. > > During the time that prison population was doubling, the murder rate > dropped to almost HALF! Murder is not the only reason that people are sent to prison. Try to get some figures for 1850 and 1950. Quote
Guest John Siegel Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Matt Silberstein wrote: > On 10 May 2007 23:57:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , Martin Phipps > <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> in > <1178866679.831844.82990@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >>On May 11, 2:08 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>"Martin" <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>news:1178806728.032464.171000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May 10, 8:44 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Quite frankly, I would like to see some one actually rebut his positions >>>>>rather than attacking him personally. >>>> >>>>Aaron spoke of the "Myth of the Open System" but there is no such >>>>myth: the Earth is an open system and it is getting energy from the >>>>sun which fuels the evolution process. Happy now? Many people said >>>>this already, by the way. >>> >>>Then these many people made a "knee-jerk" conclusion based >>>upon this statement "Myth of the open system" and read nothing >>>that followed. >>> >>>The "myth" Kim was in reference to was the myth perpetuated >>>by some evolutionist that "open systems are beyond the scope >>>of this law (2nd law of thermodynamics)". >>> >>>On this, Kim is correct. The SLot applies to open systems >>>and closed systems alike. So, his argument is misscharacterized >>>by about 100%. >> >>Actually, he's wrong. The second law of thermodynamics applies to >>closed systems. > > > The 2LoT also applies to open systems. It is formulated differently, > though, and does not forbid local decrease in entropy. > > [snip] > > Maybe this version of the laws of thermodynamics will be simple enough for him to understand - You can't win - You can't even break even - You can't get out of the game Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>>> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >>>> caught. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Steve, >>> That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >>> a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin >>> which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. >> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. This is an absolute bald-faced lie. You give the lie to all of your claims to being a Christian and therefore not sinning. You have just sinned. You are a liar and therefore not a Christian. Not only are you showing yourself to be a liar, you are showing yourself to be ignorant of the most basic biology. It's so obvious that I'm not going to bother explaining it yet another time. This little excrescence shows you for the liar that you are. You are beyond hope and redemption. You stupid, pitiful little deluded fanatic. <snip> Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <5541i.979$y_7.393@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <Ca%0i.925$y_7.424@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> bm1@nonespam.com wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people >>>>>>> that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small > town after >>>>>>> they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the > lack of >>>>>>> job opportunities. >>>>>>> There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten > about the >>>>>>> hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. >>>>>>> That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was >>>>>>> called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse > theives and >>>>>>> cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for >>>>>>> punishment. >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>>> It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? >>>>>> There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can >>>>>> be a good thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities >>>>>> form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, >>>>>> families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as >>>>>> positive or as dysfunctional as any community. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of >>>>>> personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or >>>>>> not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be >>>>>> genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and >>>>>> embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a >>>>>> muscle that they had to learn to use. >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> You made some good points. Yes, I agree that there are lots of different >>>>> reasons for getting involved in criminal behavior. A person's religion and >>>>> "upbringing" does play a role. >>>> I don't think that religion plays a role in criminal behavior, except >>>> for people like Jim Bakker and Kent Hovind, who used their religion for >>>> theft. No doubt others have used religion as part of their criminal >>>> actions as well. >>>> >>>> For example, people raised in stable home >>>>> environments are less likely to get involved in criminal behavior than >>>>> people raised in disfuctional family situations. >>>> Agreed, but religion has nothing to do with the functionality of a family. >>>> >>>> I agree that prisons are >>>>> a wonderful place to discover Christianity. >>>> Perhaps we should send all unbelievers to prison? >>> >>> Only if they are involved in criminal behavior >>> >>> >> My point was that maybe non-Christians would discover Christianity >> there. You seem to think it's a great place for that. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > There are better places such as inside a good church. > > Not yours. It spreads lies knowingly and with intent. That's unchristian. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 <snip> > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > > proof that it ever happened. > > We do have proof that life happened, and it would be fair to asume that > before life existed, there was no life. > What other explanation do you have? > Creationists believe the entire universe was waved into existence by a > supreme and magicial invisible sky fairy. > > > > Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. > > So who created God? I have been asked this question before: My answer is "That I don't know how God came to be--when I get to heaven--I'll ask God or an angel how God came to be." > Be careful if you answer, "God has always existed" > > > >Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution > > took over. > > Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? Lots of evolutionists seem to idolize Charles Darwins---perhaps you are one of the ones that don't idolize Darwin.I have never idolized Darwin. > > > > >> > >> > I try to do it at least once a day. > >> > >> You sin every day and have to ask forgiveness? > > > > Yes, many of the sins are related to my thought processes. Example: > > thinking about Angela Jolene. > > Never heard of her. > I prefer Angelina Jolie myself. ;-) That was a good one--I'm a terrible speller. <snip So let me see if I've got this straight... > God had himself killed to save me from the wrath of God for being the way > that God made me? > Does that really make sense to you? > Why didn't he just save himself and everyone else a whole load of trouble > and just forgive them instead? It did not happen that way. Heaven is a unique place and only those people that accept Jesus as their savior will be able to enter into heaven. On the other hand, if people do NOT want to accept Jesus as their saviour--it's their fault--not God's fault--if they end up in Hell. See John 3:16. The inverse of that scripture is also true. If everyone that has ever been born went to heaven--heaven would be NO different than the earth--just a different location. There won't be any suicide bombers or nuclear bombs in heaven. <snip> > >It would be great if I could avoid all > > sins but that's difficult. There are lots of beautiful young women in this > > town and they dress in such a way that it's difficult to not take a second > > look. I am a member of a co-ed health fitness program. > > > Go for it. > You can always ask for forgiveness later. > That's the beauty of your particular scam. > Some of those evangelical ministers would be screwing the ass off them by > now. > Why do you think they are telling you to leave them alone? Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >>> proof that it ever happened. >> errr HELLO! >> >> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >> evolved) from non-life >> >> What the hell are you on about? >> >> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came >> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > materials and create life from that natural materials. Life didn't "evolve from non-life" stupid. Evolutionary theory deals with changes in life AFTER IT ORIGINATED. Got it? It's real simple. It's much easier > for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > believe. What I find really hard to believe is that someone can be as deliberately stupid as you are. Do you breed? > > Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:23:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: ><snip> > > >> >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >> >> caught. >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > Steve, >> > That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >> > a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin >> > which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. >> >> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > >Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. You have faith that god always was. And you're a hypocrite. By the way: why do you always reference Darwin? Do you think that just because you have a god that Darwin must be the God Of Evolution? Are you really that stupid? >> Why? >> I haven't sinned at all today, or yesterday. >> What are you, some kind of repeat offender? ;-) > >Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has >already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for >their sins. Even the jews? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:30:50 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >> >Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution >> > took over. >> >> Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? > >Lots of evolutionists seem to idolize Charles Darwins Liar. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:37:19 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin ><usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no >> > proof that it ever happened. >> >> errr HELLO! >> >> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not >> evolved) from non-life >> >> What the hell are you on about? >> >> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came >> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >materials and create life from that natural materials. And there's a big difference between believing that life evolved and that god just somehow "always was" and created everything from nothing. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:00:54 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <hsi943553o8ljbgtp3dlbntd72lsaos8og@4ax.com>, Don Kresch ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:47:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >> >In article <5aiqn2F2p378jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >> ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes >> >> > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we >> >> > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will >have to >> >> > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all >> >> > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their >> >> > sins. >> >> > jason >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >> >> caught. >> > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> >Steve, >> >That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >> >a major sin like murder or stealing. >> >> Murder and stealing aren't sins. They are simply immoral. > >They are also sins No. Sin is a myth. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > > proof that it ever happened. > > errr HELLO! > > You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > evolved) from non-life > > What the hell are you on about? > > Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to believe. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Thu, 10 May 2007 21:37:20 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-1005072137200001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <70b743l9mj86hncc0mpstnd0h47907uj9v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:19:41 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-0905072219410001@66-52-22-2.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <q9t443pl9r2uuleeuq5t3qlk48pnofph8m@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:54 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-0905071927540001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <99s44393vdd6b88aiapie53imd8m8augch@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:09:23 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> >> <Jason-0905071909230001@66-52-22-63.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >> >In article <a4p4435faotd68qdr94mkqg2bml1dlt9tk@4ax.com>, Matt >Silberstein >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:43:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> <Jason-0905071643390001@66-52-22-68.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Don, >> >> >> >> >Good for you. I live in California. I read an article in the >newspaper >> >> >> >> >yesterday indicating that all of the prisons in >California--there are >> >> >> >> >about a dozen of them--are overcrowded. The governor wants to >spend a >> >> >> >> >billion dollars on building even more prisons in California. >Let me ask >> >> >> >> >you an honest question. If everyone in Calfornia was a >Christian that >> >> >> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments--do you think that the Governor would >> >need to >> >> >> >> >spend a billion dollars constructing new prisons? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The vast majority of the population of CA is Christian. There are >> >> >> >> fewer atheists in prison than one would expect given their % of the >> >> >> >> population. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And that "obey" part is cheating. First, most of the 10C are >not laws. >> >> >> >> Second, if you want laws the Torah has hundreds. Third, if people >> >> >> >> obeyed whatever rules then we would not need prisons. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I disagree. It's my opinion that If everyone in Calfornia was a >> >> >Christian that >> >> >> >obeyed the 10 commandments that we would not need any more prisons in >> >> >> >California. I believe that most reasonable people would agree with me. >> >> >> > >> >> >> The Ten Commandments have only a very peripheral relationship to >> >> >> Christianity. The worship of the Ten Commandments is a modern-day >> >> >> heterodoxy. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am curious. Would you just let all sex offenders, including rapists >> >> >> and pedophiles, go free because that is not forbidden in the Ten >> >> >> Commandments? >> >> > >> >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > >> >> >Good point. One of the commandents states: Thou shall not commit adultery. >> >> >The implication is clear--God wants people to get married and not cheat on >> >> >their mates. Other parts of the Bible make it clear that God wants men to >> >> >marry women. In fact, the main reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is >> >> >because of their sins--such as the sin of sodomy. >> >> >> >> So you aren't relying on the Ten Commandments, are you. >> >> >> >> After all, beating someone to a bloody pulp isn't forbidden, either. >> > >> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> >You seem to be argumenatative. The 10 commandments are the main laws that >> >God established. Of course, there are other rules and laws in other parts >> >of the Bible. >> >> What do you mean by 'main'? Have you read the laws of the Old Testament? > >Yes--I have read the entire Bible. Those chapters related to those >thousands of laws were difficult to read. I learned that most of those >laws were related to their situation and are not related to life in >America. For example, lots of the laws were related to livestock and >temple worship. So, what justification do you have for ignoring them? >> > In fact, back in the 1700's and 1800's --many or even most >> >laws were based on the Bible. >> >> No, that is not a fact. > >I disagree. Ask any college professor that teaches courses related to the >history of America. You have no evidence, just wishful thinking. Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:59:38 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: ><snip> > > >> >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he >> >had a plan prepared. >> >> But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > >Good point. They were NOT created perfect. How can a perfect being create something imperfect? > God did not want programmed >robots that would be programmed to worship him. Instead, God created >people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love >him. Millions of people love and worship God. Free will is an important >doctrine. Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be no free will. It's not possible. > >> >> > His plan was to send Jesus but it took several >> >thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he >> >prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird >> >sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood >> >needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross >> >and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. >> >> Wrong. It violated Levitical law. It was an invalid sacrifice. > >I disagree. Feel free to do so, but that doesn't mean anything. It violates Levitical Law--which is GOD'S LAW. >It was a valid sacrifice. God can establish his own >laws--remember the 10 commandments. Remember that there are actually 613 commandments. > I am not an expert related to >Levitical law--is it true that those laws were established by people? Nope. Those are god's laws. >> > It >> >was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb >> >> Jesus was a lamb? A REAL lamb? No wait--he was human. Only a >> REAL lamb would do--not a metaphor. > >I don't remember the correct term for it--perhaps "symbolism". A metaphor is a type of symbolism. But it still must be a REAL lamb, not a symbol. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f22l0f$bfg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f222v4$n6c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I >>>>> was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. >>>>> People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone >>>>> ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one >>>>> that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. Those >>>>> people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge >>>>> you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of >>>>> people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of >>>>> people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH >>>>> higher. >>>> Do your OWN homework and PROVE that it's higher instead of simply coming >>>> up with your wild-assed guesses and assertions. >>>> >>>> The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 >>>>> and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. >>>> DUE TO INCREASED USE OF MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS! (How often does this >>>> need to be repeated?) The crime rate was DOWN during that same period >>>> (again, how often does this need to be repeated?) >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> Homicide Rate per 100,000 from 1950 to 2002 >>> 1950----4.6 >>> 2002----5.6 >> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm >> >> National rates for the past 10 years (during the time that you said >> prison population was increasing. >> >> 1990 10.0 >> 1991 10.5 >> 1992 10.0 >> 1993 10.1 >> 1994 9.6 >> 1995 8.7 >> 1996 7.9 >> 1997 7.4 >> 1998 6.8 >> 1999 6.2 >> 2000 6.1 >> 2001 7.1 (includes the deaths from 9/11) >> 2002 6.1 >> >> >> Notice anything happening over the past several years (i.e. during the >> time frame you were talking about prison populations doubling?) You had >> to go back to 1950 to find figures to try and support your crap. >> >> During the time that prison population was doubling, the murder rate >> dropped to almost HALF! > > Murder is not the only reason that people are sent to prison. Try to get > some figures for 1850 and 1950. You're the one who started citing murder stats. Then, when they're used to show you are WRONG, all of a sudden they don't apply or are meaningless. How typical for a liar. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.