Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178942839.714408.118630@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>> Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the >>> rise in atheism also played a role. >> Another wrong assumption. >> >>> I realize that many of the people are >>> atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and >>> college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational >>> ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in >>> some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for >>> relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term >>> was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I >>> don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright >>> to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. >>> Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person >>> has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes >>> will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop >>> lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you >>> to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's >>> more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. >> I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean >> "it's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for >> people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally >> correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi >> Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just >> happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the >> letter of the law? >> >> Martin > > Martin, > Good points. I don't believe you have considered the consequences if > everyone practiced situational ethics. In the long run, people would no > longer obey laws unless they were advocates of those laws. They would run > red lights if they were late for work; euthanatize elderly relatives; > steal food if they were hungry; steal clothing if they did not have money > to buy new clothing; murder unborn babies; go 20 mph above the speed > limit, etc etc--many of those things are already happening. I saw a > security guard patrolling inside a large grocery store earlier today. It's > my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's--none of the grocery store owners > had security guards patrolling the grocery store. > Jason Banks used to have security guards all the time. When's the LAST time you've seen one, how-ever? Probably not that recently. So what does that tell you? Quote
Guest H. Wm. Esque Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:es4a43d7h562rrvh5178c7mqbccfe33vg7@4ax.com... > On 11 May 2007 17:58:04 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <1178931484.446237.115210@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > >On May 12, 12:35 am, "H. Wm. Esque" <HEs...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > : > > >> I do not see him as deliberately dishonest. Mistaken, but not > >> dishonest. > > > >You're being naive. He should have known how thermodynamics relates > >to open systems. If anything he was being dishonest in trying to pass > >himself off as an expert and claiming he'd "proven" something. > > > >Martin > > Mr. Esque has demonstrated time and time again that he has no problem > whatsoever with blatant fraudulent dishonesty, provided that it is in > support of his infantile delusions. > It utterly impossible to express a difference of opinion from the "self-righteous" hypocrites who make "authoritative" pronouncements without being called a liar, dishonest, deluded etc. These _dictatorial authorities_ will not tolerant another viewpoint. But they will demand summission to their own decrees, if one fails to yield cowtails to their edicts then the personal charges and character assination follows. Fortunately, this is the extent of their power. > -- Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > > Thanks, > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. But you also haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so those figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about what the prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the SAME year for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate numbers from the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 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! > > Thanks, > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's Here are some stats that I found. I will let you tell me if they indicate that you're an idiot. Average IQ of a person in the US: 100 Jason's IQ: -20 <snip yearly stats that are meaningless by themselves.> No-one said the murder rates hadn't gone up at various times. The stock market also went up during that time. Does that mean the stock market caused the murder rate to go up? The price of computers went down during that time. Does that mean the price of computer had anything to do with the murder rate? Go learn what cause-and-effect means. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 12 May 2007 00:39:38 -0700, in alt.atheism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1178955578.365189.164140@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >On May 12, 9:48 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> I do notice that you happened to select 1950 to make your claims. What >> do you think the murder rate was in 1935? 1925? 1915? 1890? Other >> earlier years? Murder rates change over time. Your 55 years is a fairly >> small tracing. > >Going back to 1890 would make things worse. What sort of records did >they keep back then? If a man was caught red handed commiting murder >and hanged within a week then would there be records about it let >alone statistics that survive to this day to tell us about it? And >what about unsolved cases? How many murders never got recorded as >murders because there was no conclusive forensic evidence to indicate >foul play? I agree that the quality of the data is likely to be lower. The problem for him is that his assertion cannot be supported by the data. I was pointing out some of the problems with selective data collection. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f22rhj$iak$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f22lad$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. >> Don't need to. I've already blown your ass out of the water. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Thanks, > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's Translation: Jason has had his ass handed to him (repeatedly) and can't address the points made so he'll try to sidetrack things with the repeated posting of the above statistics that are meaningless by themselves. Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jim07D7 wrote: > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said: > > <...> >> Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or >> not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and >> 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s >> and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's >> >> Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 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. It's much easier > for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > believe. You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." Are you now backtracking on that statement? > > Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Steve O wrote: > "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch >>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) let us all know that: >>>> >>>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" >>>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised >>> his free >>>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God >>> does not >>>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He >>>>>>> wants >>>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free >>>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. >>>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. >>>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an >>>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the >>>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of >>>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you >>>>>> will do >>> before >>>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. >>>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, >>> by your >>>>>> own statement, there is no God. >>>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free >>>>> will. >>>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create >>>> everything. Which will it be? >>> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to >>> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please >>> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the >>> last time. >> The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not >> possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. >> > I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. > He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an > omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. > I know... But it's fun to see how much more stupid his answers get.... ;-) Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> <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. >> The Bible says they were. >> >>> God did not want programmed >>> robots that would be programmed to worship him. >> One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. > > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > will. Neither God or people are robots. Well, one could argue that a robot build to do what he is told and does what he is told is perfect. But forget it, thats not the issue. If god has free will and people have free will and god is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.... ehm. No. Does not work. Let's try this another way. God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. And has free will (Ehm. So he can change his mind and knew it before?). And I have free will and will burn in hell if I do not believe in god, who did know from the start that I would not believe in him (thats what omniscient means).... No, does not work either. And so on, ad infinitum... > > >>> Instead, God created >>> people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love >>> him. >> How could he possibly hope that, when he knew what would happen? > > It's like a parent that hopes their children will love them. Parents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. One would hope for them to be benevolent, though. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: (snip) > Martin, > That person was snipping half of my sentences in order to quote me out of > context. That's a cheap way to win a debate. Such practices are quickly recognized for what they are. But where did you get the idea that anyone ever wins a debate on Usenet? Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but > that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a > wonderful dictator. That is the fear talking. This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical demon, you got there. You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it might do you and infinite punishment. > I would not trust a dictator that was human but would > trust God since God is perfect. (snip) Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178951000.275774.184040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 11 Maj, 19:01, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > snip > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > By their works, we will know them. In other words, it's usually easy to > > > determine whether a person that I know takes their religion seriously. For > > > example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that had > > > health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his > > > religion seriously. On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow > > > Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion that > > > he did not take his religion seriously. > > > > Hmmm, well Jimmy Swaggart appears to take his religion VERY seriously, yet > > he got caught soliciting the services of a prostitute - and had apparently > > inquired about screwing the prostitute's daughter. > > I wonder what the explanation would be for me as an atheist clearing > snow off of my invalid neighbor's sidewalk, or the explanation for me > cutting a year's worth of firewood for an old man tied to a wheel > chair and an oxygen tank. It is actually quite common for people to > help each other religious or not. As a side comment I would like to > point out that I do not see anything necessarily unchristian about > beating one's wife, after all maybe she spoke up in church or > committed some other henious crime. > > > -- > > Robyn > > Resident Witchypoo > > BAAWA Knight! > > #1557 Robyn, I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. Jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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. It's much easier >>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to >>> believe. >> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." >> >> Are you now backtracking on that statement? >>> > > Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > evolved from non-life. > > Which is not evolution. Ad infinitum. A-B-I-O-G-E-N-E-S-I-S. Experiments showed that it is possible. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f24i3n$eeq$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > > Thanks, > > Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or > > not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and > > 2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s > > and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > > No-one said the murder rates were NOT lower in the 1950's. But you also > haven't shown what the prison population was in the 1950's so those > figures don't mean diddly here. You started off talking about what the > prison population numbers were in 1990 so you have to use the SAME year > for the crime rate numbers. If you want to use crime rate numbers from > the 50's the provide the SAME year's prison populations. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Someone else made some good points about statistics related to prison populations. Various new laws; mandantory sentence laws; three strikes laws; illegal immigrants and various other factors effect prison populations. I concentrated on murder in my google search since MURDER is one of those crimes that has always been against the law. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178959272.270390.108190@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178942839.714408.118...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > > > > rise in atheism also played a role. > > > > > Another wrong assumption. > > > > > > I realize that many of the people are > > > > atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and > > > > college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational > > > > ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in > > > > some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for > > > > relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term > > > > was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I > > > > don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright > > > > to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. > > > > Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person > > > > has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes > > > > will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop > > > > lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you > > > > to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's > > > > more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. > > > > > I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean > > > "It's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for > > > people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally > > > correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi > > > Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just > > > happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the > > > letter of the law? > > > Good points. I don't believe you have considered the consequences if > > everyone practiced situational ethics. In the long run, people would no > > longer obey laws unless they were advocates of those laws. > > Jason, > I don't think you've considered the consequences of democracy. In the > long run, laws will no longer exist if the majority of people are not > advocates of these laws. > > > They would run > > red lights if they were late for work; euthanatize elderly relatives; > > steal food if they were hungry; steal clothing if they did not have money > > to buy new clothing; murder unborn babies; go 20 mph above the speed > > limit, etc etc--many of those things are already happening. I saw a > > security guard patrolling inside a large grocery store earlier today. It's > > my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's--none of the grocery store owners > > had security guards patrolling the grocery store. > > And in Moslem countries, women will start to dress how they like, > people will be free to follow whatever religion they choose and what > people drink, read, listen to, watch on TV or do in the bedroom would > be a matter of personal choice rather than legislation. "Situational > ethics" enables us to remove ourselves from the situation we find > ourselves in and ask ourselves if our laws are truly advocating > morality or oppressing people who are doing no harm to anybody, > perhaps not even themselves. > > Martin Martin, In other words, let's just eliminate all laws and let people use situational ethics to decide how to live their lives. That would be great since I love speeding. I could buy a new 8 cylinder Ford Mustang and drive it over 120 mph on the freeway. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f24hbj$dma$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <1178942839.714408.118630@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > >>> Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > >>> rise in atheism also played a role. > >> Another wrong assumption. > >> > >>> I realize that many of the people are > >>> atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and > >>> college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational > >>> ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in > >>> some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for > >>> relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term > >>> was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I > >>> don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright > >>> to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. > >>> Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person > >>> has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes > >>> will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop > >>> lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you > >>> to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's > >>> more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. > >> I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean > >> "it's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for > >> people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally > >> correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi > >> Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just > >> happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the > >> letter of the law? > >> > >> Martin > > > > Martin, > > Good points. I don't believe you have considered the consequences if > > everyone practiced situational ethics. In the long run, people would no > > longer obey laws unless they were advocates of those laws. They would run > > red lights if they were late for work; euthanatize elderly relatives; > > steal food if they were hungry; steal clothing if they did not have money > > to buy new clothing; murder unborn babies; go 20 mph above the speed > > limit, etc etc--many of those things are already happening. I saw a > > security guard patrolling inside a large grocery store earlier today. It's > > my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's--none of the grocery store owners > > had security guards patrolling the grocery store. > > Jason > > Banks used to have security guards all the time. When's the LAST time > you've seen one, how-ever? Probably not that recently. So what does that > tell you? I noticed cameras mounted on the ceiling above each of the tellers. Perhaps those cameras are just as effective as security guards in relation to preventing bank robberies. Back in the 1950's, as far as I know, they did not have a dozen cameras in each bank. Back in the 1950's and 1960's, they did not have security devices attached to clothing or security devices mounted in the doorways of large clothing stores and electronic stores. They now have those security features in almost all large stores. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178952157.743349.38900@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 11 Maj, 21:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178873324.270029.148...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many > > > > > of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead > > > > > related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they > > > > > were hungry > > > > > I've been hungry before, Jason, but I know stealing is wrong, not > > > because your imaginary god says it is, but because of the Confusian > > > ethic of reciprocity. > > > > > "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." - > > > Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 BC) > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity > > > > > Martin > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Good point. However, there are lots of people that would steal food. I was > > shocked when I saw two young girls (about 16 to 18 years old) in a huge > > grocery store. They were eating some food that they had stolen. As I > > walked by them, one of them say--"which grocery store are we going to go > > to for dinner"? Those young girls were not homeless. They were dressed in > > nice clothing and were well groomed. I believe they were praciticing > > situational ethics. The psychology professor that I told you about in > > another post would have been proud of those two young girls. > > > > > Those girls > > did NOT care about shoplifting laws. People who steal clothing form large > > stores like Walmart or K Mart don't care about Jesus or Confucious or > > reciprocity. Have you ever seen anything like that? > > Jason > > Have you seen people who are starving, whose children are starving? > What would be the worst sin for them, stealing food or not stealing > food? In my town, they could go to the homeless shelter and care center. They have a food line during every meal. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f24g2u$cfr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > 655321 wrote: > > > > Can you point out laws against blasphemy, covetousness, disrespecting > > one's parents, being a non-Judeo-Christian, and the like? > > Unfortunately, there are STILL laws on the books in some areas against > blasphemy (although they're rarely, if ever, even prosecuted these days.) > > Massachusetts Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy > > Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, > cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or > final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching > Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously > reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God > contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in > jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three > hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior. > > The last person to be jailed in the US for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland > in 1838, but there was a prosecution as recently as 1952 in the case of > JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WILSON, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) where the supreme > court started with "Provisions of the New York Education Law which > forbid the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a > license and authorize denial of a license on a censor's conclusion that > a film is "sacrilegious," held void as a prior restraint on freedom of > speech and of the press under the First Amendment, made applicable to > the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 497-506" Thanks, Several members of this newsgroup have tried to convince me that none of the laws are based on the Bible. You just provided proof that some laws are based on the Bible. Jason Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f23v14$pbs$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f22pim$42r$00$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> Tokay, >>> I do believe there is proof (in the form of fossils) that God created life >>> on this earth. There have been at least two books about this subject. >> What books? I can explain the theory of evolution here without much >> trouble and have done so. I can point you to evidence that fits this theory. > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > A thorough examination of all pre-human fossils. Quote from a review: > Lubenow continually resorts to the argument that overlaps between species falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force. Read an abstract. Should have been easy for you to type in the main arguments of his here. This guy wants to show why evolution is wrong and does not even know what evolution is. So no banana. > > Another interesting book: > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Ashton > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing in the Biblical version > of creation. From a review: > Sadly, this format makes "In Six Days" less than useful - on any level. The answers provided resemble testimonies rather than useful scientific analyses. and > Further compounding the problems of the book, the great majority of the scientists refer to points outside their own discipline. So, not much use. Still no banana. > >>> There is NO proof that life evolve from non-life. >> That is not evolution. Again. It is not. That is abiogenesis. >> >> You are intelligent >>> enough to know that scientists could design an experiment that would >>> create life from non-life if indeed it was possible. They have tried to do >>> it but have always failed. The main reason those experiments always fail >>> is because life can NOT evolve from non-life. God created life. Einstein >> They did the experiments. The proved that you take the elements, add >> energy and get amino acids as well as parts of DNA and RNA. You take >> amino acids and add energy and you actually get reproducing "bubbles". >> They tried and they succeeded. > > Did they produce a living cell? They produced "bubbles" that reproduced. The produced parts of DNA. In one week. Do you have any concept of time? Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178952813.290283.81980@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > <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. > > The Bible says they were. > > >God did not want programmed > > robots that would be programmed to worship him. > > One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free will. Neither God or people are robots. > > >Instead, God created > > people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love > > him. > > How could he possibly hope that, when he knew what would happen? It's like a parent that hopes their children will love them. > > >Millions of people love and worship God. Free will is an important > > doctrine. > > Yes it is. It's impossibility is a strong mark against your beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > 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- > > In that case all of those sacrifices including Jesus' were > unnecessary. > > >-remember the 10 commandments. I am not an expert related to > > Levitical law--is it true that those laws were established by people? > > No doubt they were, but the Bible says they came from god. > > > > snip Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f246qa$97k$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1178943780.445609.142300@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am >>>> truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and >>>> frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will >>>> accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on >>>> my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> That's your choice. I would prefer to not suffer for my sins. You do have >>> options. >>> >>> >> That's childish at best. You are fully responsible for what you do. To >> pass the blame and/or punishment to somebody else is ... ehm, no other >> word for it... EVIL. >> >> Tokay > > I disagree. Jesus shed his blood for me thousands of years ago. The Bible > makes it clear that he suffered and died in my place so that I could be > delivered from my sins. I believe that it's an intellegent and wise thing > to do to since that is what God and Jesus wants me to do. As per the 2005 > Time Almanac, 76.7 per cent of Americans are Christians so it's my guess > most of them agree with me. > jason > > Oh boy. The country with the worlds largest military (they spend more money on it than all the others combined) actually has more than three fourths of people that believe it is right for someone else to suffer for what they did... This begins to make a crazy and wicked and frightful kind of sense.... I am not quite sure what you wanted to prove by that statistic but it confirms me in my believe that religion is a very bad thing and that the USA are the greatest danger to the world today. By far. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178955188.610779.153760@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 12, 9:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > > do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. > > Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Can God see > what He will do tomorrow and then change his mind? > > > If you reply, please > > don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > > last time. > > Stop typing these "Do not snip" sentences if you don't want them > snipped. > > Martin Martin, That person was snipping half of my sentences in order to quote me out of context. That's a cheap way to win a debate. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1205071110350001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1178951000.275774.184040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On 11 Maj, 19:01, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >> > snip >> > >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > > By their works, we will know them. In other words, it's usually easy >> > > to >> > > determine whether a person that I know takes their religion >> > > seriously. For >> > > example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that >> > > had >> > > health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his >> > > religion seriously. On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow >> > > Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion >> > > that >> > > he did not take his religion seriously. >> > >> > Hmmm, well Jimmy Swaggart appears to take his religion VERY seriously, >> > yet >> > he got caught soliciting the services of a prostitute - and had >> > apparently >> > inquired about screwing the prostitute's daughter. >> >> I wonder what the explanation would be for me as an atheist clearing >> snow off of my invalid neighbor's sidewalk, or the explanation for me >> cutting a year's worth of firewood for an old man tied to a wheel >> chair and an oxygen tank. It is actually quite common for people to >> help each other religious or not. As a side comment I would like to >> point out that I do not see anything necessarily unchristian about >> beating one's wife, after all maybe she spoke up in church or >> committed some other henious crime. >> >> > -- >> > Robyn >> > Resident Witchypoo >> > BAAWA Knight! >> > #1557 > > Robyn, > I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than > Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. Whatever - I didn't write that part. And you've still shown yourself to be prejudiced against atheists. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message snip > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator I could never worship a dictator. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 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.