Does God exist?

Does God exist?

Hello Opera Community

The debate portion of this poll is up to you, I just want to know your answer to this question, and why.

Play nice

Do you really not see what flyhighdivelow is doing Bantay?
He is using the resident ID'ers (note that I say this rather than release his name....victimisation you know?) arguments against him to prove how rubbishy and flawed his arguments are. It's that simple.

he was simply using terms the science society now use,and i'm never good at those.

Originally posted by NewTonyIc:

the science society

Don't you mean Scientific Community?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by NewTonyIc:

the science society

Don't you mean Scientific Community?

Nope, 'Science Society' as in 'the people who zoom around in flying saucers built in a secret base under the antarctic ice by nazi conspirators with the help of tentacle monsters from Aldebaran'.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Do you really not see what flyhighdivelow is doing Bantay?

Yes, he tried to attack my contentions, made a few baseless assertions he couldn't support. Now, instead of admitting he has failed, he is demonstrating it by being evasive.

If this is not the case, and he has simply been arguing on a false pretense of only appearing to try to refute my claims (but having no real intention of doing so, and evidently not succeeding anyway), then I think we can see a vast difference between us. I am arguing from a position I honestly believe in. He would be arguing knowing he is being deceptive. If this is the case, he is only discrediting himself.

Originally posted by Bantay:

He would be arguing knowing he is being deceptive. If this is the case, he is only discrediting himself.

Putting this particular situation aside, since it's more ironic than anything else, arguing a case you don't agree with can be interesting.

Is this another one of those threads that go on & on & on & on.........?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlmoUOv2oKo

Evidently.

Also... that's so bad for the record.

Originally posted by Redem:

The fact that it contradicts a great many other ACTUAL studies, you know that ones that have data and stuff, is not at all shocking. Such as the one referenced here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

Interestingly, the study I quoted from has an extensive list of citations. Yours did not. Additionally, the glaringly obvious problem in your article is that it completely avoids describing exactly what about belief and worship of a creator contributes to the alleged higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult immorality. There is no causal link. *shakes head sadly*

from your article....
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."

As you may not know, correlation does not mean causation. It's like saying "monkey's hit keys on typewriters, therefore monkeys type". Similar to that, the article you linked to is just as pretentious. Applying the poor reasoning of the alleged findings of your linked study, we could say (remember, using the same reasoning as your article) "due to Christianity's rapid growth in imporverished nations in Africa, poverty, disease and crime are due to Christianity". As in your article, there is no causal link attributing poverty, disease and crime to Christianity, only an implication based on the correlation.

More realistically now, we could say "Due to the rapid growth of poverty, disease and crime in impoverished nations, Christianity has rapidly grown in those nations due to an acknowledged need for the Gospel".

Enjoy your day!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Evidently.

Also... that's so bad for the record.

It looks knackered anyway!

Originally posted by Bantay:

More realistically now, we could say "Due to the rapid growth of poverty, disease and crime in impoverished nations, Christianity has rapidly grown in those nations due to an acknowledged need for the Gospel".

You mean "we'll give you food and help you build schools if you convert and take these Bibles." Either way, people in bad situations isn't a very good advertisement for your god... especially if they're devout Christians.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Yes, he tried to attack my contentions, made a few baseless assertions he couldn't support. Now, instead of admitting he has failed, he is demonstrating it by being evasive.

Exactly! Good job Bantay. You're catching on now. Have another
He's simply using the resident ID'er's (again, notice the non-PA) tactics against him to prove how utterly useless a style it is.

Originally posted by Bantay:

If this is not the case, and he has simply been arguing on a false pretense of only appearing to try to refute my claims (but having no real intention of doing so, and evidently not succeeding anyway),

Again, good detective work here! See last sentence after 1st post this post for other details.

Originally posted by Bantay:

then I think we can see a vast difference between us.

Yes. He is obviously an atheist and you are a Christian. You both are using the same argument style.

Originally posted by Bantay:

I am arguing from a position I honestly believe in.

This I believe is quite true. Have a

Originally posted by Bantay:

He would be arguing knowing he is being deceptive. If this is the case, he is only discrediting himself.

Did I not assert this in the ID thread against someone just in the past couple of days?
Goodness me, around the world and back again!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

You mean "we'll give you food and help you build schools if you convert and take these Bibles." Either way, people in bad situations isn't a very good advertisement for your god... especially if they're devout Christians.

On the contrary, it's great advertising....Kinda like how Jesus fed the 5000 with only 5 loaves of bread...and had leftovers. It shows their needs were met both spiritually and physically.

its sad the length people go to to smash good reputations here

personal question:Virus boy,do you work on Crystal Caverns at Strasburg?just wondering.

sorry, but sometimes i dont get what people say, can you explain please...

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Originally posted by CCVo:

We still consider that Justice is served in the punishing of wrongdoers - and, as necessary, preventing them doing more and worse things - do we not?

But humans aren't all-knowing and all-powerful, and can only rarely prevent crimes before they happen. God, on the other hand, made us, and he made us poorly, and now he lets us do evil things instead of preventing us from doing so. Despite the fact that it is within his power to put and end to it without slaughtering us, he goes for the latter.

That's right, we aren't all-knowing and all-powerful; we persist in holding to our ideas of what is just or not, and what is true or not, and acting accordingly, nonetheless. If we don't know everything, then how can we judge with certainty whether what we think we know is absolutely true or not - given that our so-called knowledge and science is viewed from a less than perfect vantage point to begin with?

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He couldn't have made us 'poorly' - except as some cruel 'joke', maybe. But, since God is also perfect in Love, that cannot be. His work is perfect - including the fact that he does not make man a slave (a mere automaton, no higher than the instinctual beasts) by robbing us of freedom of thought and freedom of will.
It is us who make poor choices and it is a matter of Justice on God's part to allow the consequent ramifications of our own decisions and actions to come to full fruition - in order that the folly of turning away from Him might become fully manifest - before stepping in with Power to bring it to an end.
O yeah, it is cruel - I'll grant you that. But we, who are not all-knowing [as you point out], are in no position to call God to account for His way of dealing with us.
Besides, what many, either forget or, don't know is God's provision of Mercy and Grace [undeserved kindness] toward those whose genuine desire is to do His will.
(Romans 8:18-19) . . .Consequently I reckon that the sufferings of the present season do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. 19 For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God.
(2 Corinthians 4:17-18) 17 For though the tribulation is momentary and light, it works out for us a glory that is of more and more surpassing weight and is everlasting; 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned.

By your logic the universe was very finely tuned especially for me. I'm here because everything was created this particular way just for me.

“If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”

The world is finely tuned for me, just me, to be born and to sit right here right now typing these exact letters on this exact keyboard! I am indeed a true miracle, and the fact that I'm here is evidence that the universe was fine-tuned for me! Only for me!

That just about sums it up. Except that you forgot to mention me as well.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Yes, he tried to attack my contentions, made a few baseless assertions he couldn't support. Now, instead of admitting he has failed, he is demonstrating it by being evasive.

Oh, I'm being evasive? (Has a look to see any answers to the two questions posed of Bantay three or four times now...nope, nothing there!)

Originally posted by flyhighdivelow:

A woman in a rage shakes her baby to death. It's malicious for sure. It's willful. It involves killing. But is it unlawful? Is it murder?!?!

A man kills his daughter after finding out she has slept with a man. It's malicious for sure. It's willful. It involves killing. But is it unlawful? Is it murder?!?!

Come on Bantay....we're waiting!

Originally posted by Bantay:

More realistically now, we could say "Due to the rapid growth of poverty, disease and crime in impoverished nations, Christianity has rapidly grown in those nations due to an acknowledged need for the Gospel".

We could also say "Due to the rapid growth of poverty, disease and crime in impoverished nations, due to Christianity models embraced by the US, Islam has rapidly grown in those nations and become the fastest growing religion on the planet".

There, that's much better!

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

How come atheists are generally more law-abiding than christians?

Sorry...The data doesn't suggest that at all.

Sorry, the data is irrelevant because it doesn't make a distinction between atheists and less religious people, or people of faith who don't subscribe to a particular religion. Besides, it's from a fundamentalist religious group, and as you have shown, those always lie.

And besides, who cares about a lot of this stuff. so what if divorce rates are high? If people can't live together they shouldn't be forced to, but strong religion forces people to stay together even when they are completely miserable, ruining their lives.

The same goes for teen sexual activity. So what if they are having sex, as long as they do it safely? What's amusing is that teen pregnancies in the US are higher the more fundamentalist the state is

But yeah, what about the actual research someone linked to?

And why do the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, etc have less divorce, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions, less violent crime, etc.?


But Bantay, are you going to tell us why you actively and willfully keep repeating the blatant lie about atheists allegedly being more likely to believe in nonsense like Bigfoot, which you know very well is a lie?


And why don't piranhas eat each other, while they will tear any other creature to shreds? Is it because God commanded them not to? Isn't it strange that piranhas, mere fish, actually seem to follow certain rules?

Did we get traffic rules from God?


And as for murder, "murder" is defined by humans. "Murder" is entirely subjective in itself! Thus, your example of "objective morality" is actually completely subjective.

Also, murdering an evil dictator is not morally wrong.

You know that this has been shown to be the case several times, and yet you repeat the blatant lie that murder has not been show to be objectively wrong. Why do you lie, Bantay?

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

And besides, who cares about a lot of this stuff. so what if divorce rates are high? If people can't live together they shouldn't be forced to, but strong religion forces people to stay together even when they are completely miserable, ruining their lives.

I suppose the religious hint at messing up children's life. Children that wouldn't exist without said religion in the first place though, so it's hard to say...

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

The same goes for teen sexual activity. So what if they are having sex, as long as they do it safely? What's amusing is that teen pregnancies in the US are higher the more fundamentalist the state is

Of course, abstinence only doesn't only make sure the teens don't know much about prevention, it also spreads false information regarding the use of condoms and other contraceptives, giving the impression that if you're going to have sex, you might as well not bother with them. I don't think that people below 16 or so having sex is a good idea either, but they do and there's clearly nothing to be done about that. The rate of teenage pregnancies clearly shows that. It follows that they must be informed about contraceptives, as well as offered alternatives that don't require sexual intercourse (like masturbating together). To some extent I agree with the Christians, but it's just not a realistic way of looking at teenage sexuality.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

And why do the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, etc have less divorce, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions, less violent crime, etc.?

I have no data on the matter, but I should point out that people often live together for years before they get married, until they decide to have children. In regard to children, marriage greatly simplifies what would happen if someone might die and that kind of stuff. Anyway... if they separate after a few years before they got married then it's not divorce. I consider this a good thing.

Originally posted by flyhighdivelow:

Come on Bantay....we're waiting!

Reading comprehension man! Again...I will answer your two questions, if you can prove or even provide some reasonable evidence for your statement that......

1. That there is no living lawyer in the civilized world that wouldn't consider malicious, willfully unlawful, indiscriminant killing of some innocent person murder.
2. If you refute of all four of my lines of evidence showing that your "moral gene" cannot and does not exist.
3. and provide proof of your "moral gene"

If you cannot or will not address these, then I will not entertain yours.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I don't think that people below 16 or so having sex is a good idea either, but they do and there's clearly nothing to be done about that. The rate of teenage pregnancies clearly shows that. It follows that they must be informed about contraceptives, as well as offered alternatives that don't require sexual intercourse (like masturbating together).

That is naive. How many teens (or adults for that matter) would be satisfied to simply masturbate together? Get real bub. As far as "there's clearly nothing to be done about that"... Abstaining from having pre-marital sex is something that could be done. It's just not something many are willing to accept because in the US, it is mostly Christians who are advocating it and in general it is associated with religious prohibitions against pre-marital sex. As such, it is then correlated to be "religious" issue. I don't deny the correlation, but I think while many are busy objecting to abstinence on grounds of the religious correlation, kids continue to suffer in terms of STDs, out-of-wedlock childbirths, deadbeat dads, broken hearts, ruined futures, increased tax-payer monies devoted to paying for healthcare and welfare et etc. In other words, those who are against abstinence on grounds of it's religious correlation, are not thinking of the kids first, but about thier own anti-religious crusade. In this way, those who are against abstinence are in fact contributing to the problem, not helping.

The Christian worldview (that God exists) provides a moral framework for children to abide by that encourages waiting until marraige, a moral framework that is missing from the atheist worldview. If Christianity was more prevalent in popular culture, then I think there would be less pre-marital childbirths. Everyone benefits.

People object to telling kids to abstain from having premarital sex because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abstinence#Popularity_and_effectiveness">it is not effective at reducing teenage pregnancy and the spread of STDs</a>. As always, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion on the matter, regardless of what the evidence suggests...

Originally posted by Bantay:

1. That there is no living lawyer in the civilized world that wouldn't consider malicious, willfully unlawful, indiscriminant killing of some innocent person murder.

Personally or legally? Besides, the whole unlawful business makes the point moot.

Originally posted by Bantay:

That is naive. How many teens (or adults for that matter) would be satisfied to simply masturbate together? Get real bub.

I've done things of a sexual nature without jumping into having sex. Even if only a tiny minority listens to the message that there are far more things one can do to be intimate without having sex, that's better than nothing at all. And if they have sex, for God's sake, have them do it safely!

Originally posted by Bantay:

Abstaining from having pre-marital sex is something that could be done. It's just not something many are willing to accept because in the US, it is mostly Christians who are advocating it and in general it is associated with religious prohibitions against pre-marital sex.

That's the point. It can be done, but it isn't done. Continuing to dwell on how it can be done is fruitless. Also, you just said "get real" to me!

Originally posted by Bantay:

As such, it is then correlated to be "religious" issue. I don't deny the correlation, but I think while many are busy objecting to abstinence on grounds of the religious correlation, kids continue to suffer in terms of STDs, out-of-wedlock childbirths, deadbeat dads, broken hearts, ruined futures, increased tax-payer monies devoted to paying for healthcare and welfare et etc. In other words, those who are against abstinence on grounds of it's religious correlation, are not thinking of the kids first, but about thier own anti-religious crusade. In this way, those who are against abstinence are in fact contributing to the problem, not helping.

Clearly the Dutch/Swedish/etc approach doesn't help against any of those issues. Seriously man, wtf? Contributing to the problem? Get real!

Originally posted by Bantay:

The Christian worldview (that God exists) provides a moral framework for children to abide by that encourages waiting until marraige, a moral framework that is missing from the atheist worldview. If Christianity was more prevalent in popular culture, then I think there would be less pre-marital childbirths. Everyone benefits.

There is no problem whatsoever with pre-marital childbirths, only with unwanted ones.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Besides, the whole unlawful business makes the point moot.

You caught that. He didn't. As such, he can't answer the question without having to skirt the "wilfully unlawful" part. He thinks the only way to do that is to redefine murder. But that is not necessarily part of the definition of murder. It merely is part of a set of circumstances that accompanies the act of murder. As such, murder never occurs without it also being unlawful. That is why he cannot prove (or even provide evidence for) his contention that there is NO (as in not any single) living lawyers in the civilized world that would consider the malicious, wilfully unlawful, indiscriminant killing of an innocent person to be murder.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

And if they have sex, for God's sake, have them do it safely!

I completely agree! But this doesn't mean that abstinence should be abandoned or discouraged, regardless of it's Christian or othewise religious correlation. What's more important? Avoiding a religious correlation, or helping kids to prevent pre-marital sex and the negative consequences that follow from pre-marital sex?

Originally posted by Bantay:

I completely agree! But this doesn't mean that abstinence should be abandoned or discouraged.

I entirely agree. The problem is that abstinence-only seems to be saying something like "Abstain! Btw, condoms and other contraceptives don't or barely work, so really, don't even think about it." It's somewhat of a misrepresentation of the facts and it turns out that teens only listen to the extent that they decide to ignore condoms.

The sex ed while I was young surely didn't encourage me to have sex! It was all based around the idea of "IF you decide you really want to do this, then do such and so."

Originally posted by Bantay:

What's more important? Avoiding a religious correlation, or helping kids to prevent pre-marital sex and the negative consequences that follow from pre-marital sex?

I call strawman! Strawman, strawman, I see you! Tell us, Bantay, who objects to abstinence because it has a correlation with religion? Again, it seems to me that it's the exact opposite. People are for abstinence not because it is effective, but because of its connection with religion.

Originally posted by CCVo:

If we don't know everything, then how can we judge with certainty whether what we think we know is absolutely true or not - given that our so-called knowledge and science is viewed from a less than perfect vantage point to begin with?

Joke, surely? Religious people seem to be unable to think withou thinking in absolutes. Science doesn't have to be absolute. What science is, is a useful method which has worked great so far. That's why we can continue to trust that it will give us useful answers. Not because we need to accept it as "absolutely true" from the get-go, but because experience shows that it works.

"So-called knowledge and science"? Spoken like a true fundie, eh?

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He couldn't have made us 'poorly' - except as some cruel 'joke', maybe. But, since God is also perfect in Love, that cannot be. His work is perfect - including the fact that he does not make man a slave (a mere automaton, no higher than the instinctual beasts) by robbing us of freedom of thought and freedom of will.

Except we are not perfect. We are extremely flawed. His work is flawed. We don't even have freedom of will since God knows all future, so everything is already predetermined. There's nothing we can do to change the future God knows.

The world is finely tuned for me, just me, to be born and to sit right here right now typing these exact letters on this exact keyboard! I am indeed a true miracle, and the fact that I'm here is evidence that the universe was fine-tuned for me! Only for me!

That just about sums it up. Except that you forgot to mention me as well.

And you obviously realize that this destroys your "fine-tuning" argument?

Originally posted by Bantay:

I am arguing from a position I honestly believe in.

If that is so why are you always lying?

Originally posted by Bantay:

Interestingly, the study I quoted from has an extensive list of citations.

And none of them support the conclusions on that fundie page, eh?

As you may not know, correlation does not mean causation.

No shit, einstein. And yet you spew out lies about atheists and others. For a small list of your many lies, see the link above.

Originally posted by schapel:

I call strawman!

I think you may be referring to, more correctly, a false dichotomy...but oh well. It's not so false anyway. This is why. The judge removed the entire program because the money was being used to encourage abstinence from a Christian perspective. Again, it understates my question. What's more important? Avoiding a religious correlation, or helping kids to prevent pre-marital sex and the negative consequences that follow from pre-marital sex?

Originally posted by schapel:

People are for abstinence not because it is effective, but because of its connection with religion.

There are many who believe abstinence-only WITHOUT a religious moral framework is ineffective. But since religion is banned from schools by those who hold their insecurity of religion (Christianity in particular) above the need to help kids, then effective abstinence programs won't even be able to be established. Again, those who object to abstinence-only programs are the ones who are contributing to an already-existing problem. Kids suffer from it.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Originally posted by schapel:

I call strawman!

I think you may be referring to, more correctly, a false dichotomy...but oh well. It's not so false anyway. This is why. The judge removed the entire program because the money was being used to encourage abstinence from a Christian perspective. Again, it understates my question. What's more important? Avoiding a religious correlation, or helping kids to prevent pre-marital sex and the negative consequences that follow from pre-marital sex?

If you bother to even read the article, the judge ruled the certain abstinence classes should not be funded with federal money because they were using the classes as an excuse to promote a particular religion. It's not just that there's a correlation between the abstinence eduction and religion. They misused the federal funds to deliver an overtly religious message, and thereby ran afoul of the separation of church and state that is part of the US constitution.

Again, I assert that people object to abstinence eduction not because of a mere correlation between it and religion. You are setting up a strawman (asserting that the mere correlation with religion is what is being objected to) and a false dilemma (being against abstinence eduction means you are against preventing certain negative consequences of premarital sex).

Originally posted by Bantay:

Abstaining from having pre-marital sex is something that could be done.

In the US?

Originally posted by Bantay:

The Christian worldview (that God exists) provides a moral framework for children to abide by that encourages waiting until marraige, a moral framework that is missing from the atheist worldview.

While that may or may not be true, how many do you think engage in sexual activities anyway? Pastor's daughters are a prime example. I know of two Baptist preachers daughters who had kids by the age of 16.

Originally posted by Bantay:

If Christianity was more prevalent in popular culture, then I think there would be less pre-marital childbirths.

That is wishful thinking. Even if Christianity was more prevalent, there would still be many pre-marital childbirths.

Abstinence eduction clearly doesn't work. A recent example is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eixcsj7FI6I">Bristol Palin</a>. People object to it because it doesn't work, not on religious grounds. On the contrary, it's on religious grounds that people are <i>for</i> abstinence eduction.

Originally posted by schapel:

Abstinence eduction clearly doesn't work. A recent example is Bristol Palin.

I always found it interesting that Mrs. Palin could be for so much abstinance education, yet her child has a child by the age of 16 or so.

Originally posted by Bantay:

Reading comprehension man!

It is not my reading comprehension that is (once again!) at the very least 'questionable'!

Originally posted by Bantay:

1. That there is no living lawyer in the civilized world that wouldn't consider malicious, willfully unlawful, indiscriminant killing of some innocent person murder.

Already answered in full. Dearie me Bantay....

Originally posted by Bantay:

2. If you refute of all four of my lines of evidence showing that your "moral gene" cannot and does not exist.
3. and provide proof of your "moral gene"

Point 2 has been summarily dismissed. Point 3 is irrelevant. The onus is on you to show the love gene couldn't or doesn't exist.

Don't complain and grumble about my answers. They have been provided in the time honoured, tried and tested format of the ID'er. :roll

So.....

Originally posted by flyhighdivelow:

A woman in a rage shakes her baby to death. It's malicious for sure. It's willful. It involves killing. But is it unlawful? Is it murder?!?!

A man kills his daughter after finding out she has slept with a man. It's malicious for sure. It's willful. It involves killing. But is it unlawful? Is it murder?!?!

Stop the dodging man! Be honest! Be a gracious loser! Either admit you can't answer them because they destroy your argument, or answer them, destroying your argument yourself, and then do your usual....pretend you won anyway!

We're waiting....

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I always found it interesting that Mrs. Palin could be for so much abstinance education, yet her child has a child by the age of 16 or so.

People are for abstinence education for religious reasons, not practical reasons.
That's why Bantay thinks that people are against abstinence education for religious reasons.
He seems to always think the "opposing side" has the diametrically opposed, polar opposite position.
If you listen to what he says about the opposing side of the argument, that's actually what he honestly thinks of his side of the argument.

Originally posted by flyhighdivelow:

Point 2 has been summarily dismissed. Point 3 is irrelevant.

and you are summarily dismissed as well. BLOCKED. Bye bye!

Originally posted by Bantay:

and you are summarily dismissed as well. BLOCKED. Bye bye!

The ultimate dodge! Evasion comes no more blatant than this!

But then, one of my questions has gone unanswered for MONTHS now, so no big surprise!

"And when has murder ever not been morally evil?" - Bantay (claiming murder is a moral evil)

"Murder, as defined as "the willfull, malicious and unlawful act of killing another human being" has always been morally wrong for all of human history." - Bantay (defining murder, and pointing out it's a matter of law)

"It's an argument you can't win unless you redefine murder." - Bantay (accusing others of redefining murder)

Yes, of course (premeditated, lawful, maliciously intended killing of another human being was morally right). One can have a malicious, hateful intent to kill somebody that is lawfully sentenced to death. - Bantay (claiming execution is ok, so long as it is lawful, as defined by man made laws)

"It was not morally right. Why? It is always, objectively morally evil to murder the innocent." - Bantay (arbitrarily deciding that the execution of Jesus was in fact murder, not an execution, and therefore contradicting all his previous claims about murder being defined as 'unlawful'. therefore redefining murder)

Murder is always and has always been understood to be the malicious, wilfully unlawful, indiscriminant killing of an otherwise innocent human being." - Bantay (redefining murder, officially, in light of his being busted on the Jesus execution)

circumstances of serfs defending their family may be morally justified irrespective of a manmade law. - Bantay (clarifying that manmade laws are not, as he previously claimed, relevant as to whether a killing is murder - redefinition number 3? Or is it 4?)

If you cannot or will not address these, then I will not entertain yours. - Bantay (having been thoroughly busted, reverts to plan A. Dodge the question!)

You can see why I put Bantay on block now can't you. It was either that or try & drop-kick my laptop at him...

so you block everyone who you can't compete with bantay?

I praise Allah not a woman or a man
I don't intoxicate my body with alcohol or ham
Educate my mind and adhere to the commands
Sent to Moses, Jesus, and Solomon
The true natives and protectors of the Holy Land
You call us "terrorists" with a gun in your hand
Shooting our sacred shrines
Then telling us to be kind
While you murder our children in Chechnya and Palestine
Your "friendly fire" is fatal
like NATO in Sarejavo
You'll crumble in this lifetime for crimes against the faithful
You see we are the believers who always remain strong
There's evidence in testaments, in the immortal Quran

Echo of Islam, Oppression will be gone
You say you can't see it just look at the dawn
Arise like a phoenix the zenith has come
Echo of Islam, the movement has been spawned

I was raised as a Muslim praying to the east
Nature of my life relates rhymes that I release
No cease, from this hell you've unleashed
Practice what you preach or accept what we teach
Islam means peace, as you tear our brothers to pieces
Jeses, peace upon him, said all humans have something in common
We don't want war, but you devils keep bombing
The problem around the world is your A-Bomb and napalm
Great Satan, abused science made instruments of death
That is why Iran will not yield one step
You violated every human and civil right in the US constitution
Brainwashed citizens with alcohol and pervert institutions
Revolution? not while you fog your mind
With weed smoke, a change is something you'll never find
The family structure is ruptured, school systems are flustered
Uncle Scam has a plan to take the money out of your hand
MAN! why can't you leave innocent people alone!
Stop supporting Zionists, they steal peoples homes
The golden dome, is our heaven on earth
Everyday is a struggle cause Allah comes first!
=================================

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Bantay:

The Christian worldview (that God exists) provides a moral framework for children to abide by that encourages waiting until marraige, a moral framework that is missing from the atheist worldview.

While that may or may not be true, how many do you think engage in sexual activities anyway? Pastor's daughters are a prime example. I know of two Baptist preachers daughters who had kids by the age of 16.

Here in redneckistan teenage pregnancies are commonplace and virtually everyone goes to a baptist church of some sort.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Bantay:

If Christianity was more prevalent in popular culture, then I think there would be less pre-marital childbirths.

That is wishful thinking. Even if Christianity was more prevalent, there would still be many pre-marital childbirths.

Just compare teenage pregnancy rates in the US bible belt with those in - say - the Netherlands or Germany. That completely destroys Bantay's argument.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Just compare teenage pregnancy rates in the US bible belt with those in - say - the Netherlands or Germany. That completely destroys Bantay's argument.

Already pointed that out a whole bunch of times.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Just compare teenage pregnancy rates in the US bible belt with those in - say - the Netherlands or Germany. That completely destroys Bantay's argument.

Already pointed that out a whole bunch of times.

And I'm sure Bantay will ignore it again.

Nice one, Cocoa butter! As I was reading, I was wishing someone made a rap song out of it.
Then I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlM3srdaAo

Cocoa Butter you sure know how to say the truth

Originally posted by schapel:

People are for abstinence education for religious reasons, not practical reasons.
That's why Bantay thinks that people are against abstinence education for religious reasons.
He seems to always think the "opposing side" has the diametrically opposed, polar opposite position.
If you listen to what he says about the opposing side of the argument, that's actually what he honestly thinks of his side of the argument.

You better watch out.... You might get blocked! So far today GoJoeGo, myself, and flyhighdivelow have all been blocked.... You could be next!

Originally posted by Macallan:

And I'm sure Bantay will ignore it again.

Aren't you in the blocked club yet?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Here in redneckistan teenage pregnancies are commonplace and virtually everyone goes to a baptist church of some sort.

My point exactly!

Originally posted by Daveski17:

You can see why I put Bantay on block now can't you. It was either that or try & drop-kick my laptop at him...

I think you made a wise choice.

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

so you block everyone who you can't compete with bantay?

Better watch out You might get blocked!

I do wonder who he will have these circular arguments with now that we who disagree with him the strongest have been blocked?
With this block, my theory is now confirmed. He is a fundie. Anything that disagrees with a fundie's point of view must be eliminated. (Or in this case blocked)

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Macallan:

And I'm sure Bantay will ignore it again.

Aren't you in the blocked club yet?

Apparently not. Should I be worried?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Here in redneckistan teenage pregnancies are commonplace and virtually everyone goes to a baptist church of some sort.

My point exactly!

So let's get rid of all those baptist churches since they obviously cause teenage pregnancies