 |
|
|
|
 Hotels' in-room movie selections should not include porn, according to two religious scholars.
July 12th, 2012
11:03 AM ET
Strange religious bedfellows unite for letter against hotel pornBy Dan Merica, CNN (CNN) – A letter penned by two notable scholars - a Christian and a Muslim - and sent to a number of different hotel industry executives has asked those hotels to remove pornography from their company’s in-room movie selections. Robert P. George, a professor at Princeton University and the past chairman of the conservative National Organization for Marriage, and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, co-founder of Zaytuna College, a Muslim school, wrote the letter to urge hotels “to do what is right as a matter of conscience.” “We are, respectively, a Christian and a Muslim, but we appeal to you not on the basis of truths revealed in our scriptures but on the basis of a commitment that should be shared by all people of reason and goodwill: a commitment to human dignity and the common good,” reads the letter. The letter marks the joining of two unique men with two distinctly different faiths. Yusuf says they were able to put aside their disagreement on other issues because of their commitment to this cause. “We need to see that those things that are threatening our society today are much graver than anything that may divide us,” he told CNN. CNN's Belief Blog: the faith angles behind the big stories Reaction to the letter from some adult film stars - and even from some advocates for removing porn from hotels - was negative. Craig Gross, a pastor and the founder of XXXchurch.com, says the letter is an empty gesture with no power behind it. “It has got to be one of the dumbest letters I have ever read,” Gross said. “It is like asking the Internet to stop selling porn. It sounds good and all, but it isn’t going to happen.” But the letter’s authors argue that the Internet and hotels are different, with hotel owners directly profiting off the temptation of porn. “We urge you to do away with pornography in your hotels because it is morally wrong to seek to profit from the suffering, degradation, or corruption of others,” states the letter. “You are placing temptation in their path - temptation for the sake of profit. That is unjust. Moreover, the fact that something is chosen freely does not make it right.” Yusuf continued to use this argument in an interview with CNN. “Just because we are able to do something doesn’t mean it is what we should be doing. And just because you can sell these things doesn’t mean it is something you should be selling,” he said. In Gross’ opinion, this logic is a slippery slope. When planes offer access to WiFi, is that placing temptation in the path of those who may view porn on the Web? When hotels offer room service, he asks, are they tempting dieters? Gross has a long history of helping those with porn addictions, and his website is dedicated to getting people help. According to him, removing porn from hotels is a futile endeavor because of the "unfettered availability of porn on the Web. “ According to a 2005 report on the state of the adult entertainment by Adult Video News, a trade journal on the adult-film industry, 55% of hotel movie rentals are porn movie rentals. The average revenue from movie rentals, according to LodgeNet, a company that provides in-room entertainment services, was $16.51 per room per month in 2008. In the third quarter of 2009, LodgeNet brought in $64.8 million. This, however, included more family-friendly options as well. A 2011 report by Robert Mandelbaum at Colliers PKF Hospitality Research found that from 2000 to 2009, movie rental revenue for hotels in general decreased 39%. Even with the reported slip, Gross and other critics acknowledged there is a demand for adult entertainment. “This is supply and demand,” Gross said. “We spin our wheels doing all the wrong things. The issue is not that it is available; the issue is that people buy it.” Prior to this letter, however, some hotels had already pledged to remove pornography from their programming or had removed it. In 2011, Marriott International - a company founded by a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that continues deep Mormon ties - pledged to phase out adult content from all hotel rooms. The move came after groups like Focus on the Family met with Marriott officials to urge them to remove adult movies. The church of porn and football “Adult content will be off the menu for virtually all of our newly built hotels,” read the Marriott statement. “Over the next few years, this will be the policy across our system.” Marriott is not the first hotel group to do this, though. Omni Hotels, a Dallas-based luxury hotel chain, removed all adult films from its in-room systems in 1999. According to other reports, adult-free programming is helping the Omni differentiate itself in the hotel market. Websites like cleanhotels.com look to help porn-free hotels by compiling a list of hotels that do not offer adult entertainment and leading people to them. Cleanhotels.com says it does so because its supporters want to know they are “supporting a facility that cares enough about the wellbeing of its customers not to make harmful pornographic movies available.” The American Hotel & Lodging Association, however, defends the right of hotels to choose what services to offer in their rooms. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter “In-room offerings such as this are made available based on market demand, are not offered in all hotels, and are subject to the same legal review all hotel operations are subject to,” read a statement from Kathryn Potter, senior vice president of marketing and communications for the association. Ron Jeremy, an adult-film star who has been in over 2,000 porn films, according to the Internet Adult Film Database, sees efforts to remove porn from hotels as attacks on freedom of speech. “What they have to understand is that freedom of speech works for all of us, not just for them,” Jeremy said about those who want to get porn out of hotel rooms. “This is a country that is secular; you have freedom from religion and freedom of religion. Give me a break.” While Jeremy said he is all for making sure kids in hotel rooms can’t get to porn - “I think that is marvelous” - he said he doesn’t see why adults shouldn’t watch “consenting adults have consenting sex.” "If a guy has a hard day at work or is at a convention and wants to sit down in his hotel room and puts on an adult film and plays spank the monkey, why can’t he do that?" soundoff (1,415 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next »
« Previous entryMy Take: Dalai Lama should condemn Tibetan self-immolations
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Hotels operate for a profit. Free will. Even the demons believe that God is real and obey his commands. Why? Because God can be proven to exist. Zero does not equal one, yet our scientific society promotes zero being equal to one in the big bang belief. Yes it is a belief, thus they are promoting religion in the school system. Nothing forming something.... I want a new house out of nothing? This beief has never been proven in the lab. Thus nothing forming a new car would be a miracle.
Thus all you crazy azz science people I want my new car out of nothing and asap!!!!!!!!
Tell us, where did your god come from? Also, we dont stick the words "god done it" into everything we don't know. Absence of evidence does not equal evidince of a god.
I want to ban all religious broadcasts from television. Religions are based upon child-like myths created thousands of years ago by uneducated nomads when their lack of basic scientific understanding lead to the development of stories to explain what was unexplainable at that time.
If god is real THEN WHERE WAS HE ON 9/11?
God busy watching p0rn on 9/11, missed the whole thing.
The big bang theory does not say that the universe "came from nothing." Any simple research into it would clear that misconception up pretty quickly. You're just repeating creationist lies.
Considering how ignorant you are of even 5th grade level cosmology, it's no wonder you still have imaginary friends.
kentuckyfam, your statement about the existence of god is obviously not true for specific gods. For example, Christian god can be, and has been, proven not to exist, for reasons such as that it has contradictory claimed characteristics, among others.So which god is it that you are claiming does exist?
@Cq "The big bang theory does not say that the universe "came from nothing." Any simple research into it would clear that misconception up pretty quickly. You're just repeating creationist lies."
@Chad "not exactly true, and somewhat purposefully misleading on your part...
The Big Bang does describe an expansion from a singularity, and that the singularity is the point at which all of the matter in the universe is concentrated such that density temperature go to infinity and time stops.
That means that nothing existed "prior" (although "prior" is misleading, since time stopped at that point).
Bottom line, our universe had a beginning.
If it had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it.
"Even the demons believe that God is real and obey his commands. "
Teh fictinal leding da fictinal?
Well I can see that you obviously failed science class in school!! The big bang theory has NEVER claimed that the universe was created from nothing! YOUR ridculous "god" myth, however, DOES claim that the universe was created out of nothing by a non-existant invisible magical being! Who is acting delusional here?? Hmm, sounds like the person clinging to an ancient fairy tale about invisble magic beings is the delusional one here!
"...density temperature go to infinity and time stops.
That means that nothing existed "prior" (although "prior" is misleading, since time stopped at that point)."
Nah, thet mens thar waz no "prior", not thet thar was "nothing".
religion has never been proven in a lab either yet you believe it. Silly person
@kentuckyfamily,
You claim: "scientific society promotes zero being equal to one in the big bang belief"
How do you figure that?
Did Mom give you a note to skip high-school science class that day because it might hurt your faith in Genesis?
"If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it."
Will you look at that – Chad knows something that has eluded the greatest minds in physics and astrophysics. Who'd a thought?
Lets see proof of your god in the lab. Idiot. Ain't no free will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM
@Really-O? "If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it."
Will you look at that – Chad knows something that has eluded the greatest minds in physics and astrophysics. Who'd a thought?"
@Chad "??
The question of what triggered the creation of our universe is probably one of the leading cosmological questions today.
All of the theories advanced posit a force outside of our current universe (Kraus multi-verse for example) by definition, because the fact that our universe indeed HAD a beginning is well established.
It's worth repeating, since our universe had a beginning, that which triggered the beginning must have existed independent of our universe. This is uniformly accepted.
See : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html
read it, it wont hurt you to get a little educated; at a minimum, you'll be able to better formulate responses on this blog.
"All of the theories advanced posit a force outside of our current universe (Kraus multi-verse for example)" – Will you look at that...Chad is evolving. Perhaps logic and knowledge will lead him to give up his god tosh.
"If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it." – Chad doesn't seem to understand that his assertion is an imperative with regard to a "force outside of our current universe". I could be wrong, but I don't believe the scientific community is anywhere near consensus on this point. Chad's just conflating W. L. Craig's semantics with real science.
...and using the New York Times as a source. Really? The New Your Times? Perhaps that's Chad's new Wikipedia.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
Bertrand Russell
@Really-O? "If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it." – Chad doesn't seem to understand that his assertion is an imperative with regard to a "force outside of our current universe". I could be wrong, but I don't believe the scientific community is anywhere near consensus on this point."
@Chad "you didnt take my advice and do some reading 😉
if you would (which you wont.. why is that?), you would see why your response and initial assertion is completely inaccurate..
These facts are not in dispute by any mainstream atheist cosmologist:
1. Our universe had a beginning
2. whatever triggered that beginning, existed outside our current universe, as our current universe had a discrete beginning.
There are many non-theistic theories out there for #2.
you really look silly when you dont do any reading.. it makes you look like a person who is absolutely comfortable continuously pontificating on that which they know nothing about. Continuously being forced to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your confident claims.
Chad said "you really look silly when you dont do any reading.". Oh, the irony...
So here's the thing, if you atheists could come up with some data driven argument, and avoid responses such as
"Christians are such morons"
"you dont know anything"
"the information source you are citing is bogus" (without providing any information as to exactly WHY you assert that.
"you can't think for yourself" (used when a citation is included)
"that's just your opinion" (used when a citation is not included)
In other words, bring data to the table, speak to the topic not the person.
why can't atheists do that?
Chad said "bring data to the table, speak to the topic not the person."
Oh, the irony...
@Denise –
Yeah, Chad's a tool. Even the New York Times article he cites says not one word about all theories "posit[ing] a force outside of our current universe. In fact, the very article states –
"Second [kind of nothingness] is nothing, without even space and time. Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing."
For the life of me I can't figure out if Chad has some form of cognitive deficit or he's just completely dishonest. At this time, I think it's both (and he must think other people are as obtuse as is he).
Just as a side note, the article Chad references also contains this statement – "God, they argue, is not part of the equation."
groan..
try reading it again..
Chad: "you really look silly" = ad hominen, pretty much, and not the first from you. So stop being such an azzhole yourself.
Your tired Christian god fictions are on the way out. Better get with the times, old fool.
@denise, @Terry : thanks for demonstrating (as I pointed out earlier) that you have no data..
@Chad – regarding "Groan".
Everything I stated about the article is accurate and precise. Dumbsh1t.
Looks like Chad is, once again, the blog's whipping boy. Did you get this kind of abuse on the playground, Chad? That would explain a log.
log = lot. Damned typos.
groan.. again...
hint: "nothing" as they talk about in the article, is that which provided the "environment" if you will, for the singularity to "begin" from. As such, that "nothing" existed outside of our current universe, which is PRECISELY why they call it "nothing".
get it?
try again...
That is not what the article says, Chad. I know that's how you interpret it through your biblical-infallibility-glasses, but that is not what actually says. Obtuse. Dishonest.
Chad...once again hijacking science in a dishonest attempt to support his Bronze and Iron Age myths. Priceless.
groan..
you just hate to learn don't you 😉
I love to learn, Chad. Why don't you edify me with some of your data (still haven't figured out what that means in science I see) copied & pasted directly from your New York Times source? Huh Chad? How 'bout that?
You can tell Chad is now out of his depth as he's resorted to the use of emoticons. Is it possible Chad is actually an adolescent girl?
@chad.. regarding your "nothing" argument, an absence of something does not in anyway prove or ascertain the presence of something else somewhere aside from that "nothing". It just means that something is absent. No more, no less. Your argument in itself is a self contradicting fallacy.
Also, just because something happened, does not mean there should be someone causing it to happen. It is too early here, but an example I can think of in my lethargic mind is radioactive decay of atoms. It just happens. No one is applying external force to cause atoms to decay. Do you think god is causing them to decay, one atom at a time?
groan-groan-groan
ok, i'll walk you through it..
The question is this: how did our universe come into being.
We know it came into being (it had a beginning)
How?
Here is a good summary of why the "big bang" is the prevailing theory: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970922g.html
please attempt to refrain from "NASA!!! what kind of a source is that?? you IDIOT"
just read it.
The implication of the Big Bang, is that all of the matter in the universe had its origin from nothing. See Hubbles red-shift observation for why this is the case.
It is that "nothing" that Kraus book deals with, it is that "nothing" that the NY times article deals with. How does something originate from nothing? That is the entire subject of the cosmological debate.
Whatever that "nothing" was, it had to exist outside our current universe time/space. If you read Kraus, that is precisely what he says.
You are getting freaked out because you see the statement "our universe originated from nothing", and immediately leap to "well, that must prove a theistic "cause"" and start hurling insults.
What you need to get educated on, is that scientists arent freaked out by that. They are working to figure out exactly how our universe originated from nothing, without a theistic "cause"..
that's why I keep saying, you need to do some reading. you look silly.
@Snow "regarding your "nothing" argument, an absence of something does not in anyway prove or ascertain the presence of something else somewhere aside from that "nothing". It just means that something is absent. No more, no less. Your argument in itself is a self contradicting fallacy."
@Chad "it's a good observation, but for that statement to be true, you would have to explain how our universe came into existence with out a cause."
@Snow: "Also, just because something happened, does not mean there should be someone causing it to happen. It is too early here, but an example I can think of in my lethargic mind is radioactive decay of atoms. It just happens. No one is applying external force to cause atoms to decay. Do you think god is causing them to decay, one atom at a time?"
@Chad "pay attention here Really-O, Snow understands the "nothing" cosmological argument...
The problem with your argument @Snow is the entropy issue.
At the singularity, the entropy was infinitely small(there was infinite order). You would have to explain how it got that way, in an entirely uncaused manner...
More of Chad's dishonesty and obtuseness
This is just another one of Chad's diversionary tactics; he originally cited an article in the New York Times as supporting these assertions –
1) "If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it."
2) "All of the theories advanced posit a force outside of our current universe"
However, when I pointed out that the article supports neither of the assertions (I even quoted the referenced article) and asked for quotes from his own reference that would support his claims, he immediately modified his argument and provided a different source.
Chad – you can't really think these tactics go unnoticed, do you? Well, then again, being Chad, maybe you do.
@Chad
You've been asking the wrong question this whole time, not to mention being wholly dishonest by saying external cause was "universally accepted".
The question isn't "how did the universe begin", it's "how did the current state of the universe come about, and what state was it in before that".
@hawaiiguest "You've been asking the wrong question this whole time, not to mention being wholly dishonest by saying external cause was "universally accepted". The question isn't "how did the universe begin", it's "how did the current state of the universe come about, and what state was it in before that".
@Chad "source? 😉
You seem to be saying that the universe always existed?
If so, what other leading cosmologists advocate that?
try reading this:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970922g.html
The Question: What does the evidence tell us about the origin of the Universe and what is the evidence that concludes this point?
I dont get you guys.. how is it actually possible to be so arrogant, and so uninformed at the same exact time??
Regarding Chad's, 'You are getting freaked out because you see the statement "our universe originated from nothing", and immediately leap to "well, that must prove a theistic "cause"'
I'm not "freaked-out" in the least by a cosmologist stating "our universe originated from nothing". I admit I don't fully comprehend what that means (and if you were honest Chad, you'd admit that too), but your assertion that I 'immediately leap to "well, that must prove a theistic "cause"' is absolute bullsh1t...that's perhaps the last conclusion I would draw from the statement.
I'm sorry Chad, but you really do seem to have some sort of cognitive deficit. See a good neurologist...seriously.
...sorry, my bold should have ended with bullsh1t. I'm sure I didn't need to point that out, but I'm happy to reiterate that Chad is full of bullsh1t.
for those interested in a real time idea of a "stable" singularity; we orbit one. the sun is the best example i can think of to show folks how the singularity event happened. our sun only exsists as it is due to the explosive forces on the interior being cancelled out by the gravitation forces of it's mass attempting to crush it. as long as those forces are equal the sun will exsist (i haven't forgotten about the obvious "fuel" thing with the sun but it would complicate the explaination as it isn't needed at this time) if the explosive forces over take the gravity effect on it, the sun would blow itself apart, if gravity wins out over the explosive force the sun would shrink until the forces equaled or it became a blackhole. no external force was needed to jump start the universe, a slight imbalance in any singularity can lead to a catastrophic cascade of events.........aka the domino effect. so just as all of exsistance as we know it is a fluke, so was the "creation" of the universe. eventually the events will run it's course and this universe will stop exsisting because just as in all things natural; nature seeks balance.
Regarding Chad's, "how is it actually possible to be so arrogant, and so uninformed at the same exact time??"
SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP! Arrogant? Non-believers are arrogant?! Chad, who claims to know –
–what no legitimate scientist on the planet claims to know – the cause and origin of the universe
–the origin of life
–the fact that there is a god
–...and it is his god
–...and all other gods are false
–and his god performs unsubstantiated miracles
–two cobbled-together book are the inerrant word of his god
–etc., etc., ad nauseum
...has the gall to call non-believers arrogant! Chad has lost his mind!
Use of the word "groan" is ad hominem fallacy. And it's childish. Which fits Chad.
@Wasp.
wow.. not even kind of close.. not even, sort of, kind of, in the neighborhood..
from: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae649.cfm
Question: What is the difference between black hole singularity and big bang singularity?
Answer: The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.
Black hole singularities are created after the core of a very massive star collapses beyond an imaginary sphere called the event horizon. Since these singularities are infinitesimally small, they possess infinite density.
The differences are that black hole singularities (or the sun, in @Wasp example), of course, do not contain all of the matter and energy in the Universe because there are so many of them. There was only one Big Bang singularity, and it contained the whole Universe. Another difference is that space and time were born from the Big Bang singularity, and black holes actually stretches out space to the point where it probably rips the fabric of space-time, and ends time altogether.
According to Stephen W. Hawking, singularities either occur entirely in the future or entirely in the past. In this case, black hole singularities always lie in the future (if you were to go near one, your time will come to an end), and the Big Bang singularity always lie in the past (if you were able to rewind time, galaxies will become closer together, eventually coming together at a point).
@Chad
You make a stupid claim that external cause is "universally accepted", yet when called out that the article you point out in NO WAY claims that, you pick an extrapolation from my post, and call for me to name people. Nice shifting of the burden of proof you fu.cking tool. How you can be so dishonest, yet think your such an amazing person escapes all reason. Well at least I can chalk up more fallacies to my tally for you Chad.
@hawaiiguest –
Occam's razor leads me to one inevitable conclusion – Chad is out of his bloody mind!
Chad's cascade of nonsense presented in this thread necessitates that I remind this blogs readers of past bits of ridicule deserving nonsense Chad has posted. Enjoy.
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
"Every book that purports to accurately record history needs to be examined critically for internal consistency and for its accuracy in detail. The bible succeeds on all accounts."
"The Genesis account stands alone amongst all creation stories of the time, a fact universally acknowledged...We are only know [sic] beginning to scientifically discover how accurate it is indeed."
'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'
@hawaiiguest "You make a stupid claim that external cause is "universally accepted", yet when called out that the article you point out in NO WAY claims that"
@Chad "WOW, ok, i'll go as slow as I possibly can..
The external cause, is the "nothings" that are described.. From the article (you should really try reading it..)
But the question of why[what was the "cause"] there was a Big Bang or any quantum particles at all was presumed to lie safely out of scientific bounds, in the realms of philosophy or religion. Now even that assumption is no longer safe, as exemplified by a new book by the cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss. In it he joins a chorus of physicists and cosmologists who have been pushing into sacred ground, proclaiming more and more loudly in the last few years that science can explain how something — namely our star-spangled cosmos — could be born from [caused], if not nothing, something very close to it. God, they argue, is not part of the equation
get it??
now, before you start screaming "BUT THE ARTICLE SAYS GOD ISNT REQUIRED", please understand, that is exactly my point, there are many scientists out there positing non-theistic external-to-our-universe "causes" of our universe. They accept that our universe has a beginning, and they have their explanations of it, causes that are external to our universe.
get it?? for crying out loud..
=============
@hawaiiguest "you pick an extrapolation from my post, and call for me to name people."
@Chad "Your statement "The question isn't "how did the universe begin", it's "how did the current state of the universe come about, and what state was it in before that
only makes sense if you are asserting that the universe had no origin.
yes or no.
just answer the question.
@hawaiiguest-
I'm sure you noticed, but Chad has still not addressed the fact that his New York Times reference in no way supports his assertions –
1) "If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it."
2) "All of the theories advanced posit a force outside of our current universe"
Dishonest. Obtuse.
@Chad
You are still avoiding the issue you moron. You stated that the external cause hypothesis was UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED. That's your own words, and you link to an article that doesn't support that! Then you continue to dodge it when people call you out on that. I think I need to start a whole new tally when you restate your dumb posiion instead of addressing the points brought against it.
sigh..
read my last post 8 or 10 times..
@Chad
Unbelievable, are you merely pretending to be a moron in an attempt to get me riled, so that you can attempt to dismiss my argument? Either way, the more you ignore the actual points against you, the easier it is for everyone to see how dishonest you are.
It's right there.. I even bolded it to make it easier..
FWIW, I dont thing you are being disingenuous, it's just a comprehension problem. You simply arent taking the time to read and understand it.
But the question of why [what was the "cause"] there was a Big Bang or any quantum particles at all was presumed to lie safely out of scientific bounds, in the realms of philosophy or religion. Now even that assumption is no longer safe, as exemplified by a new book by the cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss. In it he joins a chorus of physicists and cosmologists who have been pushing into sacred ground, proclaiming more and more loudly in the last few years that science can explain how something — namely our star-spangled cosmos — could be born from [caused],>/b> if not nothing, something very close to it. God, they argue, is not part of the equation
they then go on to discuss the three different types of "nothing", which (they posit) were all "environments" that existed outside of our current universe, within which was a cause.
The aspect that is universally accepted(which I have said over and over and over and over and over), is the fact that our universe had a beginning, and because of that fact, there was a trigger of some kind which created our universe.
@Chad
And I pointed out the problem in the wording of that assertion. We do not know what there was before the current state of the universe, and to posit non-existence or existence is not justifiable.
@hawaiiguest "And I pointed out the problem in the wording of that assertion. We do not know what there was before the current state of the universe, and to posit non-existence or existence is not justifiable"
@Chad "ah, so are you saying that our universe had no beginning?
yes or no (for the second time), answer the question.
@Chad
I'm sayin, that we don't know. Accept that answer or not, I don't really give a sh.it. I don't know is the only intellectually honest answer that can be given with the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have.
well then, other than yourself, provide some scientific source that agrees with you that "not knowing if the universe had a beginning or not" is true.
because, that aint what the literature says. 😉
Scientist nearly universally agree that our universe had a beginning.
@Chad
Wow you really are a fu.cking moron. Now your just going around in a circle. You know what, let's go with your wording, our universe had a beginning. How does that tell us anything about matter and energy either existing or not prior to that beginning?
@Chad
Seriously Chad, are you so moronic that you can't even tell the difference between "the universe had a beginning", and "the current state of the universe had a beginning"?
@hawaiiguest "...our universe had a beginning. How does that tell us anything about matter and energy either existing or not prior to that beginning?"
@Chad "What was the trigger? Did our universe just poof out of nothing, for no reason? Did it come from an earlier universe that wasnt part of our universes time/space?
What created our universe? How was all matter, time and space created?
those are the questions cosmologists ask.
@Chad
Yes that's what they ask, so what's your point? It's not like it supports anything at this point. They have hypothesis, and are trying to test them (how they're going to do that, I have no idea).
Chad has still not addressed the fact that his New York Times reference in no way supports his assertions –
1) "If [the universe] had a beginning, that which triggered that beginning had to exist out side of it."
2) "All of the theories advanced posit a force outside of our current universe"
Dishonest. Obtuse.
@hawaiiguest "Yes that's what they ask, so what's your point?"
Well finally!!! after how many posts.
What does it prove?
that my original statement at the top of this post in response to Cq is accurate, namely that his statement is misleading.
namely:
===============
@Cq "The big bang theory does not say that the universe "came from nothing." Any simple research into it would clear that misconception up pretty quickly. You're just repeating creationist lies."
@Chad "not exactly true, and somewhat purposefully misleading on your part...
The Big Bang does describe an expansion from a singularity, and that the singularity is the point at which all of the matter in the universe is concentrated such that density temperature go to infinity and time stops.
That means that nothing existed "prior" (although "prior" is misleading, since time stopped at that point).
=======
@Really-O .. no, keep reading...
@Chad,
I think you're missing the point here.
Science has no answer for what happened before the big bang. Maybe it was preceded by a gnab gib. Maybe there was a dark high enthalpy blog of stuff. We just don't know.
Not knowing what happened before the big bang doesn't prove or disprove God.
If you'd like to think God reached out and ignited the big bang as his 'creation', terrific. That theory is as plausible as any science on the matter.
Nevertheless, to an atheist that answer is meaningless. They just don't believe in God.
@Chad
You seem to be treating "time" as something that intrinsically exists, and I don't think that's the case.
Ooops – I meant blob, not blog!
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "Science has no answer for what happened before the big bang. Maybe it was preceded by a gnab gib. Maybe there was a dark high enthalpy blog of stuff. We just don't know."
@Chad "agreed on both points:
a) there was a "before", the universe indeed had a beginning
b) science has no answer
==================
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "Not knowing what happened before the big bang doesn't prove or disprove God."
@Chad "agreed, however, it does prove there is something outside our universe that triggered it."
=============
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "If you'd like to think God reached out and ignited the big bang as his 'creation', terrific. That theory is as plausible as any science on the matter."
@Chad "vastly more plausible in my opinion"
============
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "Nevertheless, to an atheist that answer is meaningless. They just don't believe in God."
@Chad "agreed, agreed, agreed, and a very interesting statement. in my opinion it highlights a point I have made for a very long time: atheists have more faith than Christians, because there is direct evidence, that they willfully ignore.
@Chad
What direct evidence would that be?
@hawaiiguest "You seem to be treating "time" as something that intrinsically exists, and I don't think that's the case."
@Chad "Time is a dimension in the same way that length and width are. Time came into being when our universe was created, that's why I say "before" the big bang in double quotes, because there can't be anything before, as time came into being there.
You'll see I typically use the word "triggered" when talking about causality with respect to the big bang.
@Chad
Time is merely a construct, intended to measure consistent movement from a very specific perspective. How it can be compared to the other three dimensions, I don't know.
@Chad,
I'm glad you agree, but you're still missing the point.
I'm delighted that you believe in God. I respect people of faith, particularly when they don't try to, or want to, convert me but the lack of a scientific explanation for what happened before the big bang is not proof of the existence of God.
@Chad,
I get the impression that you are one of these people who has heard a fundie sermon along the following lines:
"Atheists are delusional people who have transferred a natural belief in God to a belief in science as their God and here's how to mess with an atheists head:
Step 1. Ask them for proof of the non-existence of God
Step 2. Ask them what happened before the big bang"
Let me reassure you, these questions don't terrify atheists nearly as much as that preacher told you they would. Let's go step by step:
Step 1. This is a non-sequitur.
There are three answers to the 'big' question:
1. I believe in God
2. I believe in the non-existence of God (this is what the fundie preacher says to you about athesists)
3. I don't believe in God.
The correct answer is the third alternative. It is different from the second alternative. You cannot prove the non-existence of anything.
Step 2. This is a non-sequitur.
Science cannot yet explain the origin of the big bang let alone what happened before it. This is merely a limit in our understanding. It does not require that something exists outside it. There are many theories. A popular one is that the universe expands, collapses on itself and then has yet another big bang and expands. Rinse and repeat.
Do we "know" this? No. Science does not represent absolute truth, and if you are honest with yourself, nor does religion.
Xtian: 'God is truth.'
Q. Why does God do all the terrible things he does or permits to happen?
Xtian: 'God is mysterious, he is far above human comprehension.'
QED: Absolute truth is unknowable – by religion AND by science. Science is no God.
@Chad,
This appears to be the heart of your argument:
Earlier I said: "Not knowing what happened before the big bang doesn't prove or disprove God."
You said: "agreed, however, it does prove there is something outside our universe that triggered it."
Actually it doesn't prove there is something outside the universe. The trigger could come from within. Novae are exploding stars. They explode by first collapsing on themselves. No one presses a button.
You believe in an outside ent.ity. I don't. Neither of us can prove this either way.
Again, this is not a proof of the existence of God.
@GOPer" Not knowing what happened before the big bang doesn't prove or disprove God."
@Chad "agreed, however, it does prove there is something outside our universe that triggered it."
@GOPer" Actually it doesn't prove there is something outside the universe. The trigger could come from within."
@Chad "actually, by definition, it MUST come from outside:
– the universe had a beginning
– since it had a beginning, something must have triggered that beginning (unless you believe that it just happened, out of nothing, by nothing).
-since nothing in the universe existed "prior" to that beginning, what ever triggered it, MUST by DEFINITION, have existed outside of it.
fairly straightforward, and precisely why the proposals cosmologists have (see the nytimes article cited above) all posit an "environment" outside of our time/space universe from which the trigger originated that created our universe.
so many atheists get freaked out having to admit that something must exist outside our universe, but nobel prize winning cosmologists have no problem with the idea. It is not intrinsically linked to a theistic belief.
@GOP: "Xtian: 'God is mysterious, he is far above human comprehension.'"
=>some Christians do indeed say that, but only because they arent really that familiar with the biblical explanation.
Are you? Do you know what the bible says is the reason for all the pain and suffering in the world?
@hawaiiguest "Time is merely a construct, intended to measure consistent movement from a very specific perspective. How it can be compared to the other three dimensions, I don't know."
=>google "space time" or Einsteins theory of relativity.
In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum), is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.. From a Euclidean space perspective, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.
@Chad,
you say: "Do you know what the bible says is the reason for all the pain and suffering in the world?"
If your answer is that all men are sinners, tainted by the original sin of Adam and Eve, then I personally see this as a cop out, and the "Jesus died to save us" response clearly does not protect people from natural disasters and disease today. To the believer, natural disasters and disease must be the will of God – there is no alternative understanding if you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God.
God does or permits to happen terrible things to disbelivers, believers and the truly innocent alike.
If you have ever seen innocent young children, way too young to understand the nature of sin (as opposed to the willfullness of a toddler) afflicted by awful diseases like childhood cancer, you will understand that the notion of a loving God ior even a just God s incontrovertibly misplaced and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise.
The only 'theology' that reliably explains this is the Hindu/Buddhist notion of Karma accumulated in a past life and somehow, I don't think that is your belief system.
@Chad,
and no, the notion that the impetus for the big bang must logically come from outside the universe does not necessarily follow.
It might – and some cosmologists will pursue this philiosophy.
It might not – and some cosmologists will pursue this philosophy.
Either way, I don't believe in God. Just because we don't understand the big bang is not evidence that any form of God exists. Perhaps one day I will be proven wrong. We're not there yet.
@Chad: "Do you know what the bible says is the reason for all the pain and suffering in the world?"
@GOPer: "If your answer is that all men are sinners, tainted by the original sin of Adam and Eve, then I personally see this as a cop out"
@Chad "and we live in a fallen world... cop out?... why? how?"
===========
@GOPer: "and the "Jesus died to save us" response clearly does not protect people from natural disasters and disease today.
@Chad "agreed "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” – Jesus Christ
===========
@GOPer "To the believer, natural disasters and disease must be the will of God – there is no alternative understanding if you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God."
@Chad "nice strawman!!
😉
no.. your understanding is deeply flawed.
you need to do a little investigation into the nature of the fallen world, the nature of Gods plan to reconcile that fallen world to Himself, omniscience, omnipotence and the fact that God exists outside our time/space and as such knows what decisions we will make using our free will.
===========
@GOPer "God does or permits to happen terrible things to disbelivers, believers and the truly innocent alike."
@Chad "agreed, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. – Jesus Christ
=========
@GOPer "If you have ever seen innocent young children, way too young to understand the nature of sin (as opposed to the willfullness of a toddler) afflicted by awful diseases like childhood cancer, you will understand that the notion of a loving God ior even a just God s incontrovertibly misplaced and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise."
@Chad "I have.
Without an understanding of what the bible says about WHY God allows this to happen, you cant' possible say that a notion of a loving/just God is God s incontrovertibly misplaced.
Right?
You cant possible make that statement, without understanding what the bible says about why God allows that.
|========
@GOPer: and no, the notion that the impetus for the big bang must logically come from outside the universe does not necessarily follow."
@Chad "by definition it is necessary, which is precisely why all of the prevailing theories posit "causes" which are external to our current universe.
do some reading... gain an understanding of the implications of the statement "our universe had a beginning"
@Chad,
it's nice of you to respond, thank you for taking the time and I appreciate the fact that you put effort into it, but you've said nothing at all.
God causes/allows horrible things to happen to innocent people. This is incontrovertably not the action of a 'loving' God or even a vengful/wrathful God. No more debate is necessary at this point. The callousness of God cannot be explained in any logical framework – except in a pagan, Asgardian or Olympian context where the Gods like to screw with the mortals for sport. (I assume that is not your God?)
You say: God .. "as such knows what decisions we will make using our free will."
So he prempts this by smiting down the innocent before they sin??? Ludicrous!!! We're not talking about Skynet sending Terminators back in time to kill Sarah Connor here. Free will must free will, not predestination. People are free to choose or they are not free to choose.
This is fundamental philosopy. If you say people are free to choose, but God is omniscient and knows what they will choose and punishes them ahead of time, you deny free will and with it morality. We might as all be hedons because in that philosophy it doesn't matter what you do!
The previous post should say:
'free will must be free will"
@GOPer "God causes/allows horrible things to happen to innocent people. This is incontrovertably not the action of a 'loving' God or even a vengful/wrathful God"
@Chad " you seem staunchly unwilling to investigate/understand what the bible says is the REASON for all this "innocent" suffering.
Why?
You just keep repeating "there can be no reason for "innocent" people to suffer, it's inconsistent with a loving God"
but,
that's your understanding of what a "loving god" should be like.
If you are completely unwilling to investigate what the bible says is the reason that the God of Abraham allows pain and suffering, you have removed yourself from any discussion of God. Your observations are 100% uninformed opinion. Right? You cant presume to judge something, unless you are familiar with it. right?
If you dont want to discuss God, why do you keep responding?
on a final note, your equating bad things happening to judgement is badly, badly flawed.
Again, you are presuming to judge something you know nothing about.
right?
@Chad,
It's not a question of being staunchly unwilling to "read what the bible has to say on a 'loving' God". You make some big assumptions there that I haven't. I do not consider my opinions to be as 100% uninformed as you assert.
You have your faith and I respect that, but I can never rationalize the horrible stuff that happens to people with the notion of an omnipotent but 'loving' God. If you believed in a callous God, that at least would be rational. 'Occam's razor' suggests a simpler answer than trying to bend the evidence of what we see around us into a belief structure.
I don't believe in God.
All the horrible stuff that happens, disaster, disease etc, is the result of the normal chaos in the universe and "God" has nothing to do with it.
GOPer: "It's not a question of being staunchly unwilling to "read what the bible has to say on a 'loving' God". You make some big assumptions there that I haven't. I do not consider my opinions to be as 100% uninformed as you assert."
@Chad "and yet, you are in fact unwilling to read what the bible says is the reason there is so much pain and suffering in the world.
Right?
=================
@GOPer "I can never rationalize the horrible stuff that happens to people with the notion of an omnipotent but 'loving' God. "
@Chad "no one is asking you to rationalize anything. Just do some investigation before you decide there is no way to reconcile the notion of a loving God, and the (in many ways) horrific world we live in.
===============
Guess it's time to shut the discussion down, so I'll make the offer that always does exactly that: I'll make a deal with you, you suggest a book for me to read, I'll suggest a book for you to read. We both do a good book review and come back with the results in 30 days.
Deal?
What do you have to loose?
The religious people are free to ask the hotels to remove p o r n from their in-room video selections.
The hotels are equally free to tell them to get b e n t.
It's a beautiful thing.
I WOULD NOT DEDICATE A MINUTE THINKING RELIGIOUSLY...IT DOES NOT NOTHING FOR EVERYONE...THERE'S NO ONE CONTROLLING YOUR ACTIONS PERIOD...TOO MUCH TO BELIEVE..SORRY
your comment is actually a religious one. think about it
I think it's an impossible case to try and make that porn has in any way, shape or form done anything good for society.
Why is prostitution legal as long as it is filmed???
Don't matter if it's ever done anything for 'society'.
Neither has chewing gum. Best get that banned too, yeah?
So that means you're ok with p orn as long as it's a married couple being filmed?
You can say pretty much the same thing about the Republican party.
Chad
Much of it's "acting" Chad, like virtually every on-screen kiss you see. Some of it's also couples sharing a view of their love-making. You really can't call all of it prost.itution.
Yeah, loving missionary position married couple p0rn, that's ok. However, if they chew gum, that's kinky, leave that part out.
@Cq "Much of it's "acting" Chad, like virtually every on-screen kiss you see"
=>give me a break.. do you work for Phillip-Morris in the marketing department by any chance?
XXX stuff, is filmed prostitution, end of story.
It debases women
It is a primary driver of pedophillia
it appeals to all of our basest nature
it serves no good
end of story.
Chad got his comedy hat on today!
Chad, I got a hammer and a needle...$10 says your ass still too tight for it.
The cosmetics industry is bad:
It debases women
It is a primary driver of pedophillia
it appeals to all of our basest nature
it serves no good
end of story.
LOL chad you silly silly boy. much of the adult industry is run by women. put away the persecution complex and get real. and it has nothing to do with pedophilia. For that you can go to Sandusky's cell.
@Chad,
how do you figure it's a primary driver of pedophila?
I would have thought that someone getting off on p0rn wouldn't then feel the need to go out and find children to molest.
@Chad,
Yeah, why isn't prosti.tution legal, even when it's not filmed? Good point.
Regarding Chad's nonsense –
"XX'X stuff, is filmed prosti'tution, end of story." – Not according to the penal code of the State of California.
"It debases women" – This is nothing but an unsupported value judgement.
"It is a primary driver of pe'dophillia [sic]" – This is nothing but an unsupported factual claim (good luck finding valid supporting research).
"it appeals to all of our basest nature" – Another unsupported value judgement
"it serves no good" – Yet another unsupported value judgement.
"end of story." – My assessment...as usual, Chad has nothing of substance to offer.
keep your jesus off my p-nis and your bible off my b-lls!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y
That is one of the funniest freaking things I have seen in a long time! Thanks for sharing.
Awesomely good.
my pleasure. should be shared in every church!
My god, who cares? The p0rn in hotel rooms is crazy expensive anyway. I'd imagine the free WI-FI can facilitate that activity for free.
Bazinga!
religion says S.E.X is baaaaaaad!
LOL
religion never said that. people like you made that up to have something to make fun of religion. pron is not healthy for the mind nor the actors. many of them are drug addicts or forced into it.. get over yourself
hj, you been in the p0rn indistry and know all about it??
HJ There are drug addicts in every line of work. No one is forced. there's enough individuals out there that want to be in pawn. No need to force anyone.
"pron is not healthy for the mind nor the actors. many of them are drug addicts or forced into it.. get over yourself"
It's their personal life to do as they wish with and as long as they are not causing harm to another individual in the process, then it really is no-one's damn business how they live. You're not paying their way in this world, so you have no say in what they do. If you don't like it, then quite simply don't watch it.
Did anyone hear the one about the Bull sh it Canadian that minded its own F'n business?
You won't it can't help itself from butting in where it is neither needed or wanted.
My...this looks like a fun topic
Lucifer's Evil Twin is trademarked? There is more than one Lucifer? Is there a good Lucifer? well I'll be Damned.
Your "faith" in yourselves and your flock must be pretty shakey, if you can't trust them to exercise their free-will to NOT watch the hotel po.rn
@Ken – a play on words and a play on what christians think they know about where the name Lucifer came from.
"Lucifer" just refers to the planet Venus. In Isaiah it just refers to a foreign king poetically being like Venus, a "rising star" only to be brought down by God. Christians misinterpret this to refer to the Devil.
If god can't kill Lucifer, then why call him god? If Lucifer goes away, will the need for god go away also?
Lucifer also happens to be another name for Athena,.. you know Minerva. in heaven Samyaza is the name of the angel (points up to the Name .. or any other carnation of the planet Venus the morning star is usually a dead give away the morning star is Venus so technically any God (if there is any) or Goddess who is represented by Venus is Lucifer its actually quite a big list because Venus is the most worship "thing" in the solar-system above that of the Earth and Sun
I have an idea. Why don't religious people worry about living by their religion instead of telling other people how to live. How about they worry about the least among us and help them instead of changing laws to take away others' rights.
If other people don't share your belief, then it is up to you to either get them to join your flock, or let them do as they wish.
Amen!!
Where did they say anything about trying to pass a law? They were just asking the hotels to voluntarily opt out. Try reading the article next time.
i guess people like to skip the article (reading is too difficult?) just to comment on how ignorant they are
Y'all ignorant – hj knows more about the p0rn industry than anyone.
@hj They know they can't get a law passed banning p0rn, but we all know they would if they could.
Anyone else think the word "bedfellows" is kinda gay?
Using the word "gay" to mean something like "lame" is pretty gay, ... I mean lame! 🙂
Yes bedfellows is kinda gay. But McKnockner sounds like a pawn star 🙂
Excuse me McKockner sounds like a pawn star 🙂
Ok I consistently hear from believers [ to non-believers ] " Why do you care what I believe? My/ our belief/ faith is not hurting you and it does not hurt me/ us to believe"
and then the non-beilever consistently sez " I don't care what you believe AS LONG AS YOUR BELIEFS DO NOT INFRINGE ON MY RIGHTS"
Believers - This letter / request / statement / threat is a PRIME example of what non-believers are talking about.
Good point.
I never cease to be amazed by the hatred, bigotry, self-deception, ignorance and hypocritical bias of atheists. Of all the religions of the world, they spue their vitriol most vehemently against the Christian God and His believers as if they have a personal vendetta against Him. They spue off so-called scientific "facts" that are nothing more than conjured up human theories that haven't been proven at all, therefore giving no scientific empirical evidence. In spite of that, they accuse Christians of believing in fairy tales, etc. I think their darwinistic delusion has blinded them to reality. Big bang theory, Darwinist theory, and all other atheist-promoted propaganda are only theoretical and have never been recreated in a scienfitic lab nor observed and recorded by ancient or modern man consistently to provide proof as to its reality , therefore atheists CHOOSE to BELIEVE in the so-called "reality" of these theories without any scientific data to really prove these events actually happened. However, they go so far as to spitefully call Christians all kinds of nasty names for CHOOSING to BELIEVE in the Christian God by faith. There's no difference between a Christian and an atheist when it comes to making a personal choice in what to believe, except that Christians choose to believe in Jesus while atheists choose to believe in nothing or only themselves. Have some civil dignity and self-respect enough to not call people of faith nasty names when your own double-standard, bigotry and hatred is constantly evident in your verbal attacks against anyone who doesn't believe like you. It's a disgrace to the human race that you atheists claim to be people of reason and rationale, but only if everything agrees with your faulty logic. Otherwise, you throw logic and reason out the window and show your true colors to the world. Why is it that you atheists consider anyone who doesn't believe exactly like you "weak-minded"?? So are you implying that everyone on Earth has to adhere to your deluded philosophies to not be considered weak-minded? What hypocrites! What bigotry! If you want to call people weak-minded for believing in something, perhaps you need to consider serious introspection and self-reflection for believing in nothing. Whether you believe in the big bang theory; Darwinist theory; the primordial soup theory; that galactical aliens spawned the human species on the earth; or that humans were created by being transported on the backs of cosmic crystals that entered earth's atmosphere eons ago; you've chosen to BELIEVE whichever particular THEORY or idea that floats your boat. Have the courtesy to allow people of faith to freely choose to BELIEVE in whichever god they choose without having to constantly and stupidly spue your verbal garbage against them for not believing just like you.
The bible was put together by Constine in 325ad. Is it faith or blind faith?
We call it like it is. WE DEAL WITH REALITY. Look at the middle east for example. They don't have abortions, birth control, gay marriage, stem cell research, divorce and total belief in Islam. HOW HAS IT WORKED OUT FOR THEM. ARE THEY HAPPY? MORE PROSPEROUS? NO! the same beliefs Christians would kill for in this country. RELIGION DOESN'T WORK PERIOD!
After that post I find it hard that YOU would be amazed by any one elses hatred.
You know, I don't generally make comments about scripture, because I'm not that well versed in the subject. Likewise, you might want to refrain from making comments about science, an idea you're wholly unfamiliar with.
I didn't get past your first sentence, not in the mood for a sermon, but I just wanted to let you know that Atheist is NOT a religion.
cut and paste tripe.
I agree with most of what you said here. I do not believe in any God or gods, but do not identify as an atheist because, as you pointed out, they can not prove their position either. I find it more centering to be comfortable with the mystery of it all. In partial answer to your question, I think nonbelievers can be driven to vitriol based on how much of society is driven by one faith or another. There actually is VERY little respect given godless people. Even the phrase "godless people" conjures an image of immoral lawlessness. All this while more lives have been taken in the name of religion than any other cause. While perhaps a Jew and a Christian and a Muslim may not agree on who God is or which rules and rituals to follow they do have faith in common and similarly disregard any nonbelievers.
Yes. The theory of evolution is just "atheist propaganda".
Like that darn "theory of gravity".
And the ATHEISTS thank you for helping to prove all their points!
I'm sorry but your ignorance is embarrassing
The discovery of DNA supports Darwins theory of evolution , and before you say " its JUST a theory " please educate yourself on scientific Theory vs Hypothosis
you are mixing the two
would you say that gravity is ONLY a theory as well ??
observed evolution ( took me all of 5 seconds on google )
News article:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html
Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
The site:
https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
I'm amazed that anyone actually read through this entire post. Stephen King wrote stories that were shorter and were later turned into movies.
"I never cease to be amazed by the hatred, bigotry, self-deception, ignorance and hypocritical bias of atheists."
Question for you. Are you amazed by christians that exhibit those same characteristics? Only a blind, deaf and dumb fool thinks it doesn't happen.
To say that it's just a "personal choice" to believe in Christ or not is like saying that it's just a matter of choosing to believe in Santa. That's why Pascal's Wager fails completely as an argument. Either you're convinced, or you're not, and we're not, end of story. You can't force yourself to believe anything.
your silly long ranting posts shows exactly why we despise your ugly cult. Your cults holds the monopoly on hate. Example. take a look at how christianity nearly destroyed the natives in this nation. they were conquered and it was shoved down their throat. Stow it with the "persecution complex" and get real.
what's funny about his absurd post is that he committs the same things he accuses us atheists of "intolerance" and "hate". going off about scientific stuff he doesnt' agree with. This is a very very angry and hurtful person.
and as for this
" Have the courtesy to allow people of faith to freely choose to BELIEVE in whichever god they choose without having to constantly and stupidly spue your verbal garbage against them for not believing just like you"
how about you take your own advice? no one is prohibiting your belief system. wow you christians are so afraid of atheism. well not surprising since you base your belief on a 2000+ year old set of man made scribblings
I believe the word you're looking for is SPEW... not spue.
@For the atheists,
There is plenty of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Fossils like Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Ho.mo Habilus, Archeoptyrx, ...
Biochemistry like Cytochrome-c, ...
Biogeography like the Marsupials, Penguins, ...
Genetics like Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), Human Chromosome 2, ...
Experiments like the Long Term E.coli experiment by Lenski, et. al.
Not believing in the supernatural is not a religion. Belief in the supernatural is religion. It's like saying that believing the Earth is round is a religion.
also first you accuse of hatred and "bigotry" then go on to tell us we're "deluded". whatever happened to "turn the other cheek" that was taught by your own "savior". Thank you so much for showing the overwhelming anger and hatred of your cult. I'm glad you posted.
@For the atheists,
after reading your bilious little tract, I think I want to spue [sic]. Quick someone, get me a bucket!
p.s. Are you "Trollman"?
@For the atheists:
I particularly loved this bit: "Big bang theory, Darwinist theory, and all other atheist-promoted propaganda are only theoretical and have never been recreated in a scienfitic lab"
I think I'll just pop down to the lab and whip me up a big bang, destroying the known universe while I'm at it. What a farce!
I don't like it when people make ad hominem attacks or call each other names, but you're really tempting me here with your drivel spout.
Yes, atheism is a religion... Much like not collecting stamps is a hobby and not smoking is a habit.
well i wasn't going to say it,...but they are kinda right even we pagans believe you guys are locked in the prison of the mind, you need to wake up "Body mind and soul" and view all of the wonder around you then you will "see, smell, feel, hear taste" all the Gods and Goddesses
but never mind that he does have a point, taking in theory as truth with out a definitive is to close your mind of the new ideas there is laws like gravity that is truth but evolution although is a high probability is still just a theory. if it is a definitive truth then it would not impede my faith just make it stronger, i for one do believe in evolution as fact.
big bang not so much but if it becomes definitive then that only proves how not why(? i don't know) or who (Gaia)
@KyleGlobal
"Not believing in the supernatural is not a religion. Belief in the supernatural is religion"
that a false
i don't believe in the supernatural
its all natural
@For the Atheists
Wow – this is why in the real world admitting to be an atheist can be as dangerous as saying you like to stomp kittens. You scare the crap out of me – you need some help.
KyleGlobal
Yes, and not having any superst.itions isn't a superst.ition, and not having any prejudices isn't a prejudice, but what else would you expect from a group who ridicules "the wisdom of men"?
Man when are all the religious freaks going to off themselves and go meet their wonderful savior, and leave us "heathens" alone to enjoy this great world we live in. If Heaven and Jesus are so great why don't you just go and meet him already.
Amen to that!
If you "heathens" would at least open up the New Testament of the Bible, you would find that Jesus will come back for us believers! You truly are a heathen if you choose not to do your homework and get all of your facts straight so you know what you're talking about!!
"heathen" hahahaha....
Because they're sinners and as such are not worthy. Tough to object to something if you've never seen it.
my myLinda...strike a nerve did he....and I am a pagan, not a heathen, so get your facts straight
"If you "heathens" would at least open up the New Testament of the Bible, you would find that Jesus will come back for us believers"
If it was factual, no one would need to "have faith" that it'll happen.
How tolerant of you.
Linda
"If you "heathens" would at least open up the New Testament of the Bible, you would find that Jesus will come back for us believers! You truly are a heathen if you choose not to do your homework and get all of your facts straight so you know what you're talking about!!"
I don't know why Christians keep thinking that non-believers have never "opened up" their book. Most of us were well-schooled in that book. Me... 40+ years of it. We did not just ride in on a load of pumpkins. There is just no verified evidence that any of the supernatural beings and events told about in it (OT or NT) are real.
Take the Bible out of all hotel drawers...then we'll talk.
Spot on!
Bible is CRAZY full of incest and violence – ban that p0rn!!
Niiiice!
How many of you guys are going to vote republican in Nov? You can kill a lot of this religious crap big time if you vote democratic. It's the republicans that's pushing this crap. Mitt Romney is pro life but wants to cut programs people with children need, Is against healthcare reform, gun control etc.. Please remember the religious crap when you vote!!!!
And it's not just any religion we are talking about. ... These people wear magic underwear.
what's wrong with p0rn? religion is the problem.
There ya go....
Im about to start sending out mass mailings to churches etc. asking them to stop their anachronistic, divisive practices.
Need any help?
And those bells!! At least the church here that rang the bells burned down – so much more peaceful/.
"truths revealed in our scripture"
Doesn't one tell you to kill all nonbelievers? That's not the kind of truth we need.
Your words are founded upon ignorance.
@Gwen – Apparently, so are yours
Gwen – your words are founded in ignorance. 2 Chronicles 15, Deutronomy 13, and Deutronomy 17, all expressly order believers to kill nonbelievers.
Luckily for everyone, you "believers" pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to believe, and pretend the rest isn't there, or couldn't possibly mean what it looks like it means, or reassure yourselves that the New Testament cancels it all out even though in the New Testament Jesus says the Old Testament is still valid. If you honestly lived your life by your holy book's commands, your hands would be soaked with blood.
What the eff!? Are they really running out of stuff to cry about so they decoded to target hotel pron? People like that need to find a new constructive hobby to occupy their time with, not shake their fingers at everything they believe to be "wrong," or "immoral."
So wait, I can buy it in a hotel room or use their wireless and get it for free... let me think about that...
Yeah, it's like they woke up one morning and said "Hmm, today I think I will fart in a hurricane and see if anyone notices." Lots of pearl clutching, no real work.