Calling all Atheists

[Rockman X]

Christ, I feel like I'm in science class x__X

Anyway, as I said earlier, science answers the how and religion the why. There may come a day when our science is advanced enough to reveal the why, but until then, we'll simply have to be content with a how. It's really kind of pointless to argue that science doesn't explain the why when even though religion does, no hard facts have ever been presented. Hinduism could be right, Christianity could be right, or maybe none of the world religions are right. Nobody reports back from the afterlife when they pass away, so we've got no confirmation. We won't get a definitive why.

I'm not entirely sure where you read about the odds of life existing on Earth because there are lots of interpretations out there on that--many of them are incorrect interpretations. You might want to step around that one carefully.

I forgot who it was, but someone said it would take an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite amount of typewriters to produce the works of Shakespeare. Now, given that it takes an infinite amount to produce such a minuscule facet of this world's existence, I'm pretty sure the odds for a planet with an ecosystem such as ours would be ridiculous. However, this is where it can go two ways:

1. The chances of a planet like ours are so remote that there had to be some sort of higher power that created it.

2. Given the vastness of space and the amount of planets and solar systems out there, there was bound to be one where life worked. Plus, space is infinite isn't it? We've barely explored a fraction of it, so there could be planets just past the range of our current technology with complex life, in which case the odds of a planet like ours really wouldn't be so large. Hell, for all we know Tatooine really does exist and we might be able to trade with Jawas one day.

And that's all I'm gonna say for this post, I'll keep it short xD

 

[der Astronom]

Christ, I feel like I'm in science class x__X

Anyway, as I said earlier, science answers the how and religion the why. There may come a day when our science is advanced enough to reveal the why, but until then, we'll simply have to be content with a how. It's really kind of pointless to argue that science doesn't explain the why when even though religion does, no hard facts have ever been presented. Hinduism could be right, Christianity could be right, or maybe none of the world religions are right. Nobody reports back from the afterlife when they pass away, so we've got no confirmation. We won't get a definitive why.



I forgot who it was, but someone said it would take an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite amount of typewriters to produce the works of Shakespeare. Now, given that it takes an infinite amount to produce such a minuscule facet of this world's existence, I'm pretty sure the odds for a planet with an ecosystem such as ours would be ridiculous. However, this is where it can go two ways:

1. The chances of a planet like ours are so remote that there had to be some sort of higher power that created it.

2. Given the vastness of space and the amount of planets and solar systems out there, there was bound to be one where life worked. Plus, space is infinite isn't it? We've barely explored a fraction of it, so there could be planets just past the range of our current technology with complex life, in which case the odds of a planet like ours really wouldn't be so large. Hell, for all we know Tatooine really does exist and we might be able to trade with Jawas one day.

And that's all I'm gonna say for this post, I'll keep it short xD

That's only half right though, because you are looking at an ecosystem that is EXACTLY like our own--one chance out of several million, possibly. But if we are considering a different ecosystem, one that can sustain life, it need not necessarily be exactly the same as ours, so long as it is capable of sustaining life. For example, you may suggest that we require an ideal environment in order to exist, but what constitutes as ideal? Dry land is ideal for many mammals and other animals, but aquatic environments are suitable for other animals and organisms, but not for others. This would depend on the kind of organisms that could potentially exist, and then there is this other factor that ties in quite well with evolution--adaptation. You may even have organisms that are ill suited to an environment to begin with, but still survive, due to the mechanisms of natural selection acting on the expression of organisms' genes as a result of genetic recombination (that acts on variations, etc), and they adapt and contribute to the gene pool more significantly, and continue to survive. These increase the chances of the kind of ecosystem or environment we are looking for when considering life.

However, I have more commonly seen the typewriter analogy being used to apply to abiogenesis and genes in organisms, but one need not expect that "life" can only exist with only one combination of genes; there are many different combinations of genes that constitute life. So the probability that "life" exists does not depend on only one combination of genes alone; if many combinations of genes may lead to life, then the probability is not as low as some make it out to be.

As for it requiring an infinite number of monkeys to type Shakespeare, that would imply that it's impossible for any number of monkeys to type Shakespeare, even if "Shakespeare" (or a combination of words in a Shakespeare piece) is one possibility out of possibly thousands--again, it's not impossible, just highly improbable. You may say the probability approaches infinity, but to say that it is impossible would mean that you are looking for the probability of typing one combination out of an infinite number of combinations, but that also implies that the Shakespeare piece in question has an infinite number of words, which is also impossible. But if you were to ask what the probability were for the monkeys to type any work of Shakespeare's of the same length, the probability would increase.

But to demand the probability of only one determined mode of life existing is ridiculous. It's like demanding the probability of you rolling the dice the way you did in a game of Monopoly--it's one outcome in a great number of possible outcomes of rolling a dice in an entire game of Monopoly--did it happen? Yes it did. Is that one outcome improbable? For sure. But is it impossible? Definitely not.

 

[Rockman X]

That's only half right though, because you are looking at an ecosystem that is EXACTLY like our own--one chance out of several million, possibly. But if we are considering a different ecosystem, one that can sustain life, it need not necessarily be exactly the same as ours, so long as it is capable of sustaining life. For example, you may suggest that we require an ideal environment in order to exist, but what constitutes as ideal? Dry land is ideal for many mammals and other animals, but aquatic environments are suitable for other animals and organisms, but not for others. This would depend on the kind of organisms that could potentially exist, and then there is this other factor that ties in quite well with evolution--adaptation. You may even have organisms that are ill suited to an environment to begin with, but still survive, due to the mechanisms of natural selection acting on the expression of organisms' genes as a result of genetic recombination (that acts on variations, etc), and they adapt and contribute to the gene pool more significantly, and continue to survive. These increase the chances of the kind of ecosystem or environment we are looking for when considering life.

My bad, I don't think I explained myself clearly enough. You're right, ecosystems don't have to be like ours. Not every living creature on this earth needs oxygen to breathe, and I'm sure that would prove true for other beings on other planets. Naturally, as you said, the odds get much higher when looking for an ecosystem like ours.

Actually, I probably should have rephrased what I said about finding one as complex as ours. As you said, a planet doesn't have to be like ours to sustain life. Our ecosystem supports millions of lifeforms, but there could be planets out there that are just catered to a few hundred species, maybe less. So long as life IS supported though, it reduces odds.

As for it requiring an infinite number of monkeys to type Shakespeare, that would imply that it's impossible for any number of monkeys to type Shakespeare, even if "Shakespeare" (or a combination of words in a Shakespeare piece) is one possibility out of possibly thousands--again, it's not impossible, just highly improbable. You may say the probability approaches infinity, but to say that it is impossible would mean that you are looking for the probability of typing one combination out of an infinite number of combinations, but that also implies that the Shakespeare piece in question has an infinite number of words, which is also impossible. But if you were to ask what the probability were for the monkeys to type any work of Shakespeare's of the same length, the probability would increase.

True, true. And I am unsure as to who said that whole monkey thing, so I might have said it wrong and if so, my bad.

 

[der Astronom]

There is actually an easy way to make something have a probability of 0%--use a contradiction. If there was a contradiction in the existence of the current explanation of how our ecosystem could have existed, then we'd have some work to do. Although most scientists wouldn't admit defeat (because that's equivalent to saying God did it); they'd try to find a different explanation to explain how our ecosystem could have existed.

 

[Dagolu]

simply put, you can't
even through logic and science and stuff, you could say that God made it look like he didn't exist (for whatever reason)

the best argument would be that should there be a single all powerful being watching over us, how does he defy physics by creating matter?

 

[Rockman X]

he doesnt as he isnt real

I want to thank you for that intellectually stimulating post, it really made me think about my own life and the universe.

You can't prove God isn't real. Nothing can. As Dagolu said, there's always the possibility that God simply made things to hide his existence for whatever reason (perhaps he wants to study us and doesn't want us to know he exists so that we don't act unnatural).

 

[Raldois]

Proof god is not real: Suffering, Rapists, Famine of Brazil, Deaths in Rawanda, Darfur, Moroccan affairs, AIDS, World War II, Bush being elected, The cancellation of the 90's X-men cartoon and the ripping friends, 9/11, cancer, Hawthorn Heights, The flavor of love, Nuclear warheads, Suicide, homocide, Genocide, Aparthied, Taxes, Rapists, Paris Hilton, Sharks, Potential threat of zombies, War, gangs, pedophiles, sorrow, Trans fat, Fat people, Rapists, etc.

Proof that he does exist: A timeless classic book that contradicts itself to the point of where u wonder if the author was on opium or not, A creepy looking Pedo adorned in gold, speaking latin, and swearing god came to him, Twinkies.

Some might argue that the first list is the work of the Devil. I think it's safe to say that all that is a bit much for the most beautiful angel on this side of the fire pits to handle in one sitting, don't ya think?

 

[Donald Trump]

Proof god is not real: Suffering, Rapists, Famine of Brazil, Deaths in Rawanda, Darfur, Moroccan affairs, AIDS, World War II, Bush being elected, The cancellation of the 90's X-men cartoon and the ripping friends, 9/11, cancer, Hawthorn Heights, The flavor of love, Nuclear warheads, Suicide, homocide, Genocide, Aparthied, Taxes, Rapists, Paris Hilton, Sharks, Potential threat of zombies, War, gangs, pedophiles, sorrow, Trans fat, Fat people, Rapists, etc.

thats just proof that man does bad things.

anyway i liked flavour of love, when she tryed to cook fried chicked by putting vegetables and jam in a chicken then puting it in an oven

 

[Warbsywoo]

Uh, sorry but I'd have to agree with The End here.

I think it's ridiculous how much religion is being used a scapegoat for such natural catastrophes. If God indeed was the cause of such bad happenings in the world, then are you saying that man is free of all blame from this? Man is hardly pure himself, bud.

Point B:
a.) There were numerous authors to the Bible, most of course with suspicious intents.

b.) The Bible was hardly all bullshit. And what contradictions? I find hardly any trace of these contradictions that are alleged to be contained in the Bible. And really, is there any work of merit that doesn't spark outrage or just makes you stop and wonder about things? 'On opium'?! Do we actually know that the authors of the Bible were fraudulent? Do we actually know that the authors were merely hired to spread some evil truth that humans could not be able to bear?
Did they simply like fucking around with people and take advantage of the fervor of Christianity in its beginnings? If you believe that the Bible is still the result of overindulgence in cheap crack, why not, hey, take a look at other religions and the similarities.

I think not. Until we know for sure, this is my conviction.

 

[der Astronom]

Uh, sorry but I'd have to agree with The End here.

I think it's ridiculous how much religion is being used a scapegoat for such natural catastrophes. If God indeed was the cause of such bad happenings in the world, then are you saying that man is free of all blame from this? Man is hardly pure himself, bud.

The question is whether or not God caused natural disasters (or man, if you so choose), not whether or not man or God is capable of causing bad things to happen--you may argue that both are true, but if the bible is anything to go by, you would have to blame God for causing famine and drought for punishing people as a whole, rather than punishing only the people who did wrong. You may also argue that it wasn't God's fault that people are evil, but then I would argue that either God created people to be evil because he is both omnipotent and omniscient, as most people who attest to the bible make such claims, or Satan makes people evil, and he's the one to blame. If we don't go by the bible and discover that natural disasters are exactly that; just natural occurrences that are nothing more than the physical and meteorological properties of the Earth and possibly the Solar System around it, then neither man nor God are to blame; you also can't blame man for discovering how it works; knowledge of such things is irrelevant to what caused it.

But since I can fault the bible for not being able to accurately describe how natural disasters occur, except in relation to a rigid morality defined in only one way, and there has been evidence of natural disasters occurring for absolutely no moral reason at all, I would concede that the naturalistic explanation for natural disasters, that is, no man or God caused the natural disaster is the better explanation.

But at the very least, I am willing to concede that I am not perfect, as are all people. But is God brave enough to step forward and concede that he might just have made some mistakes or at least be responsible for some of the mass killings and ridiculous things he has done in the bible that I abhor? I do not believe so.

Point B:
a.) There were numerous authors to the Bible, most of course with suspicious intents.

b.) The Bible was hardly all bullshit. And what contradictions? I find hardly any trace of these contradictions that are alleged to be contained in the Bible. And really, is there any work of merit that doesn't spark outrage or just makes you stop and wonder about things? 'On opium'?! Do we actually know that the authors of the Bible were fraudulent? Do we actually know that the authors were merely hired to spread some evil truth that humans could not be able to bear?

There are several contradictions of which I could name a few that I have not had a good explanation to. One being the shape of the Earth. It's been described as being a "circle" (and bear in mind that a circle is a flat object, not a sphere, and even so, the Earth is not a perfect sphere either; it's a little bit flattened at the poles), yet has four corners and might be described as something that "hangs"--most people have interpreted this to mean that the Earth is flat, yet the contradiction still remains--if it's a circle, how does it have four corners? Either way, any of these descriptions of the Earth completely fail to describe the actual shape of the Earth, and are not an adequate means of knowledge. A metaphor also does not constitute factual knowledge either. If it does, please also try to explain how it is that centuries and centuries of Christians who read the bible were driven to believe the Earth was flat.

A second contradiction is the order in which things were created. Apparently, Genesis describes the process of creation at least twice, in which the order of the things being created has been changed--both descriptions could not be true since one thing happening before another one could not have happened after the thing it happened before--I hope I don't have to explain why this is a contradiction in much detail though. However, regardless of whether or not you believe this contradiction to be important, it is still a contradiction, nevertheless.

One need not "know" that the bible authors are frauds much less one need not "know" the murderer of a crime to begin with, but the evidence might lead to it. The bible often speaks of things that happen with little to no evidence, such as the occurrence of natural disasters or the shape of the Earth, or even prophecies that have already happened before they were predicted or for which such predictions were inaccurate, and sometimes, it even speaks of metaphors, which have been misinterpreted with reality too many times to be reliable (one being the shape of the Earth). But when man discovers that much of what they have found contradicts the bible or inaccurately describes what's written in the bible, it would be difficult to ignore the evidence in favor of what's written in a book. And when many of these natural occurrences are taken to be events that occur because of morality, then technically, you could call these bible writers frauds because they might have believed that no one would be smart or good enough to figure out what actually happened, and used these natural occurrences to help people shape their morality.

Now whether or not these bible writers were right or wrong in doing what they did is entirely up to you; however, the fact remains that because they have described what occurs naturally as things that occur morally, and is an inaccurate statement of what actually happens, they are fooling you, and they are frauds.

But yes, I do wonder sometimes when I read the bible. I do wonder why it is that these writers have created such a selfish, bloody, egotistical and somewhat contradicting God that is required to teach people such things as morality that can be taught just as well by experience and consequences. I also wonder how it is these contradictions occur, and I realize it's because none of these bible writers had any knowledge of science and believed it could not be found. If they believed humanity could discover the truth, they would not lie about it.

Did they simply like fucking around with people and take advantage of the fervor of Christianity in its beginnings? If you believe that the Bible is still the result of overindulgence in cheap crack, why not, hey, take a look at other religions and the similarities.

I think not. Until we know for sure, this is my conviction.

Yes, it's true that other religions have similar faults. The most common culprit being faith. But why not also take a look at what it's done? The Crusades, the Inquisition, the bloody religious wars over who's right and who's wrong, and who gets what land, and people getting hanged, tortured or silenced for not believing what the masses believe?

Actually though, I'd have to concede that this problem is more severe with Christianity than any other religion I've known of. The only similiarities I might know of are what's written in the stories, but that does tell you something--these writers all write these things to make people believe certain things, and are so sure that no one would discover the truth that they weren't worried about writing about it.

 

[Orannis]

How about this: Christianity is currently the 'hip' religion or whatever, right? But it only originated 2 millenia ago. Before, it was judaism, and before that, hinduism. These religions still exist now, but are not the most prominent. However, as Hinduism is the farthest back traceable religion, why is it that so many individuals are convinced there is a single god? Did he come into existence two thousand years ago, kill off all the other gods, and then retrospectively create himself unto the beginning of existence? While there is really no way of proving whether or not a deity exists, there IS no way that one can just dogmatically claim that it is the christian god, or the judaic god, or the many plural gods of other cultures. Personally, I think that if there was at one point a god/gods, this planet was likely the result of a drunken bet, and they have since moved on to other parts of the cosmos. Consider this; Yeah, 'he' resurected jesus, and parted the red sea for moses, but - what have you done for me lately?

 

[Donald Trump]

what have you done for me lately

you obvisiously dont love god, and if you dont love god, your gonna burn in hell according to him.

christianity is not 'hip' its just the most powerful.
as for the god thing, it would be brahman who became god, as brahman is the god that created all others
and christians always have an answer for that, 'god works in mysterious ways'.

 

[der Astronom]

you obvisiously dont love god, and if you dont love god, your gonna burn in hell according to him.

And you would agree with that?

I actually find it amusing that there are people that don't realize how ridiculous and disrespectful it is for them to tell others they're going to hell--some people even find comfort in the fact that people are going to hell for which they cannot judge, according to their bible.

But then again, why believe in a hell that exists just as much as God, something for which I cannot love as a character or being if I cannot see him?

You love the things and the people you interact with and can see and talk with--if you cannot interact with such people or things, you can't really "love" them.

christianity is not 'hip' its just the most powerful.

And I can certainly see why. They had just about the entire Western world believing the Earth was flat and 6000 years old.

I find it amusing that such a religion actually makes people believe in things which might be considered logically ridiculous.

as for the god thing, it would be brahman who became god, as brahman is the god that created all others

I have studied a bit about Hinduism, and I don't blame people for not knowing this, but it's rather complicated, and their belief in god(s) are actually both monotheistic and polytheistic. You can't give brahman all the credit because it could be said that the entire existence of the universe is a loop, meaning brahman didn't necessarily start everything--he might have created the others in a process, but this could not have happened unless they were destroyed.

and christians always have an answer for that, 'god works in mysterious ways'.

3 is an answer to 1+1, but it is not the correct answer. Saying "god works in mysterious ways" is analogous to the "god did it" response in science which also means you fail as a scientist, and in a debate, it is considered a circular logic fallacy. In other words, it's not a particularly great or meaningful answer.

 

[Donald Trump]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by The End
you obvisiously dont love god, and if you dont love god, your gonna burn in hell according to him.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And you would agree with that?

no i dont agree with that.

In other words, it's not a particularly great or meaningful answer.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

that was what i was alluding to.

 

[Raldois]

Uh, sorry but I'd have to agree with The End here.

I think it's ridiculous how much religion is being used a scapegoat for such natural catastrophes. If God indeed was the cause of such bad happenings in the world, then are you saying that man is free of all blame from this? Man is hardly pure himself, bud.

Point B:
a.) There were numerous authors to the Bible, most of course with suspicious intents.

b.) The Bible was hardly all bullshit. And what contradictions? I find hardly any trace of these contradictions that are alleged to be contained in the Bible. And really, is there any work of merit that doesn't spark outrage or just makes you stop and wonder about things? 'On opium'?! Do we actually know that the authors of the Bible were fraudulent? Do we actually know that the authors were merely hired to spread some evil truth that humans could not be able to bear?
Did they simply like fucking around with people and take advantage of the fervor of Christianity in its beginnings? If you believe that the Bible is still the result of overindulgence in cheap crack, why not, hey, take a look at other religions and the similarities.

I think not. Until we know for sure, this is my conviction.

I find it funny how those who follow religion blame Man and the devil when things go wrong, but keep their faith in someone who is said to help if deemed worthy through prayer. Don't you think that if your god does exist that either A) he hates man because he sure as hell has not interveined in the worlds affairs or B) he would step in and do something instead of letting mankind suffer. Who's to say that the author(s) of the bible were not fraudulent? until i am proven wrong, by fact, then anyone who played part in creating the bible is a potentional enemy of man. If man is as bad as believers say then wouldn't it make perfect sense to gain control by exploiting a "god"? And writing a book cliaming it to be his will? and yes there is various works that do not spark outrage, everyday books that don't try to police the world and brainwash mankind into believeing ideals which just make life more difficult. Honestly tell me that if the world was godless and the slightest shred of god did not exist, that there would be more conflict. The catholic church along with the other religions have not really changed all that much, sure there is no longer the spanish inqusition, or the salem witch trials, but still the church tries to police the world. Not through government, but through brainwashing and selling hope. I don't just feel this way about catholicism and christianity, but about all organized and un-organized religion. Jihaad is a prime example of how religion negatively affects the world.

you obvisiously dont love god, and if you dont love god, your gonna burn in hell according to him.

christianity is not 'hip' its just the most powerful.
as for the god thing, it would be brahman who became god, as brahman is the god that created all others
and christians always have an answer for that, 'god works in mysterious ways'.

Technically Christianity is nto the mos powerful religion. based on generalized beliefs they are, but here is the actual statistic according to " religious population"


1) Christians - 2,116,909,552 (which includes 1,117,759,185 Roman Catholics, 372,586,395 Protestants, 221,746,920 Orthodox, and 81,865,869 Anglicans)
2) Islam - 1,282,780,149
3) Hindus - 856,690,863
4) Buddhists - 381,610,979
5) Sikhs - 25,139,912
6) Jews - 14,826,102
And... a) Others - 814,146,396
b) Non-Religious - 801,898,746
c) Atheists - 152,128,701

subtract all the little sub-categories and Muslims take the cake, not only that but the Islamic religion is also the most powerful currently because of their control. The whole world is at tension right now based on their ability to control fear with small groups of radicals. (ATTN: i am not stating that I am muslim and it is better, nor am i generalizing all muslims/islamic followers as terrorists.)

without the grouping of the christianity category, none of those come close to Islamic religion.

so your stement by saying that christianity was the "most powerful" was incorrect, factually speaking and in terms of Populace control.

 

[Donald Trump]

its islam not muslim
and there are different denominations of that,
the pope is much more powerful then any ayatollah, bush met him.

so your stement by saying that christianity was the "most powerful" was incorrect, factually speaking and in terms of Populace control

no, your wrong.

the bible is not inherently evil, or fraudulent, some parts of it are very wrong, yet most people's morality comes from the bible and the ten commandmants,( i know that they are from Judaism).

Jihaad is a prime example of how religion negatively affects the world.

Jihad is a negative aspect of islam, its bad, but the sharia laws do much more good then Jihad does bad.

Islamic religion is also the most powerful currently because of their control

there is tension in the middle east and there always will be. most middle eastern countries refuse to recognise israel except for countries that trade a lot with the US, blaming all this on Islam is wrong

until i am proven wrong, by fact

there is no definitive proof, therefore there is a group of people classed as agnostics.

then anyone who played part in creating the bible is a potentional enemy of man

so we should all burn the bible, is that what your advocating? and howcome you single out the bible, not other religious texts; Quran, Torah ect?

but through brainwashing and selling hope

i agree, its wrong for children to be indoctrinated with religious beliefs, but hope is a good thing, they dont sell hope, they provide it, with so many bad things happening in the world, some people need hope.

but still the church tries to police the world

the church doesnt, but the US and to a small extent, the UN, and this is not a bad thing, genocide in rwanda needs policing, genocide in serbia needed policing, and in the future there will be other situations which need policing.

Honestly tell me that if the world was godless and the slightest shred of god did not exist, that there would be more conflict

do you mean if the world started again and that there was no religion then, or that tomorrow there would be no religion?

 

[Raldois]

it is not a debate on wether the bible is inherently evil, i simply brought up the point that Islam is more powerful. almost every country in the world fears a terrorist attack because Muslims ar grouped in with terrorists in most peoples eyes. You can't say "no, you're wrong" and have no substantial evidence to back it up.

you say that most peoples morals are based on the ten commandments, but most people don't have morals. Everyone breaks the ten commandments and sins.

its islam not muslim
and there are different denominations of that,
the pope is much more powerful then any ayatollah, bush met him, theres of that.


no, your wrong.

the bible is not inherently evil, or fraudulent, some parts of it are very wrong, yet most people's morality comes from the bible and the ten commandmants,( i know that they are from Judaism).


Jihad is a negative aspect of islam, its bad, but the sharia laws do much more good then Jihad does bad.

the reference to Jihaad was not to single out the islam faith, but to show an exaple of how organized religion always has it's own way of getting out of hand.

who cares if bush met the pope?more than half the nation doesnt even thinks of bush as a serious president anyway. and without you being there asa a co-author to the bible, then you cannot be take seriously as a voucher for its sincerity.

 

[Donald Trump]

Islam is not more powerful, by our own reasoning it isnt, regardless if bush is a joke president or not, he is still extremely powerful.

almost every country in the world fears a terrorist attack

most countries fear tsunami's eathquakes ect, that doesnt mean they are more powerful then something else.

The US army and Israeli army kills vast amounts more people than terrorsits.

it is not a debate on wether the bible is inherently evil

yet you called its authors potential enemys of man.

you say that most peoples morals are based on the ten commandments, but most people don't have morals

everyone has morals, they just differ, morality is defined by an individual, not society.
as the for breaking the ten commandmants, some people work on sunday, thats not a crime, but breaking most others is.

 

[Raldois]

Islam is not more powerful, by our own reasoning it isnt, regardless if bush is a joke president or not, he is still extremely powerful.


most countries fear tsunami's eathquakes ect, that doesnt mean they are more powerful then something else.


The US army and Israeli army kills vast amounts more people than terrorsits.


yet you called its authors potential enemys of man.


everyone has morals, they just differ, morality is defined by an individual, not society.
as the for breaking the ten commandmants, some people work on sunday, thats not a crime, but breaking most others is.

Bush is not powerful, he commands 1 branch, meeting the pope does not make you powerful, being the pope doesnt even make you powerful, its used for influence and if you can't use that right then you cant even establish power. bush failed in his attempts to gain influence time and time again. Bush is not powerful. Most countries are landlocked, not surrounded by water or heavy tectonic plate movement, and i assure you that the UN is not worried about Tsunamis and Earthquakes and neither is any other country. both the US and Israeli army are subordinates of a higher up, they follow orders, not instill fear into people. yes moralitis defined by an individual, get enough individuals and you have a grou a group of individuals who all do the same thing. Where is your fact that states that islam is not more powerful. let me see a statistic that says that there are more followers in another religion, where is there evidence to support the fact that countries are not scared of terrorists but scared of tsunamis and their own armies.

 

[Donald Trump]

Where is your fact that states that islam is not more powerful

you fail. thats not a legimate counter arguement, its you clutching at straws.

so your stement by saying that christianity was the "most powerful" was incorrect, factually speaking and in terms of Populace control.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

no it isnt,
1) Christians- 2,116,909,552
2) Islam - 1,282,780,149
you have tried to count christians as not a whole group, yet who havent applied the same 'logic' to Islam, if you did you would find that there are less sunni muslims then there are catholics.

Bush is not powerful

yes he is, he is the president of the US and he isnt in the lame duck months, so bush is powerful.

being the pope doesnt even make you powerful

wrong, the powerful is very powerful, he is supposedly god's representative on earth, which is quite powerful.

Most countries are landlocked, not surrounded by water or heavy tectonic plate movement, and i assure you that the UN is not worried about Tsunamis and Earthquakes and neither is any other country

obvisiously, not all countries are under threat from earthquakes and/or tsunamis, just like terrorism, except that terrorists killed less than 2500 people on 9/11, boxing day tsunami killed more than 250,000.

both the US and Israeli army are subordinates of a higher up, they follow orders, not instill fear into people

thats being naive, to think that the US army and espicially the israeli army follow orders. as for instilling fear, well they do a hell of a lot of that.

yes moralitis defined by an individual, get enough individuals and you have a grou a group of individuals who all do the same thing

groups of people huh? sounds threatning, no wait it isnt. groups of people go shoping, groups of people eat meat.
society has a sense of morality, most individuals believe certain acts to be immoral, ie child molestation, yet that still occurs, so to some it isnt immoral enough to stop them from doing it.