Religous debates and questions

Wait, that's almost this:

Have we met Rigby and are you real- or another peice of Ally's tormented artistic soul?

My personal theory is that Rigby is the crystalline clarity of mind that Ally deliberately suppresses, but escapes from time to time like a ray of brilliant sunshine through the gaps in a curtain. She doesn't want to admit Rigby's in there...

I love this site, everyones got a sense of humor. Laughter is the best medicine

The Pastor's Ass

The Pastor entered his donkey in a race and
it won.

The Pastor was so pleased with the donkey
that he entered it in the
race again and it won again.


The local paper read:

PASTOR'S
ASS OUT FRONT.


The Bishop was so upset with this kind of
publicity that he ordered the Pastor not to enter
the donkey in another race.



The next day the local paper headline
read:
BISHOP
SCRATCHES
PASTOR’S ASS.

This was too much for the Bishop so he
ordered the Pastor to get
rid of the donkey.

The Pastor decided to give it to a Nun in a
nearby convent.

The local paper, hearing of the news, posted
the following headline the next day:


NUN HAS BEST ASS IN TOWN.


The Bishop fainted.

He informed the Nun that she would have to
get rid of the donkey so she
sold it to a farmer for $10.
The next day the paper read:


NUN SELLS

ASS FOR $10.


This was too much for the Bishop so he
ordered the Nun to buy back
the donkey and lead it to the plains where

it could run wild.


The next day the headlines read:


NUN ANNOUNCES HER ASS IS WILD AND FREE.

The Bishop was buried the next day.

The moral of the story is . . . being
concerned about public opinion
can bring you much grief and
misery . . even shorten your life.

So be yourself and enjoy life.

Stop worrying about everyone else's ass and
you'll be a lot happier and live longer!

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass!

On a simikar subject I saw a big chunk today of the new Archbishop of Cantebury being invested.
As well as having the same approach to double think as the Pope- reaching out to the poor, lecturing on how they should live from a place of unbeilievable weath and opulence (the fact they call the ceremny 'The Enthronment of the Archbishop' should tell you all you need to know about the pomposity of it)- I found his main speech one of the most offensive things I've heard in a long time.

Its subject matter seemed to me to be the message only through Christ and the Church are people capable of perfomring good deeds.
Apparently those of us who think the Archbishop is just a man in a robe who cant get a proper job pretending to know stuff he doesnt about an imaginary superbeing in the sky, cant be nice to people, start charities, or do good works for our fellow humans. Not without Christ (and lets face it, it didnt excatly work out well for him either- no one likes a hippy rambling on when they are trying to work!)

Well the Arch Bish can keep his pretend God and ideally keep it to himself and stop spreading this nonsense about the globe about immortal super creatures runnnig our lives- and especially stop sneakily boosting their numbers in countries with poor or non existent education- like in Africa- and it says a lot about the complete implausibilty and ridiculousess of their version of events that they need to preach it to people who have no education to find someone who will still believe in them.
And its ot like the Church, ever in its history, has been anything other than a political entity and a general cause of strive, pain and suffering in the bad times and guilt and fear induction in the good ones.

I found the whole spectacle absolutely disgusting on about ten different levels at once. Fair got my crabbit brewing.

chris63 wrote:I love this site, everyones got a sense of humor. Laughter is the best medicine

unless you know, you're actually ill, or work for a drugs company

I love this site as well

Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
By Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News |

A California man is offering $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis …

A California man who believes the literal interpretation of the Bible is real is offering $10,000 to anyone who can successfully debunk claims made in the book of Genesis in front of a judge.

And for a man wanting to debate the very nature of human existence, Joseph Mastropaolo is taking a decidedly happy-go-lucky approach, saying he hopes the contest will improve future discussions on both sides of the argument.
"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo told the Guardian. "We can read the transcript and not have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."

Mastropaolo’s plan is to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account. His debate opponent would be asked to do the same. They would then jointly agree on a judge based on a list of possible candidates. Mastropaolo said that any evidence presented in the trial must be “scientific, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated."

For his part, Mastropaolo has a Ph.D. in kinesiology and writes for the Creation Hall of Fame website, which is helping to organize the minitrial. It’s also not the first such trial he’s tried to arrange. A previous effort, known as the “Life Science Prize,” proposed a similar scenario. Mastropaolo includes a list of possible circuit court judges to oversee the trial and a list of those he challenged to take part on the evolutionary side of the debate.

The Creation Hall of Fame website describes the event as a “chance to shine” for skeptics of creationism. “Are you willing to participate in a contest to prove your point that the Bible is wrong and that we evolved? You could go home with $20,000 if you win!”

If he can find a willing participant, the “Literal Genesis Trial” would then be held in a courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif. Of course, the trial would not have any legal basis and would not be conducted by a state or federal government body. Instead, it would be what is known as a minitrial, a voluntary, nonbinding courtroom model for certain settlement cases. Nonetheless, a bailiff and court reporter would be on hand.

After the judge’s final decision, the winner in the trial would take home $10,000.
"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people; they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

That's a laughably ridiculous idea. Must be nice to have $10K lying around to just piss away on a stunt like this.

Id challenge him just to hear how he can convince a judge you can make a human male from a hand full of dust, then rip one of his ribs out and turn it into a woman. (kind of sums up the bibles attitude to women though- a sort of spare rib )
How is the Creationist going to prove that one?
I dont think 'He's God he can do what he likes' is really a valid argument in a court of law when you cant even prove the existence of a god.

And as for presenting evidence for evolution- it'd be a hell of a long trial- you could have thousands of scientific witnesses from every discipline giving evidence for it.

The contest is not to prove creation, it's to prove evolution. Very different.

It all depends on the judge. To some people the idea that all these fossils were either placed there on purpose, or that all these different forms of man and animals were all running around together before the Flood sounds as reasonable as millions of years of history and a trust that various dating techniques were done in a way to avoid all contamination.

Yeah but its not just dating techniques- there is evidence for evolution and the Biblee account being untrue in ever sciencetific disipline- from astronomy to geoelogy never mind the biology side of things.
The sheer weight of supporting evidence would mean if this was a set of scales evolution would be a one ton weight at one end and the bible a very, very small bit of a feather from a particularly undersized budgie chick on the other.

And even if somehow they proved evolution was wrong- that in no way means the bible version must be therefore be true. That'd be a false assumption.

We may feel that way, but not all minds have the same sense of what's reasonable.

I was once tutoring a woman who was taking an adult education class in meteorology. I mentioned offhand that "without clouds of course, there's no rain." She sat up in surprise, then carefully wrote that down.

Later I was talking about the seasons, and started with "Okay, so we have the earth going around the sun..." and she says "Stop...". Took a good 20 minutes to realign her world view to contradict her senses. Not sure she ever really believed me, she hadn't believed her teachers back in school to start with.

You need a mind which has been pried open before it's ready to accept facts and logic. If you don't understand the kind of mind you're dealing with and start with the wrong sense of what's reasonable, within 5 minutes you may as well be talking to a wall.

Yeah but surely if there is loads of evidence a tiger will eat you- and loads of evidence a house cat wont (well it might try but it wont succeeed!)- theyd get a house cat- so they must have some sense!

What standard of proof would underwrite such a trial? Any idiot knows that no one can prove that Genesis did not happen in a court of Law anywhere in the democratic Western World. I gather that American courts would have a standard something like "Beyond reasonable doubt" for Criminal Matters and "On the balance of probabilities" for Civil ones. Running a trial about what happened 5,000 (or so) years ago would be fraught with legal problems anyhow.

Creationists think along the lines of, "I think it is true, so it must be."* Prove in a court of Law they don't think it's true! They believe in something they've heard or read about (or dreamed). I personally believe that the Wizard of Oz (the Movie) is true. Tell me it's not. Indeed, prove it's not. I've even got footage!

Yet again, Creationists speak to the weak minded and delusional.


*I think that's true, so (in my mind) it must be. Prove me wrong in a court of Law.

halfwise wrote:You need a mind which has been pried open before it's ready to accept facts and logic. If you don't understand the kind of mind you're dealing with and start with the wrong sense of what's reasonable, within 5 minutes you may as well be talking to a wall.

While I accept there are hills and lowlands and waterways, affecting earth levels, I refuse to believe I live on a ball suspended in space - presumably on invisible wires. I don't believe in God, you see.

If God's not holding you up, what is?

I don't believe in suspended balls, that's my point - and what I said above MUST not be seen as a blanket statement that I don't believe in suspenders. .. or balls for that matter.