I agree! You must allow the FLying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) into your mouth before you can truly say you've tasted his great meaty balls. Only once you've let his sauce run down your chin, can you say you really know the FSM.

hehehehe, cute buddy.

Seriously?

You contradict yourself right there, no wonder you can't even respect your own decision.

In case you missed it!!!

"I of course respect your decision to believe whatever you want, however, what you choose to believe i have virtually no respect for :D "

"I already told you i don't respect your decision, it's idiotic, just like the Flying Spaghetti monster."

So which one of those statement is made up???

... it's the same thing. "What you choose to believe, i have virtually no respect for" is the same as "i already told you i don't respect your decision." If you want i can rearrange the words in the sentence to make it easier for you.

I have virtually no respect for what you choose to believe.

But, i do respect your right to believe it :D

Alright, you obviously have no clue about respect....

Someone who compares an esteemed character to the "Flying Spaghetti monster" and calls other people's beliefs "idiotic" is totaly childish and immature. It shows a total lack of evidence as well as seriously lacking in logical debating skills. If they can't bring facts to the discussion, why would anyone make a public fool of themselves by acting like a 5 year old?

Captain Ahoy. I see land the world is not flat like our unbelieving forfathers said it was. We are not going to fall off the edge of the earth. IsaYah the Prophet of Yahweh told the Truth the world is a circle. Praise be to Yahweh for mans ways our not his ways. HalleluYah (Praise be to Yahweh) Blessings of Shalom....Miles

I think we have different ideas of what respect is. Apparently you give it out whether it's worthy of it or not. I believe that respect is earned. It should be given until there is reason for there to be none. Religion has far outlived it's access to respect from me.

I'm sorry if my blatant lack of respect for such foolish superstition offends you, but i'm not going to lie and say it's a perfectly respectable belief system.

I think it's funny you get on me for having no evidence also... it's a cool little paradox.

I know we have different ideas of what respect is. I thought that was obvious with the above quote.


I'm not sure what your take on respect is, but I agree with the 2nd premise. "It should be given until there is reason for there to be none."
Only after #2 would the first premise have any meaning to me. "I believe that respect is earned." Someone could earn my respect after they had lost it.


Calling it "foolish superstition" tells me it's your opinion. Had it been backed up with facts, it would have been named differently or just called "superstition". For you to believe contrary to that without proof is an equal "foolish superstition".

Show me why it should be considered foolish. I see alot of name-calling and zero proof of too many claims.

It's my opinion that there's more scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design than against it. That can be proven if one seeks the "truth".

Why it should be considered foolish? Surely you jest. According to the bible, the world is only a little over 6,500 years old. That has been proven wrong daily by geologist. I'm sure there is a "preacher like" excuse for that. No mention of dinosaurs in the bible either, no mention of moses cleaning up crap on the ark. 40 days of food and poop from 2 elephants would fill the thing. But I suppose there is another excuse for that. Just keep filling the collection plate and just accept it huh? You can't think if you're busy trying to buy your way in.

Like Peccy I feel that I have more than sufficient evidence to conclude that it is indeed foolish to suggest that the Bible has any serious merit.

To begin with the whole premise of the Bible starts off with the accusation that man's disobedience of his creator is what brought imperfections and death into the world. I do believe that the Bible even states directly that thorns began to grow on plants at this time where there had been no thorns before, but I'm not worried about these petty detials. Scientific evidence has shown us that thorny plants and animals that eat other animals have always existed long before mankind came onto the scene. Disease and natural disasters have also occurred before mankind came onto the scene. Therefore, IMHO it's foolish to give the story any serious merit at all.

I can go on and on and on, concerning the story itself. It's not even consistent as a pure fairytale. It makes the claim that God is unchanging, yet it has God dealing with sin at one point by flooding the entire planet killing the bulk of mankind along with all innocent children and babies, as well as all the animals. But then later this same God supposedly has a change of heart and decides to sacrifice his son to pay for the sins of man instead. That's a contradition to the fairtale itself because it claims that this God is the same today, tomorror, and for all of time. Yet it's story about how this God behaves does not support this claim.

Also, another very simple reason to reject the story as foolishness or pure manmade mythology is because it is based very much on Zeus-like principles. This God is appeased by blood sacrifices just like Zeus was. Most everyone today has totally accepted that it would be utterly foolish to believe that the tales of Greek Mythology could be true. Yet how are the tales of Yahweh any different? It's basically the same God with some jealousy and male-chauvinism tossed in.

Finally, who would these blood sacrifices be designed to appease? In the beggining they were supposed to appease the God. But then the Christians have this God appeasing himself by having his own son butchered on a pole. To me, this is a fairytale that has just gotten bizzare beyond belief. If this God had no choice but to make this so-called 'sacrifice' to pacify a demon or something that might have made at least a little bit of sense. But that's clearly not the case. We can't have an all-powerful God bending over backwards making desperate sacrifices to appease a demonic fallen angel, that would fly in the face of the fairytale altogether. So the only thing left if for this God to be doing this for his own personal desire. So this is a God who is appeased by violence. I personally must reject that fairytale as being foolish because this would demand that this God is far sicker and demented than even me, and I'm just a mere mortal.

So yes, I have absolutely no qualms about confessing precisely how utterly absurd the whole story is.

I agree with Charlie Piano. I respect your RIGHT to make any descision that you want providing that it doesn't hurt other people, but that doesn't mean that I need to respect the actual descisions that you make.

In fact, when we talk about hurting other people, I personally feel that Christianity should be proclaimed a "hate crime". At least as long as it's being passed off as the "Word of God". As a fairytale I guess it's no worse than the Three Little Pigs, but preaching this gruesome tale to innocent people demanding that it's TRUE (especially childern) should be considered a "hate crime", or at the very least it should be considered emotional and psychological child abuse.

No one has any right to lie to little childern like that. The fact is that you can't even know whether or not it's true. Therefore if you tell a child that it's true you're lying to that child. Childern need to understand that this is a very ancient story that no one can know whether or not it is true. Like I say, there are a myriad of reasons to reject it on technical fallacies and inconsistencies. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to even remotely believe that it might be true. There is nothing in this story that even makes any rational sense, IMHO.

So yes, it's my sincere and honest feelings that it is utterly foolish to believe that this story represents the creator of this universe, and it's even more foolish to teach little childern that it somehow holds truth. As far as I'm concerned that should be considered a crime of child abuse right there.

got a question about the age of the world. How do they KNOW this is true? Many things have been said to be true then proven wrong, why couldn't this be one that will be proven wrong?

BINGO!!!!!!!

An un condescending answer! An honest answer without bringing up scriptures, hell, sinner...

See the thing is that spirituality is really important to me. I pray more than most Christians I know...I meditate. I practice ancient Native American traditions. I understand there is truth in all these different religions, I choose not to be a part of them and that doesn't take away my spirituality. So when these debates are going on and I'm told I am a sinner, that I will be judged by God, and scriptures are bought up...well it's gets challenging to continue without becoming defensive. As you say..we should all have the freedom to search the answers and when scriptures are quoted to one who doesn't live by the bible...well I think you get my point.

So thank you for understanding that we all get to find our own path and that we have the choice. We all should have the freedom to find our own path without being told were wrong....

One master, many paths...

I've never seen in the Bible where there is a claim that the world is only 6,500 years old. Do you know for sure or are you going by faith in someone else?

There IS mention of dinosaurs...

Noah, seriously? I'd prefer to hear why you would keep it onboard instead throwing it over???

Can you explain why fossils of sea creatures have been found high in mountains?

i meen just think about evolution in general..... it's called the THEORY of evolution........ THEORY people, that is not a fact.

Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in serious question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.


It's okay, mankind once thought the world was flat too.

A being in the clouds is so much more believable.

lol but again how do they KNOW they are 50 - 60,000 years old? Was someone there at that time that could verify this? NO it's still just a theory.

You do realize that in Science, Theory is actually above Fact, right?

Basically, anything that we observe (in any way) happening (such the wind blowing, or the rain falling, birds flying, etc.)

A Hypothesis is an educated guess, based on what we have observed.

A Theory is summarizes a number of hypotheses.

Keep in mind, Gravity is "just" a theory, as is the heliocentric solar system.

And that is leaving out that Evolution has been observed.

Nite all......good debating with you guys!

there is actually more proof of God then the age of the dinosaurs. What we call the bible today is a gathered book of scrolls that were written in the time Jesus was on this earth.

good points, they are still nevertheless THEORYS.