# Non-Theists More Intelligent than Theists?



## ptatohed (May 28, 2015)

A study of studies shows that Non-Believers are, in general, more intelligent than Believers. In the study, intelligence is not defined in terms of education but in terms of IQ and “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn experience.” The study studied 63 other studies starting with a 1928 study (which followed the lives of 1,500 gifted children) through a 2012 study.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727

http://www.charismanews.com/us/40669-study-suggests-atheists-smarter-than-christians

http://rt.com/news/atheists-more-intelligent-religious-433/


----------



## matt267 PE (May 28, 2015)




----------



## engineergurl (May 28, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> A study of studies shows that Non-Believers are, in general, more intelligent than Believers. In the study, intelligence is not defined in terms of education but in terms of IQ and “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn experience.” The study studied 63 other studies starting with a 1928 study (which followed the lives of 1,500 gifted children) through a 2012 study.
> 
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727
> 
> ...




I have to wonder how many of the gifted children in 1928 were atheists...


----------



## NJmike PE (May 28, 2015)




----------



## P-E (May 28, 2015)

I think I'll head over to the poop thread now.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (May 28, 2015)

https://www.facebook.com/WFLAtheism?fref=ts


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (May 28, 2015)




----------



## csb (May 28, 2015)

I don't think it's fair, what with the Bible Belt being in the south.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (May 28, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (May 28, 2015)

Over zealous Christians and athiests are equally annoying..... Their mommies must have not loved them enough as children...


----------



## Flyer_PE (May 28, 2015)

^Agreed. My beliefs are mine and mine alone. I don't try to convert anybody and I'm not in the market to be converted.

We want diversity in all things except thought and ideas. It's so much easier to just call somebody you disagree with an idiot rather than actually have any curiosity as to what they believe or why they behave the way they do.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 28, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> Over zealous Christians and athiests are equally annoying..... Their mommies must have not loved them enough as children...




This. Zealots are annoying, no matter what they are peddling. I don't care what you are or what you believe in as long as you don't try to push it on me.


----------



## NJmike PE (May 29, 2015)

https://youtu.be/xsZPWsVNTqo


----------



## Lumber Jim (May 29, 2015)

Cause the smart people have everything figured out, right?


----------



## engineergurl (May 29, 2015)

I'm still scratching my head of the "study of studies" part... maybe I don't get it because I believe in God though.


----------



## Sapper PE LS (May 29, 2015)

Lumber Jim said:


> Cause the smart people have everything figured out, right?


Not really. Here's a better definition:

Atheism: lack of belief in the ism.


----------



## Supe (May 29, 2015)

My big issue is that it's correlating being "smart" with an IQ.

There are so many other aspects that play into "intelligence" than a numerical value derived from standardized tests - self awareness, situational awareness, communication ability, creativity, etc., that differences in IQ become essentially moot as you stray from the outliers.

It's also extremely difficult to understand what defined the "levels" of religion that were examined. Or for that matter, what constitutes "religious"?

1. Subject A has a strong belief in God and stern religious convictions based on their own beliefs in what is right and wrong. Perhaps subject A has a genuine belief in the afterlife and a grand figure who controls all, yet belongs to no organized religion.

2. Subject B has a strong belief in God and stern religious convictions as defined by a given organized religion. Perhaps subject B has been conditioned to follow these beliefs based on survival instinct. Religion, especially organized religion, offers compassion, strength in numbers, power (historically speaking), etc. Subject B fears the prospect of no afterlife, or of a Hell.

How do these two subjects stack up? Is Subject A more or less inclined than Subject B to be intelligent? Where doe the environmental factors play in? Is someone who chooses a religion later in life less intelligent than someone who was "raised" to be religious from birth? Where to the Agnostics come into play? Is an Agnostic who proclaims "there's probably nothing there" more apt to be "intelligent" than one who proclaims "there's probably something there"?

I think you'd have to first examine the correlation between other variables, e.g. optimists vs. pessimists, fanatics (at either end) vs. total neutrality, etc., before drawing any conclusions from these types of studies.


----------



## Road Guy (May 29, 2015)

Here is a good example- my oldest son if he graduated today he would be 12th in his class but he asked me how to make a sandwich for his band camp today? He is smart as hell but does lack some common sense (like his momma)

In dumb as a rock but have a fair share of street smarts.... Lol...


----------



## Lumber Jim (May 29, 2015)

Supe said:


> ...I think you'd have to first examine the correlation between other variables, e.g. optimists vs. pessimists, fanatics (at either end) vs. total neutrality, etc., before drawing any conclusions from these types of studies.


Or call the whole discussion f'n stupid. (says the hillbilly redneck P.E.)


----------



## ptatohed (May 30, 2015)

First of all, I didn't post this to offend anyone so please excuse me if I did. I heard about the study on the radio, looked it up, and just thought I'd share it here to 'shoot the breeze'. 



engineergurl said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > A study of studies shows that Non-Believers are, in general, more intelligent than Believers. In the study, intelligence is not defined in terms of education but in terms of IQ and “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn experience.” The study studied 63 other studies starting with a 1928 study (which followed the lives of 1,500 gifted children) through a 2012 study.
> ...


I was thinking that too. There were not too many out-of-the-closet atheists in the early 1900s I would think.



Dexman PE PMP said:


> https://www.facebook.com/WFLAtheism?fref=ts


I wasn't trying to start an argument!



csb said:


> I don't think it's fair, what with the Bible Belt being in the south.


What is not fair?



Dexman PE PMP said:


>


lol. They say that the Achilles' Heal of Christianity is the argument that atheists often use when they point out that if a loving all-powerful god did exist, why does he allow suffering/pain/disease? That question is posed all the time, right? But I never saw that as a valid argument for atheism. If you read the bible, it's incredibly evident that the god of the Old and New Testaments (especially the OT) has every intention to impose suffering on innocent people. How many times in the bible does god threaten the suffering of future generations? It's right there in Chapt 1 Genesis! Break the second commandment? You just screwed your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and great-great grandkids. So, in my point of view, suffering is completely consistent with the god of the bible.



Supe said:


> My big issue is that it's correlating being "smart" with an IQ.
> 
> There are so many other aspects that play into "intelligence" than a numerical value derived from standardized tests - self awareness, situational awareness, communication ability, creativity, etc., that differences in IQ become essentially moot as you stray from the outliers.
> 
> ...


In my first post and in the articles I linked, it defines what the study is calling intelligence, and it is not only IQ. You ask good questions but you might be analyzing it too deeply. I think the study simply found a general negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief: it concluded that, in general, the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious. It's not saying someone is dumb if they believe in god. And, you're right, there are limitations to the study. One of the articles points out that the study only takes into account analytical intelligence, not creative and emotional intelligence. And that the primary religion studied was Protestantism, not others. And the study did not really cover cultures other than our Western culture.


----------



## Supe (Jun 1, 2015)




----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> lol. They say that the Achilles' Heal of Christianity is the argument that atheists often use when they point out that if a loving all-powerful god did exist, why does he allow suffering/pain/disease? That question is posed all the time, right? But I never saw that as a valid argument for atheism. If you read the bible, it's incredibly evident that the god of the Old and New Testaments (especially the OT) has every intention to impose suffering on innocent people. How many times in the bible does god threaten the suffering of future generations? It's right there in Chapt 1 Genesis! Break the second commandment? You just screwed your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and great-great grandkids. So, in my point of view, suffering is completely consistent with the god of the bible.




I don't look at bible verses to "justify" atheism. I simply don't believe in god (the actual definition of atheism). I ask that "why does he allow" question to Christians to find out why they dedicate their life to following His word because He is such a sadistic being. Yes, there are some really good parts of the Bible (and every other form of scripture), and if you use those good parts to help you be a better person then I thank you. However, the rational part of me remembers that the Bible was essentially written to control the masses (a form of government). People didn't know or understand their environment or basic sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), and were wildly susceptible to superstitions and the Bible became a very easy way to "write off" that ignorance.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 1, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > lol. They say that the Achilles' Heal of Christianity is the argument that atheists often use when they point out that if a loving all-powerful god did exist, why does he allow suffering/pain/disease? That question is posed all the time, right? But I never saw that as a valid argument for atheism. If you read the bible, it's incredibly evident that the god of the Old and New Testaments (especially the OT) has every intention to impose suffering on innocent people. How many times in the bible does god threaten the suffering of future generations? It's right there in Chapt 1 Genesis! Break the second commandment? You just screwed your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and great-great grandkids. So, in my point of view, suffering is completely consistent with the god of the bible.
> ...




Are you trying to tell me that the universe is more than 6,000 yo, the earth is not flat, that the sun does not rotate around the earth (and stand still for a day), there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye, and that if people are sick, they should receive medicine and not exorcism???


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 1, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > lol. They say that the Achilles' Heal of Christianity is the argument that atheists often use when they point out that if a loving all-powerful god did exist, why does he allow suffering/pain/disease? That question is posed all the time, right? But I never saw that as a valid argument for atheism. If you read the bible, it's incredibly evident that the god of the Old and New Testaments (especially the OT) has every intention to impose suffering on innocent people. How many times in the bible does god threaten the suffering of future generations? It's right there in Chapt 1 Genesis! Break the second commandment? You just screwed your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and great-great grandkids. So, in my point of view, suffering is completely consistent with the god of the bible.
> ...




That sort of depends on what part of the bible, the majoity of the the "rule making" is actually in the Pentateuch which doesn't have as much significance in Chrisitianity as it does other religions (yes the ten commandments are in there, but we don't worry about eating cloven hoofed animals). I've seen it argued before that the Romans created the Christianity to pacify and control the masses but Judaisum was around long before that so I'm curious as to why you singled out Christians. In fact most if not all semitic religions start with the same basic rules.

The easiest argument for an atheist is for them to question God but that's probably because faithful people also question God too, each and every time we ask "why is this happening to me". We have free will which means God doesn't control everything, we do. If something bad has happened, maybe we should have chosen differently...

While I won't disagree that religion was often used to explain concepts not yet scientifically understood, I'm trying to come up with some examples in the bible and can't think of many. I could see that in more of the older religions than the bible.


----------



## goodal (Jun 1, 2015)

I have more to say than I have time to write here, but let me ask this question: Is there anything stated in the bible that can be proven false? I know we cannot prove miracles actually occurred or the existence of God. Those rely on faith, but I do not know of anything stated as fact that was, or is, wrong. The Bible is not a book of science, but if a statement relating to science was made, it was and still is correct. Please correct me if you think I am wrong. That's not to say people of faith were always correct in their teaching (flat earth, earth centric universe, Salem witch trials, etc.), but the book itself is infallible because it was written by Him through men of faith.

As far as not believing in God because of the messed up situation we find ourselves in, He did not create this mess. Man did. He gave us free will and we took care of allowing sin into this earth. Sin destroyed His perfect creation and is still causing havoc today. If anything, this should drive you to God, because through His love he gave us a way out of sin and misery in both this world and the next. No, Christians are not exempt from pain or hardship, but we can have a peace through it all that God has a plan for our lives as he does anyone that will believe. This is not a crutch as some would say. It simply opens up an avenue to strength that unbelievers do not have. I don't say that or any of this to condemn, but to try to explain my fellow Christians perspective. I also don't presume to speak for all Christianity as there are more denominations and beliefs than i can count. Ive already spent more time on this than i meant to, so let the debate continue.

I love a healthy debate. It will either make me a stronger Christian or show me that I'm wrong and need to change. Just please keep emotion out of it and we can all learn something here...


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

Good post Goodal, I appreciate your perspective and agree that a good debate can be had.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 1, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> The easiest argument for an atheist is for them to question God but that's probably because faithful people also question God too, each and every time we ask "why is this happening to me". We have free will which means God doesn't control everything, we do. If something bad has happened, maybe we should have chosen differently...


EG, I think there is a clear distinction between these two "questions of God" that you refer to, by believers and non-believers. When an atheist questions God (pick a God, any God (- or Gods, Goddess, or Goddesses)), he/she is asking does this god exist, based on the available evidence. When a faithful person asks "Why is this happening to me?", as you used in your example, the "Why" already assumes the answer to whether God exists or not. As soon as you say the word 'why', you've already assumed the answer before the question is asked. There may very well not be a 'why'. Personally, I like the word 'how' much better. 



engineergurl said:


> While I won't disagree that religion was often used to explain concepts not yet scientifically understood, I'm trying to come up with some examples in the bible and can't think of many. I could see that in more of the older religions than the bible.


I gave several scientific inaccuracies of the bible above. And I am happy to provide a dozen more upon request.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 1, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > lol. They say that the Achilles' Heal of Christianity is the argument that atheists often use when they point out that if a loving all-powerful god did exist, why does he allow suffering/pain/disease? That question is posed all the time, right? But I never saw that as a valid argument for atheism. If you read the bible, it's incredibly evident that the god of the Old and New Testaments (especially the OT) has every intention to impose suffering on innocent people. How many times in the bible does god threaten the suffering of future generations? It's right there in Chapt 1 Genesis! Break the second commandment? You just screwed your kids, grandkids, great grandkids, and great-great grandkids. So, in my point of view, suffering is completely consistent with the god of the bible.
> ...




This is like saying it's still Bush's fault...


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 1, 2015)

- it's easier to question someones faith when they are doubting the God, think "so where's your God now"-- hey yeah, where is my God is a response that can come quickly if someone is doubting.



> Are you trying to tell me that the universe is more than 6,000 yo, the earth is not flat, that the sun does not rotate around the earth (and stand still for a day), there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye, and that if people are sick, they should receive medicine and not exorcism


- the 6,000 year debate is a good example, but the bible does not say "the earth is 6000 years old", someone did the timeline of generations to come up with that, besides everyone knows that the earth was made on Feb 29th on a leap year so and evidence of man HAS only been recorded for about 200,000 years... maybe a scribe put the decimal in the wrong place or something?

- I don't believe the bible actually states that the earth is flat, but mentions "the ends of the earth" and the "corners"

- Wasn't the hilocentric debate actually with church members or is that written in the bible?

- I aways just assumed that the "sun and moon and stars" included the other planets, is there a place that says otherwise?

- medicine and herbs have been used through out time, again I believe that the exorcisms were more of a church concept than one that came from the book

seriously, I said I couldn't think of many, not any, the point I was trying to make was there are a lot of other religions on this earth that explain things in more unique and unscientific ways that Christianity.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 1, 2015)

goodal said:


> The Bible is not a book of science, but if a statement relating to science was made, it was and still is correct. Please correct me if you think I am wrong. That's not to say people of faith were always correct in their teaching (flat earth, earth centric universe, Salem witch trials, etc.), but the book itself is infallible because it was written by Him through men of faith.




I am interested to know your thoughts on the Apocrypha. Those books fascinate me greatly because they were written around the same time as other books in the Christian Bible, but they were omitted from nearly all Canonical versions.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> Dexman PE PMP said:
> 
> 
> > ptatohed said:
> ...


Your response touches a bit on why I don't like organized religion as a whole. We follow "this" part, but not "that" part. "Cafeteria" religion really bothers me and it leads to an instant discreditation of whatever position that is trying to be made. It creates a distrust from non-believers over the hypocrisy. They say they follow the Bible and will throw verses out to justify or reinforce their beliefs, but when a verse is thrown back that contradicts it they just say "we don't follow that part", or "that part isn't valid anymore." Leviticus is a common one that I've seen used in the anti-gay arguments, but then when you reply with "you realize that eating shell fish and talking back to your parents is also considered a sin" then suddenly they dismiss Leviticus as outdated. Following parts of a religion and ignoring others for convenience is the baseline for a lot of contempt.

An anecdotal example of this is when my wife was in highschool. Her friend's mother would chastise her for having pre-marital sex and would say she is sinning and will go to hell. However, before they graduated highschool her friend got pregnant and suddenly there was no problem with it. She would use the bible to judge others, but when that judgment became inconvenient it was dropped.

This isn't just an issue with Christianity. Islamic extremists do the exact same thing with the exploitation of "kill the non-believers" and martyrdom for 72 virgins. With both Christianity and Islam, kindness and love for your fellow man seems to be the forgotten aspect and instead the religion is used as a way to exclude others and justify their personal beliefs of hatred rather than the religious belief that all of humanity shares this earth.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

The psychology of religion is a very fascinating topic. To me it always asks the question of, "Do you have your beliefs because of your religion, or do you have your religion to justify your beliefs?" With the extremists, I would argue it's the latter but with the genuinely good people I've met it's the former.


----------



## goodal (Jun 1, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> goodal said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is not a book of science, but if a statement relating to science was made, it was and still is correct. Please correct me if you think I am wrong. That's not to say people of faith were always correct in their teaching (flat earth, earth centric universe, Salem witch trials, etc.), but the book itself is infallible because it was written by Him through men of faith.
> ...




If I remember correctly, those are the ones that they cant verify the author. Like the book of Thomas and Mary, etc. I think one is written about Jesus life as a little boy. Apparently, if they couldn't make really, really, really sure who wrote the book or if it contained things contrary to those they could verify it was left out. The author of Hebrews is unknown as well as some proverbs, but they were either in the original Hebrew text or agreed with the Gospels. BTW, I'm not a theologian, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week (no joke).


----------



## goodal (Jun 1, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> engineergurl said:
> 
> 
> > Dexman PE PMP said:
> ...




You are correct that there are hypocrites, but you shouldn't discount God because of mans faults. If that girl was rude or obnoxious about pointing out a sin in others, it was only to try to hide her own. That is nearly always true. As far as picking and choosing parts of the Bible, every word of the bible has been applicable at some point in time. The only thing that has changed did so because of the cross. When Jesus died for our sins, the Law was replaced with Grace. The things you had to do (sacrifice) and not do (eating shrimps) to stay clean were no longer required because he replaced those sacrifices with his own. Actual sin (sodomy, theft, adultery, greed, murder, etc.) were still wrong and, while some were not specifically named in the New Testament, Jesus feelings toward sin in general remained constant. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Also, I have found in dealing with other denominations, that yes there are some things i have no answer for (ie baptism). Is it required to go to heaven. My answer is no, even though there are a couple of places that the Bible seems to say it is. My answer for this is that when there APPEARS to be a contradiction (which there never is) look at the Bible as as whole and if one place says one thing and its said another way in a dozen different places, i'm probably misinterpreting that one. That's not a very good answer especially for engineers that like a cut and dry answer to everything, but that's the best i've gotten in these 34 years of life.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 1, 2015)

goodal said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > goodal said:
> ...




These books actually tie into with what Dex just said because they are in my bible but not others, so while he pointed out that I've "tossed out some parts" I don't think there are any Abrahamic religions that follow the book completely at all as a whole. That said,I don't feel that it's the religion or the bible that teaches people as much as the congregation. As humans we follow the examples we see. I can honestly say, gowing up I had limited exposure to the Old Testament in spite of attending a Catholic school, it wasn't until I attended a Baptist chuch a few times that I started discovering what was included.

For me, I feel like my relationship with my God became stronger as a branched out from the "churches teachings" to discover what my own beliefs really were. In the end I decided that both the Catholic and Baptist churches were some jumble of what I felt and where I identify which makes perfect sense to me because some parts of the reformation actually made sense to me (while others didn't).

There is however a big difference between organized religion, the bible and my faith.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

EG, I don't want you to think my posts are directly written for or about you. I wrote that post several times to try to make sure I wasn't specifically targeting anyone specifically.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

goodal said:


> Dexman PE PMP said:
> 
> 
> > engineergurl said:
> ...


But for me, a belief in a God doesn't bring anything new to the table. The world I live in is explained by science, my morals are based on the upbringing my parents provided, and I do not have a desire for "eternal happiness" (heaven). The way I see it, Aesop's fables provide the same moral compass that any other religious text does. They are not as elaborate and do not focus on the teachings of any one central character, but they still provide valuable lessons to live your life by.

I still have my superstitions and have my "good luck" rituals. I also believe in spiritual growth. With my son's cubscout den, I teach ways to grow spiritually without the belief in a God. Trust in oneself, the belief that obstacles can be overcome with confidence and knowledge, and how to treat others with kindness and respect are all ways to grow spiritually.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 1, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> EG, I don't want you to think my posts are directly written for or about you. I wrote that post several times to try to make sure I wasn't specifically targeting anyone specifically.


I know, I tend to use myself as an example because I stopped practicing for quite a few years because I questioned organized religion, things didn't make sense (ie. confessions), the extravagant spending etc etc. I explored other options and came to the conclusion that every church is different, even in the same denominations.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 1, 2015)

goodal said:


> I have more to say than I have time to write here, but let me ask this question: Is there anything stated in the bible that can be proven false? I know we cannot prove miracles actually occurred or the existence of God. Those rely on faith, but I do not know of anything stated as fact that was, or is, wrong. The Bible is not a book of science, but if a statement relating to science was made, it was and still is correct. Please correct me if you think I am wrong. That's not to say people of faith were always correct in their teaching (flat earth, earth centric universe, Salem witch trials, etc.), but the book itself is infallible because it was written by Him through men of faith.
> 
> As far as not believing in God because of the messed up situation we find ourselves in, He did not create this mess. Man did. He gave us free will and we took care of allowing sin into this earth. Sin destroyed His perfect creation and is still causing havoc today. If anything, this should drive you to God, because through His love he gave us a way out of sin and misery in both this world and the next. No, Christians are not exempt from pain or hardship, but we can have a peace through it all that God has a plan for our lives as he does anyone that will believe. This is not a crutch as some would say. It simply opens up an avenue to strength that unbelievers do not have. I don't say that or any of this to condemn, but to try to explain my fellow Christians perspective. I also don't presume to speak for all Christianity as there are more denominations and beliefs than i can count. Ive already spent more time on this than i meant to, so let the debate continue.
> 
> I love a healthy debate. It will either make me a stronger Christian or show me that I'm wrong and need to change. Just please keep emotion out of it and we can all learn something here...



[SIZE=10.5pt]goodal, I appreciate your professional and polite response and your willingness to further the debate. But I must respectfully disagree with much of what you claim. There are plenty of statements in the bible that can be proven false. The bible says that God hung the stars on a firmament (a solid dome in the sky). The bible thought the moon was a light source. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]You are correct that the existence or non-existence of a Christian Biblical God (or any other deity), and miracles, can not be disproved (you can not prove that something does not exist) but I would think if such supernatural things existed, we should have mounds of evidence for their existence. I find it interesting that God presented himself regularly 2,000 to 3,000 years ago but nothing in the last 2,000 years. Why? As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof… but, heck, I’d accept even un-extraordinary proof for the existence of anything supernatural. The truth is, there isn’t any. Why? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]You’re right, the bible is not a science book but it sure makes some scientific claims. All of which are bass ackwards. Like a huge one… the origin of the universe and the origin of earth species. The origin of the universe and the origin of species did not happen within 6 days 6,000 years ago. It just didn’t. We have an abundance of evidence that shows otherwise. Do you not agree with this? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The bible is far from infallible. With all due respect, it quite frankly is an outdated, scientifically inaccurate, loaded with errors, contradicting, sexist, racist, immoral, silly, book, that happens to have a few good nuggets (of which we don’t need the bible to even know in the first place). I mean no disrespect but, in my opinion, the bible portrays a vengeful, genocidal, petty, creator (who, for whatever reason is obsessed with circumcision – lol). Have you read the bible? I strongly suggest that everyone should. Don't simply listen to what people teach you is in the bible, read it for yourself. Worship a god that sends the order to rip the babies of non-believers from their mother’s arms and dash their heads against the stones (and enjoy doing so)? Or, better yet, rip the unborn from the mother’s belly? Not a dude I to want worship, no thanks![/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]To believe 2,000-3,000 year old books written by primitive Middle Eastern peasants that tell me snakes and donkeys talk, bushes sing, women turn into pillars of salt, sisters get their dad drunk so they can both get pregnant by him, that women are nothing but chattel, that it’s okay to beat your slave so long as they live for a few days before dying, that a man who rapes a women must marry her (but not before paying her father 50 silver coins, of course), a book that directs the stoning of a bride to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding night, instruction from god to mate with your wife’s maidservant, mandatory incest, a book where the creator of the universe sends his angel of death to kill all the first borns of Egypt (so make sure you sacrifice an animal and spread its blood over the door - because that makes sense!), or sends an angel of death to kill a man for forgetting to circumcise his 2nd born son….. is just not for me, sorry. The bible, especially the Old Testament, is a pretty horrid book, in my personal opinion. As is the Quran.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it. I’ve tried. I didn’t come to my beliefs (or lack thereof) willy-nilly. I carefully studied all of the available evidence and decided there is no compelling reason to believe in the existence of any of the world’s (1,000 or so) invisible gods. And, again, I mean no disrespect by anything I said. And I am more than welcome to be corrected if I said anything incorrect. Thanks. [/SIZE]


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 1, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> [SIZE=10.5pt](who, for whatever reason is obsessed with circumcision – lol).[/SIZE].


This goes back to the "lack of understanding of sciences" because uncircumcised penises are prone to some serious fungal and bacterial infections if not properly cared for. They didn't know what the problem was, they just knew there was a problem. The "simple fix" was to cut off the foreskin and eliminate the potential. Then, like many other things, became tradition and was passed from generation to generation.


----------



## Baconator (Jun 1, 2015)

Just in, God exists


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 2, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> - it's easier to question someones faith when they are doubting the God, think "so where's your God now"-- hey yeah, where is my God is a response that can come quickly if someone is doubting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


- I think the scholars who traced the lineage of biblical characters back to creation, all pretty much agree that, per the bible, creation took place somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago. And if you take the bible literally, it was clearly in 6 24-hour days.

- You're right. It doesn't specifically use the word flat to describe the earth. But there are several verses that call the earth a circle (not a sphere). And there is a verse that says something about going up high enough on a tall mountain to see all off the land.

- Nope, the earth being stationary and the sun moving around the earth is in the bible. I mentioned the most famous one (Joshua) before where the sun and moon stood still - stopped by God Himself - while the men of Israel kicked the butts of the Amorites. There are a few other locations in the bible that talk about the earth standing still.

- No, there is no place in the bible that I know of that says there aren't more planets than can be seen with the naked eye. It just only mentions those planets that can be seen with the naked eye. I think Venus and Saturn are identified in the OT. I don't think the bible talks about more than three planets.

- No way my friend, exorcisms and demon possession are clearly part of the bible. Specifically the NT. I think there are a few references in the OT where God Himself sends an evil spirit to torment someone but demon possession is primarily found in the NT. It's quite prevalent actually. Even animals can be possessed! Jesus Himself performed exorcisms!



Baconator said:


> Just in, God exists


Justification?


----------



## P-E (Jun 2, 2015)

He is from NJ, so at least we can be certain that hell exists.


----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 2, 2015)

power-engineer said:


> He is from NJ, so at least we can be certain that hell exists.


It all makes sense now:


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 2, 2015)

I would like to throw out one thing that I have always felt is a solid argument, others may not agree. The Bible was written after many years of being passed down by word of mouth. Then, only clergy would be able to write it down. As far as that goes, it stands to reason, as far as I am concerned, that the original writers picked and chose what fit their narrative at the time. Once written and distributed to the masses, they stopped 'updating' it and claimed it as the true word of God. I cannot accept this because there are too many hands in the cookie jar. However, if you look at it from a higher level, I see it as a guide to living a better life through God's teachings.

Just my opinion. I have seen to many strange coincidences in my life to not accept a higher power.

Great debate. Nice to see level headed individuals keeping it civil. Thanks!


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 2, 2015)

power-engineer said:


> He is from NJ, so at least we can be certain that hell exists.


QFT


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 2, 2015)

Ken 3.0 said:


> Great debate. Nice to see level headed individuals keeping it civil. Thanks!




Never would have happened this way before Frozen came around.


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 2, 2015)




----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 2, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> Ken 3.0 said:
> 
> 
> > Great debate. Nice to see level headed individuals keeping it civil. Thanks!
> ...


Thankfully, with 2 teenage boys, I have no idea what you are talking about. [emoji3]


----------



## Road Guy (Jun 2, 2015)

I think one of the coolest things about earth, is that for all the scientist and theologist alike, cant either of them really prove anything....


----------



## goodal (Jun 2, 2015)

I hope to have time to sit down and give all your questions a well thought out response, but for now I will say that yes I have read the Bible and yes there are many things in there I can't explain. Some due to interventions by God and others due to cultural differences. Suffice it to say, I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. How long ago, I cannot say, but I believe it was somewhere between 15,000 to 7,000 years ago. I used the word believe because I cannot prove it, but neither can evolutionist prove their theory is correct. They demonstrate this time and again every time they adjust the age of the earth and universe to fit the theory of the week. I am not telling you what to believe, but I will say that I believe in God and the proof I need that he exists is overwhelming. Just look around you. Do you know the intellect it would take to design your eye? I simply cannot believe that this evolved from a spec of dust. As engineers, we design things every day. I have never seen something come together on its own and work without thought going into it and I believe nature is the same. You are correct that God quit showing himself about the time of the crucifixtion. After that, getting a ticket to Heaven involves faith in something you cant see. It wouldn't take much faith if God went around talking through animals or burning bushes still. Ken, actually there are a few thousand manuscripts that date back nearly to Christs time and they all agree with each other. If you are interested look into the history of the textus receptus. This is the set of "received texts" that were used to create the KJV.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 2, 2015)

goodal said:


> I hope to have time to sit down and give all your questions a well thought out response, but for now I will say that yes I have read the Bible and yes there are many things in there I can't explain. Some due to interventions by God and others due to cultural differences. Suffice it to say, I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. How long ago, I cannot say, but I believe it was somewhere between 15,000 to 7,000 years ago. I used the word believe because I cannot prove it, but neither can evolutionist prove their theory is correct. They demonstrate this time and again every time they adjust the age of the earth and universe to fit the theory of the week. I am not telling you what to believe, but I will say that I believe in God and the proof I need that he exists is overwhelming. Just look around you. Do you know the intellect it would take to design your eye? I simply cannot believe that this evolved from a spec of dust. As engineers, we design things every day. I have never seen something come together on its own and work without thought going into it and I believe nature is the same. You are correct that God quit showing himself about the time of the crucifixtion. After that, getting a ticket to Heaven involves faith in something you cant see. It wouldn't take much faith if God went around talking through animals or burning bushes still. Ken, actually there are a few thousand manuscripts that date back nearly to Christs time and they all agree with each other. If you are interested look into the history of the textus receptus. This is the set of "received texts" that were used to create the KJV.



&lt;Okay, here goes my lunch hour... :S &gt;

goodal,

Thanks for the reply. Well, I'm not sure we can really go anywhere from here I don't think. A bible literalist believes everything in the bible to be true even when presented with evidence to the contrary. So, I might say the bible is man-made, false, flawed, and immoral (and I'll provide examples why I think so). You'll say it is divinely inspired, true, perfect, and good - and that nothing can dispute that because it is the word of God. Nowhere to go from there. But I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. 

A few things. You used the word theory for evolution. Many people don't like to hear it but that evolution happened and is happening is a fact. Yes it's a theory but only in the same sense that gravity is a theory. Facts are what we can observe. Theories attempt to explain why we observe what we do (based on the available factual evidence). Gravity, like evolution, is part theory and part fact. That gravity exists is a fact, the 'why' of it is the theory part. For gravity the theory part, or the 'why' part, is that objects are attracted to other objects proportionally to the mass of their bodies multiplied, and inversely proportional to the distance between them, squared. That evolution happened is a fact. The theory part, or the ‘why’ part, is natural selection. 

A scientific theory is not the same as our everyday use of the word ‘theory’ like you and I might use as friends: “goodal, I have a theory on who is going to win the Super Bowl”. A scientific hypothesis can only become a theory after exhaustive research and scientific peer review. And a theory will remain a theory until proven false (which is a great joy of scientists – proving other scientist’s theories false. These checks keep science honest.). To date, the leading theory on the origin of species is evolution and natural selection. It is accepted as presumed truth. There is no better current scientific explanation/theory. If someone wants to (and is able to), all they have to do is disprove the theory of natural selection. Then, not only will it not be the leading theory anymore, it won’t be a theory at all anymore. To date, no one has been able to disprove the theory of natural selection. 

Yes, you are absolutely correct, science does change its mind. And I think it is a wonderful thing! It’s called progress. The definition of science is that it continuously makes discoveries and makes its educated conclusions based on the best and most current data and evidence available at the present. If that data changes, scientific theories are updated. Just like technology, science is advancing all the time. Science is not embarrassed to change its mind or admit it was wrong. It's my opinion, that people who are indoctrinated have fixed thoughts which do not change even when presented with new evidence that challenges their beliefs. That is the opposite of advancement. As they say, the facts should define your beliefs; your beliefs should not define the facts. Prove to me any of my beliefs are wrong, with factual evidence, and I’ll be the first to change my mind, honestly. 

Yes, the eye argument.  Well, you can say it was designed by a designer if you’d like but the fact is that all animals with eyes evolved over millions of years from animals without eyes. So, the furthest an ‘eye design’ argument will get you is deism, far from theism. Then you have to believe that this ‘first mover’ either knew that eyes would eventually evolve as he/she/it hoped, or he/she/it guided the evolution process. Then you have to wonder why 99.9% of all species to ever exist have gone extinct and didn’t make it. Too much faith for me – lol! 

Anyway, thanks again goodal. I appreciate your view.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 3, 2015)

All interesting arguments to read but they will always end at an impasse. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God through science and I think that equating Atheism directly to intelligence (the article) is misleading.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 6, 2015)

Way to be a buzz-kill. Douche.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 7, 2015)

I forgive you and will pray for you.

Cuz that's how I roll. 

Nunc Coepi


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 7, 2015)

Damn you, it's my job around here to derail threads!


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 8, 2015)

Lumber Jim said:


> All interesting arguments to read but they will always end at an impasse. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God through science and I think that equating Atheism directly to intelligence (the article) is misleading.




10-4. We can let this one die LJ. But FYI, the study did not 'equate Atheism, directly to intelligence'; the study found that, in general, the higher someone's intelligence, the less likely that person is to be religious. It's just a general correlation. You'll still have the brilliant believers and the [email protected]$$ non-believers.



Dexman PE PMP said:


> Way to be a buzz-kill. Douche.




Dex, there is no need for name-calling. I enjoy debates like this too but not at the risk of insulting anyone's feelings and it seemed a few people were getting offended by the topic so maybe it's better to let this thread die. :nod:


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 9, 2015)

ptatohed, we don't have to let it die and you are correct; I should have used the word "correlation".

As far as Dex goes. I took his comment as a oking:

so I responded back with a oking: just to see if it would piss him off.  I'm hoping that's how he took my response. All in good fun. (kinda of like when the Jehovah's Witness show up at my house and I ask them to pray the rosary with me...  )

I am thick skinned and hard headed and I believe in God because I have reason to. (although I question myself often even after I remind myself of those reasons) Some haven't found their reason to have that belief yet and some never will. I'm not going to say that I think the latter is O.K. because the nature of having a belief is wanting to share that belief so that others may find joy in it also. However, I'm not going to convince anyone by my words. He/she has to come up with their own convictions. I will say that the intelligent people on this board are a pretty good resource for "critical thinking" though.


----------



## Road Guy (Jun 9, 2015)

I just wonder if Jesus could hit a curve ball?


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 9, 2015)

&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds3v8O_MrM0


----------



## knight1fox3 (Jun 9, 2015)

^^^LOL!!!!

"Give me VAUGHN!"


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 9, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> I just wonder if Jesus could hit a curve ball?


apparently the one in Houston can every once in a while...


----------



## mudpuppy (Jun 10, 2015)

Lumber Jim said:


> All interesting arguments to read but they will always end at an impasse. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God through science




Thus why I'm agnostic. Does God exist? Maybe, maybe not; I have no way of knowing and thus it's irrelevant until provable evidence surfaces. That's my personal choice and everyone else is free to believe what they want, but I do think it's ridiculous to commit violence or wage wars over something that you can't even prove exists.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 10, 2015)

mudpuppy said:


> Thus why I'm agnostic. Does God exist? Maybe, maybe not; I have no way of knowing and thus it's irrelevant until provable evidence surfaces. That's my personal choice and everyone else is free to believe what they want, but I do think it's ridiculous to commit violence or wage wars over something that you can't even prove exists.




This. I have never self-identified as atheist.


----------



## Road Guy (Jun 10, 2015)

&amp; always remember its the C students that run the world...


----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 10, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> &amp; always remember its the C students that run the world...


"C" as in Catholic?


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 10, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> &amp; always remember its the C students that run the world...


2.0 and go!


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 10, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > Thus why I'm agnostic. Does God exist? Maybe, maybe not; I have no way of knowing and thus it's irrelevant until provable evidence surfaces. That's my personal choice and everyone else is free to believe what they want, but I do think it's ridiculous to commit violence or wage wars over something that you can't even prove exists.
> ...






[SIZE=10.5pt]To me, agnostic is not an accurate position of belief. Agnostic means ‘no knowledge’, meaning if you are agnostic about something, you believe that it is unknowable. If you are agnostic about the existence of a supernatural higher power (ex. God), then you are saying that the existence, or non-existence of such a god is not knowable. Well, it isn’t knowable. No one can prove the existence or non-existence of god. So, in my opinion everyone – theist and non-theist alike, if they are being honest, should admit they are agnostic about God. Thus, everyone is agnostic. You are, then, either an agnostic theist (you believe on faith, not knowledge), or an agnostic non-theist/atheist (you don’t believe there is a god). Calling yourself an atheist doesn’t mean you are claiming that you know for certain there is no god, you are just saying that you don’t believe there is a god. Any rational atheist would change his/her mind in a second if presented proof that there is a god. So, in my opinion, there are only two options: agnostic believer, agnostic non-believer. But we are all agnostic (about god). What’s my point? Grow a pair and call yourself an atheist!  [/SIZE]


----------



## mudpuppy (Jun 10, 2015)

^Oh I completely disagree with you. Some (many?) atheists would be just as rabid about claiming a god doesn't exist even presented evidence that it did as many theists are in claiming god does exist given no proof. Whereas as an agnostic I really just don't care.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 10, 2015)

mudpuppy said:


> ^Oh I completely disagree with you. Some (many?) atheists would be just as rabid about claiming a god doesn't exist even presented evidence that it did as many theists are in claiming god does exist given no proof. Whereas as an agnostic I really just don't care.




Well then, I disagree that you disagree!   I don't think there is any reason to believe a rational non-believer wouldn't change his/her mind if presented factual evidence of a god's existence. Regardless, it doesn't change anything I said about the definition of agnostic and that, in my view, there are only believers and non-believers. 'Really just don't care' is not the definition of agnostic.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jun 10, 2015)

Being an atheist doesn't imply being rational. I'm sure there are lots of atheists who are not rational.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 10, 2015)

mudpuppy said:


> Being an atheist doesn't imply being rational. I'm sure there are lots of atheists who are not rational.




I'm sure of that too. I never said otherwise.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 10, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > ^Oh I completely disagree with you. Some (many?) atheists would be just as rabid about claiming a god doesn't exist even presented evidence that it did as many theists are in claiming god does exist given no proof. Whereas as an agnostic I really just don't care.
> ...




I guess using the strictest definition, you are correct. But atheism has become a near religion. Theists will argue the existence of their god of choice based on belief-based "proof" or historical documents. Atheists try to argue that no god can exist based on scientific theory and disproof of previous religious beliefs. While neither side cannot conclusively prove their claims, they will try their damnedest and argue over it incessantly.

Agnostics don't believe in a god, don't believe the existence of a god is out of the realm of possibility, and don't give a shit what you think about it.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 10, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > mudpuppy said:
> ...






Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of one. It's not the belief or denial of deities, it is the lack of belief in deities. The example that American Atheists use is: If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. lol





_"Agnostics don't believe in a god, don't believe the existence of a god is out of the realm of possibility," _= the definition of atheist.  



_"and don't give a shit what you think about it"_ = not the definition of agnostic or atheist. But I still like it.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 10, 2015)

Some atheist have invented straw man deities to make fun of religious folks (see: Pastafarians). Large atheist groups (like American Atheists) try to evangelize the lack of god. Some atheists use the same tactics as religious people to get religious displays taken down from schools/government buildings. I know that atheism isn't a religion, I was just saying that people who self-identify as atheists ACT like they are a member of a religion whose deity is science.



ptatohed said:


> _"Agnostics don't believe in a god, don't believe the existence of a god is out of the realm of possibility," _= the definition of atheist.



I disagree that "don't believe the existence of a god is out of the realm of possibility" is included in the definition of atheist. You asserting this repeatedly doesn't make it true. If the existence of a god was proven, then the "rational atheist" would just become religious. The agnostic would just point to the atheist and say "told you it was possible."


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 10, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Some atheist have invented straw man deities to make fun of religious folks (see: Pastafarians). Large atheist groups (like American Atheists) try to evangelize the lack of god. Some atheists use the same tactics as religious people to get religious displays taken down from schools/government buildings. I know that atheism isn't a religion, I was just saying that people who self-identify as atheists ACT like they are a member of a religion whose deity is science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And you not believing me does not make it untrue. Here is the definition, as defined by American Athiests: _Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods._


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 11, 2015)

What will be Stephen Hawking's expression when God explains to him why he was able to live for 52 years after being diagnosed with ALS?


----------



## mudpuppy (Jun 11, 2015)

Perhaps, "Gee thanks for 52 years of torture being trapped in this body, including several years of abuse by my ex-wife?"


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 11, 2015)

But Doesn't Hawking usually look at the Big picture?


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 11, 2015)




----------



## mudpuppy (Jun 11, 2015)

Maybe he'd say, "So THIS is what the inside of a black hole looks like!"


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 11, 2015)

Lumber Jim said:


> What will be Stephen Hawking's expression when God explains to him why he was able to live for 52 years after being diagnosed with ALS?








[SIZE=10.5pt]He'd start by asking: Which god are you? Is there only one of you, or are there more gods or goddesses? Why did you not present yourself to us on earth? Why did belief in you take so much faith with no evidence? Why are there hundreds and hundreds of different religious beliefs on earth, each making incompatible claims? Are any of them correct? Which one? Why does religious belief vary so much with geographic location and time? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]That's of course, if Stephen even made it as far as god. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]If the theoretical god you are referring to is Allah, and Stephen did not make the proper propitiations per the Quran, then Stephen would be in hell with his skin on fire, burning off, and then getting new skin so it can start all over. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]If the theoretical god you are referring to is the god of the Judaic-Christian faith, and Stephen did not make the proper atonements per the scriptures, then Stephen would be in a fiery lake of eternal burning sulfur with weeping and gnashing of teeth. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Or, if this theoretical god is the god of the Jewish faith, then cool, at worst Stephen would only be in Sheol (a resting place for the dead within the earth, not a place of punishment) because the lovely comforting concept of Hell was not introduced until gentle Jesus came in the New Testament.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Or, maybe per Hindu beliefs, he’d simply be reincarnated as an animal or a human of a lower or higher caste. [/SIZE]


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 11, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 11, 2015)

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a5515bdbad/stepehen-hawking-vs-speak-n-spell-from-aaron-merke


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 11, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> Lumber Jim said:
> 
> 
> > What will be Stephen Hawking's expression when God explains to him why he was able to live for 52 years after being diagnosed with ALS?
> ...


I'm offended you didn't include His Noodly Eminence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 11, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> Lumber Jim said:
> 
> 
> > What will be Stephen Hawking's expression when God explains to him why he was able to live for 52 years after being diagnosed with ALS?
> ...


Actually, most Christians believe that God forgives everything, especially ignorance (since its not a sin, lol). The lack of belief doesn't condemn one to hell. The fire and brimstone threats sort of went wayside a while ago.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 11, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> Actually, most Christians believe that God forgives everything, especially ignorance (since its not a sin, lol). The lack of belief doesn't condemn one to hell. The fire and brimstone threats sort of went wayside a while ago.




I think stuff like this hurts religion more than "provable" stuff (like Egyptians thinking that Ra drug the sun into the sky every morning). The Bible is quite explicit in condemning sodomy and homosexual relationships. But then the Pope comes out of left field and says "there's more important shit to think about" [paraphrasing...obviously]. Then, all of a sudden, Christianity (or at least Catholics) thinks it's OK to be gay. I honestly don't care one way or another, but religious folk tend to be a little two-faced on the subject.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 11, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> engineergurl said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, most Christians believe that God forgives everything, especially ignorance (since its not a sin, lol). The lack of belief doesn't condemn one to hell. The fire and brimstone threats sort of went wayside a while ago.
> ...


I think that returns to the difference between spirituality and organized religion. Our generation is much more likely to question the rules. I admit that over the last 6 or 7 years, as I have matured, I have become more accepting of things that I previously questioned. I think it shows that interpretations evolve, the written word is only as strong as the majority that believes in it, and that humans we aren't perfect but have to figure out on our own what God's point was.

We weren't put here on earth to judge. Unfortunately, I think many religious people forget that, I know I sometimes do. I personally feel like if I acknowledge my own faults, it gives me the opportunity to correct and improve and in doing that I am rewarded in this life. It gives me warm fuzzy feelings to know I have improved as a person. I also have faith that the better person I am, the better what is to come will be.

Again, please remember that I identify with several different practices, so I may not be the best person to post here. Much of what Dex has said, I don't always disagree. I also think if I haven't had my own experiences, I would probably agree with mp.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 11, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > [SIZE=10.5pt]He'd start by asking: Which god are you? Is there only one of you, or are there more gods or goddesses? Why did you not present yourself to us on earth? Why did belief in you take so much faith with no evidence? Why are there hundreds and hundreds of different religious beliefs on earth, each making incompatible claims? Are any of them correct? Which one? Why does religious belief vary so much with geographic location and time? [/SIZE]
> ...










engineergurl said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > He'd start by asking: Which god are you? Is there only one of you, or are there more gods or goddesses? Why did you not present yourself to us on earth? Why did belief in you take so much faith with no evidence? Why are there hundreds and hundreds of different religious beliefs on earth, each making incompatible claims? Are any of them correct? Which one? Why does religious belief vary so much with geographic location and time?
> ...


With all due respect eg, I completely disagree with you on this. I know enough Christians, I listen to enough Christian radio (an Atheist listing to Christian radio, sounds weird, I know), I visit enough Christian websites, and I have read enough of the New Testament to know, the basis for the Christian theology is that believing in and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is the only way into heaven. It seems explicitly clear to me from the NT. This is actually the first time I have ever heard anyone say anything but. Why do you think belief in Jesus is not a requirement for entry into Heaven (per Christianity)? I know goodal will disagree with you. 



wilheldp_PE said:


> I think stuff like this hurts religion more than "provable" stuff (like Egyptians thinking that Ra drug the sun into the sky every morning). The Bible is quite explicit in condemning sodomy and homosexual relationships. But then the Pope comes out of left field and says "there's more important shit to think about" [paraphrasing...obviously]. Then, all of a sudden, Christianity (or at least Catholics) thinks it's OK to be gay. I honestly don't care one way or another, but religious folk tend to be a little two-faced on the subject.


If I may play Devil's advocate, and please correct me if I am wrong, I think the NT is nearly silent on the topic of homosexuality, right? And since the NT is supposed to supersede the OT's laws/rules/prohibitions (such as not needing to stone your kids for misbehaving anymore, you can now eat shellfish, circumcision is no longer required, etc.), perhaps it could be argued that the NT also lifted the prohibition of homosexuality? Just asking.



engineergurl said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > I think stuff like this hurts religion more than "provable" stuff (like Egyptians thinking that Ra drug the sun into the sky every morning). The Bible is quite explicit in condemning sodomy and homosexual relationships. But then the Pope comes out of left field and says "there's more important shit to think about" [paraphrasing...obviously]. Then, all of a sudden, Christianity (or at least Catholics) thinks it's OK to be gay. I honestly don't care one way or another, but religious folk tend to be a little two-faced on the subject.
> ...


But not ptatohed?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 11, 2015)

Theists (with few exceptions) are hurt by organized religion in general. This is especially true for Judeo-Christians. Christians, Jews, Protestants and Muslims all believe in the same God. The only difference is which holy texts they choose to believe in and which prophets they choose to follow. For the most part, they each believe that the texts/prophets they have chosen are correct and anybody who chooses different texts/prophets are wrong and going to some sort of hell. This is particularly problematic because most of the texts were written during the same time period by people professing to be inspired by divine intervention. You literally can't believe all of the texts because they are contradictory. If they were all written with divine intervention, how do you reconcile the differences? This is why fundamentalists infuriate me. You cannot state facts...you can only state what you believe to be the facts. But "facts" by their very definition do not require belief...they just are. Similarly, atheists infuriate me because they try to state as fact that there is no god (lowercase). This also cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be fact.

I also don't buy into religion as a substitute for morals. Sure, there are some good parables in the bible that can instill morals in people. There are far more secular parables that can do the same thing. And good parenting, mentoring, and education can do far more to instill morals than dragging kids to church to hear about fire and brimstone if they don't brush their teeth at night. Plus, in moral capacity, I think Judeo-Christian relations fall far behind other religions such as Buddhism. I don't think there is a war in history fought over Buddhism. How many Christian faiths can claim that?


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 11, 2015)

Ptatohed, how can you completely disagree with EG? With your knowledge of the NT you must have come across "father forgive them for they know not what they do"


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 12, 2015)

Lumber Jim said:


> Ptatohed, how can you completely disagree with EG? With your knowledge of the NT you must have come across "father forgive them for they know not what they do"


Well, I guess I said I 'completely' disagree, because she said 'most'. Maybe I am wrong - I don't know the exact statistics - but at least in my contact with Christians, the vast majority subscribe to what Jesus says in John 14:6 " Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me'. " That is the whole core of Christianity, right? It seems to me that if anyone can be saved without Jesus, what was the point for the whole exercise of God coming down for our sins, living as a man, dying, rising, blah blah?


----------



## P-E (Jun 12, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> Lumber Jim said:
> 
> 
> > Ptatohed, how can you completely disagree with EG? With your knowledge of the NT you must have come across "father forgive them for they know not what they do"
> ...


You should check out Luke 8:17.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 12, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> You literally can't believe all of the texts because they are contradictory. If they were all written with divine intervention, how do you reconcile the differences?




The Torah, Old testament of the Bible and Quran actually don't contradict as much as most think. I could say that the differences reconcile themselves in that they are simlar enough that perhaps the divine intervention was the same for all but heard differently by man.



> I don't think there is a war in history fought over Buddhism.




In recent years there have been several riots supposedly instigated by monks in protest of other religions. In history, active supporters of plenty of wars (not necessarily "over religion" though some were.)


----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 12, 2015)

I think the only reason there haven't been any wars over Buddhism (unless you count territorial battles over temples and shrines) is that it's more of a disorganized religion than an organized one. There's no unifying scriptures or practices within the same school, nor even a consensus on whether gods exist and matter. Plenty of Buddhists believe the same philosophy as other organized religions that if you don't believe in their canon, you're going to their version of hell.

That's man-made religion for you. Spirituality and faith are an entirely separate matter, IMO.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 12, 2015)




----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 12, 2015)




----------



## Supe (Jun 12, 2015)

You've got some balls, Dex...

...coming in here and bashing unicorns like that.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Jun 12, 2015)




----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 12, 2015)

Bastards can't even wipe a minotaur's ass without stabbing them. Even if their farts power the new generation of cars, bastards can go to hell.


----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 12, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> Bastards can't even wipe a minotaur's ass without stabbing them. Even if their farts power the new generation of cars, bastards can go to hell.




This applies to both unicorns and Chuck Norrises. Well played, Dex.


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 12, 2015)

is there bacon in hell, or is it that turkey bacon bullshit


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 12, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Theists (with few exceptions) are hurt by organized religion in general. This is especially true for Judeo-Christians. Christians, Jews, Protestants and Muslims all believe in the same God. The only difference is which holy texts they choose to believe in and which prophets they choose to follow. For the most part, they each believe that the texts/prophets they have chosen are correct and anybody who chooses different texts/prophets are wrong and going to some sort of hell. This is particularly problematic because most of the texts were written during the same time period by people professing to be inspired by divine intervention. You literally can't believe all of the texts because they are contradictory. If they were all written with divine intervention, how do you reconcile the differences? This is why fundamentalists infuriate me. You cannot state facts...you can only state what you believe to be the facts. But "facts" by their very definition do not require belief...they just are. Similarly, atheists infuriate me because they try to state as fact that there is no god (lowercase). This also cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be fact.
> 
> I also don't buy into religion as a substitute for morals. Sure, there are some good parables in the bible that can instill morals in people. There are far more secular parables that can do the same thing. And good parenting, mentoring, and education can do far more to instill morals than dragging kids to church to hear about fire and brimstone if they don't brush their teeth at night. Plus, in moral capacity, I think Judeo-Christian relations fall far behind other religions such as Buddhism. I don't think there is a war in history fought over Buddhism. How many Christian faiths can claim that?




I agree with a lot of what you said wPE but I would argue a few things too. I'm not so sure that the Abrahamic religions all worship the same god. While the Christian/Catholic/Protestant God may be the same God, I don't see how anyone can say that is the same God of Judaism or Islam. Per the Christian, the God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament but to the Jew, the God of the NT is not the same God of the OT. To the Muslim, the God of the OT and/or NT is not the God of the Quran. Why do you think they are the same gods? 



Also, your definition of Atheism is not correct. I already posted the definition in post #76. Atheism makes no claim of fact. It is simply a personal lack of belief in gods.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 12, 2015)

NJmike PE said:


> is there bacon in hell, or is it that turkey bacon bullshit


Only satan would serve faux bacon. The real deal is served daily in heaven!


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 12, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> I agree with a lot of what you said wPE but I would argue a few things too. I'm not so sure that the Abrahamic religions all worship the same god. While the Christian/Catholic/Protestant God may be the same God, I don't see how anyone can say that is the same God of Judaism or Islam. Per the Christian, the God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament but to the Jew, the God of the NT is not the same God of the OT. To the Muslim, the God of the OT and/or NT is not the God of the Quran. Why do you think they are the same gods?




Why do you think they must be different? Christianity started as not it's own religion, but a sect of Judaism, so it's perfectly sensible to think that the two worship the same God just as you would think that Catholic/Protestant do. As far as Islamic faith's, I admit that I have explored their faith much less, however I understand that the simlarities between the books associated with each faith is why many have concluded this. I only know blended families of Jewish/Christian faiths and have observed their teaching as it is one God in both religions.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 12, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with a lot of what you said wPE but I would argue a few things too. I'm not so sure that the Abrahamic religions all worship the same god. While the Christian/Catholic/Protestant God may be the same God, I don't see how anyone can say that is the same God of Judaism or Islam. Per the Christian, the God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament but to the Jew, the God of the NT is not the same God of the OT. To the Muslim, the God of the OT and/or NT is not the God of the Quran. Why do you think they are the same gods?
> ...




Because each religion uses different holy books that each make incompatible claims about their gods. As I said previously, Christians believe the God of the OT is the same God of the NT. But Jews do not believe the God of the NT is the God of the OT. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah p[SIZE=10.5pt]rophesied in the OT. Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet. Jesus is God to Christians, but not to Jews. Thus, they do not believe in the same god. Likewise, Muslims reject the Christian God too - they believe in only one God - God the Father, not God the son or God the holy spirit. So, then is the God of the Quran the same as the God of the OT? Perhaps but not in my opinion. The descriptions of Allah and Allah's Paradise in the Quran, and of God (Yahweh) and Heaven (or lack thereof) in the OT are not consistent. Although the Quran does state that Muslims, Jews, and Christians do worship the same god! (but only Muslims will be admitted into Paradise). [/SIZE]


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 12, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> engineergurl said:
> 
> 
> > ptatohed said:
> ...




We're going to disagree on this one because I'm not sure you understand the Holy Trinity (which most people, even those who believe in it don't). I would be interested in knowing who you talked to from each religion that has explained it to you as such or why you aligned your thinking like that.

In reality what it comes down to is that there was one God, and all that believed in him waited for their saviour. Those who believe in Christ, found that saviour, but a new God did not develop between the OT and NT. So if the NT God is the same as the OT God, it's all the same God...

I do know that Jesus is a link between Muslims and Christians and I think that while they don't accept him as "the Son of God", the story of his life is freakishly simlar, He is expected to return to them for the end of the world (or judgement day or whatever).


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 12, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > engineergurl said:
> ...


 I don't really know how to respond to this. I thought I gave a clear explanation, I guess not. We will just have to disagree like you said. I don't understand how you can think Allah, the god of the Quran, is the same as Jesus, the god of the NT. Or how for a Jew the god of his Tora is the same god as the NT when he (and Muslims) rejects the god of the NT.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 12, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> Also, your definition of Atheism is not correct. I already posted the definition in post #76. Atheism makes no claim of fact. It is simply a personal lack of belief in gods.




There's a reason I didn't respond to you the first time. But since you seem to want to press the issue...I don't find "American Atheists" a credible source on the definition of atheism. They have an agenda just like the Catholic church, so they are going to define their group in the most favorable terms possible. I find you to be the worst kind of atheist, and have no desire to debate the topic with you. If you want to claim that as a moral internet victory over me, be my guest.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 12, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > Also, your definition of Atheism is not correct. I already posted the definition in post #76. Atheism makes no claim of fact. It is simply a personal lack of belief in gods.
> ...






Well, then I'll leave it up to you to provide a reputable source for the definition of atheism that includes "knowing" there are no gods. I don't appreciate the personal attack, I do not know what I did to offend you so much. I thought we were having a friendly debate. I am sorry I offended you.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 12, 2015)

I'm not offended, I just have no desire to debate things with people who I feel are not open to changing opinions. I would never try to debate with Goodal because I feel that our opinions differ too much to come to any kind of reasonable compromise. You are exactly the same, just on the opposite end of the debate.

You can take what I said as a personal attack, although it was just my opinion. I just found your assertions to be way overbearing. Religion, or lack thereof, is a highly charged topic, and I feel that you come on far too strong in the atheist camp. Goodal's opinions are way in the fundamentalist Christian camp, which I very much disagree with, but he stated his beliefs and left it at that. I can certainly respect someone like that even though I don't agree with him. I find what you are trying to do as a similar situation to somebody like Goodal quoting the Creation Museum website as a legitimate reference for Christianity.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 13, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I'm not offended, I just have no desire to debate things with people who I feel are not open to changing opinions. I would never try to debate with Goodal because I feel that our opinions differ too much to come to any kind of reasonable compromise. You are exactly the same, just on the opposite end of the debate.
> 
> You can take what I said as a personal attack, although it was just my opinion. I just found your assertions to be way overbearing. Religion, or lack thereof, is a highly charged topic, and I feel that you come on far too strong in the atheist camp. Goodal's opinions are way in the fundamentalist Christian camp, which I very much disagree with, but he stated his beliefs and left it at that. I can certainly respect someone like that even though I don't agree with him. I find what you are trying to do as a similar situation to somebody like Goodal quoting the Creation Museum website as a legitimate reference for Christianity.


I'm not sure that anyone has changed their opinions, including you. Not sure why you are singling me out. My intention was not to be overbearing, I'm sorry if I was. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 13, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> I'm not sure that anyone has changed their opinions, including you.


Correct you are. I still stand by my first post in this thread...



wilheldp_PE said:


> Zealots are annoying, no matter what they are peddling.


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 13, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure that anyone has changed their opinions, including you.
> ...


So am I a zealot? Lol


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 13, 2015)

Nope. The only reason I singled out ptatohead is that he came in here telling people, namely me, that I was wrong about something related to religion or the lack thereof. Basically, he told me that agnosticism doesn't exist, and that I'm just an atheist in disguise. Like I said, I don't take offense to such things, but shit like that labels you a zealot in my book. Everybody else in this thread has seemed to be able to state their opinion, make their points, and respect other views, but I found ptato's posts to be disrespectful. I know he doesn't see it that way, and c'est la vie. I've stated my opinion on the subject and would be happy to continue any religious debates as they arise.


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 13, 2015)




----------



## ptatohed (Jun 14, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Nope. The only reason I singled out ptatohead is that he came in here telling people, namely me, that I was wrong about something related to religion or the lack thereof. Basically, he told me that agnosticism doesn't exist, and that I'm just an atheist in disguise. Like I said, I don't take offense to such things, but shit like that labels you a zealot in my book. Everybody else in this thread has seemed to be able to state their opinion, make their points, and respect other views, but I found ptato's posts to be disrespectful. I know he doesn't see it that way, and c'est la vie. I've stated my opinion on the subject and would be happy to continue any religious debates as they arise.



It's interesting to me why this is bothering you so much. I really don't see why. I think you are taking this way to seriously dude. And, you're incorrect in your claims too:

_"he came in here telling people"._ Umm, no. My post #68 (which I think is the one that is bothering you so much) says "To me..." and "... in my opinion...". That's not 'telling' sir. And, if you were offended by the "Grow a pair...", I was joking, thus the " " My post #70 says "I don't think..." and "...in my view...". I never "told" anyone.

_"namely me"._ A little egocentric? ;p Don't forget mudpuppy too. Although he did not get as offended as you. 

_"Basically, he told me that agnosticism doesn't exist". _ Wow. I didn't say that at all. I won't bother re-quoting myself, you can go back and look for yourself.

_"and that I'm just an atheist in disguise". _You can interpret it as you'd like. But all I did was post my opinion (like everyone else here, but apparently it's only my opinion that seems to bother you) that I think there are either believers and non-believers. This is my opinion. In my opinion, someone can't be a "sort-of" believer. Just like the old saying, you can't be sort of pregnant. You can call yourself anything you want, I really don't care. You took what I said way too seriously dude. Relax. 

_"I found ptato's posts to be disrespectful". _If you could please clearly identify which posts were disrespectful, I'd appreciate it. I never meant to be.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 14, 2015)

Or I could do something useful with my time...like trying to convince you to convert to pentecostalism.


----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 14, 2015)

NJmike PE said:


>




Nihilists! F*ck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Jun 14, 2015)

YMZ, they were threatening castration?!


----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 14, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. The only reason I singled out ptatohead is that he came in here telling people, namely me, that I was wrong about something related to religion or the lack thereof. Basically, he told me that agnosticism doesn't exist, and that I'm just an atheist in disguise. Like I said, I don't take offense to such things, but shit like that labels you a zealot in my book. Everybody else in this thread has seemed to be able to state their opinion, make their points, and respect other views, but I found ptato's posts to be disrespectful. I know he doesn't see it that way, and c'est la vie. I've stated my opinion on the subject and would be happy to continue any religious debates as they arise.
> ...


It's all well and good to state your opinion to continue a discussion, but it's generally not well received when you give your opinion repeatedly in response to statements made where your opinion wasn't asked for (see Post #68, #103) and especially after you were told flat-out that your opinion wasn't welcome (Post #74). People also generally don't like it when you pick apart their statements trying to find fault rather than addressing their argument as a whole, because it comes off as trying to prove them wrong rather than listening to them. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, just that you shouldn't be surprised by wilheldp's reaction. In my opinion.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 14, 2015)

I appreciate the support, YMZ, but the reason I am no longer engaging is that I have encountered his type in the past and know that its not worth the time.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jun 14, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I appreciate the support, YMZ, but the reason I am no longer engaging is that I have encountered his type in the past and know that its not worth the time.




You hung in a lot longer than me; I gave up when he said I had no balls because I'm agnostic. There's no point in discussing something with someone who doesn't bother to respect your beliefs.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 14, 2015)

That's the thing. I don't care if you are a fundamentalist Christian or a devoted Satanist. As long as you don't try to tell me what to believe, I have no problem with you. I'd love to talk to goodal about what makes him tick, but I have no desire to discuss this with ptato.


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 15, 2015)

knight1fox3 said:


> YMZ, they were threatening castration?!


Matthew 19:12. "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."



mudpuppy said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate the support, YMZ, but the reason I am no longer engaging is that I have encountered his type in the past and know that its not worth the time.
> ...


I already said I was joking about that. And I already apologized for offending anyone.



wilheldp_PE said:


> That's the thing. I don't care if you are a fundamentalist Christian or a devoted Satanist. As long as you don't try to tell me what to believe, I have no problem with you. I'd love to talk to goodal about what makes him tick, but I have no desire to discuss this with ptato.


You keep repeating yourself so I'll do the same: I never tried to tell you (or anyone) what to believe. I really don't understand why what I said upset you so much and continues to upset you. Hopefully we can get past this.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 15, 2015)

Can't we all just get along?!?


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> knight1fox3 said:
> 
> 
> > YMZ, they were threatening castration?!
> ...


----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## engineergurl (Jun 15, 2015)

epic fail on all your parts, I have not seen a single meme referencing beer, bacon, hookers or blow


----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> epic fail on all your parts, I have not seen a single meme referencing beer, bacon, hookers or blow


We're just getting started.

Damn, be patient.

(hey Mike, let's post something about bacon, hookers, and blow, and beer.)


----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 15, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> epic fail on all your parts, I have not seen a single meme referencing beer, bacon, hookers or blow








Feel better?


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## engineergurl (Jun 15, 2015)

Ken 3.0 said:


> engineergurl said:
> 
> 
> > epic fail on all your parts, I have not seen a single meme referencing beer, bacon, hookers or blow
> ...



yes, and thank you for sharing the good word


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 15, 2015)

I don't want a large Farva, I want a goddamn liter o' cola!


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## knight1fox3 (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## YMZ PE (Jun 15, 2015)

How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?


----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 15, 2015)

Hey man, are you going to find these guys, or, you know, I mean, do you guys have any promising leads?


----------



## ptatohed (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## ptatohed (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## knight1fox3 (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 15, 2015)




----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 15, 2015)

matt267 said:


>


Said Matt never.


----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## knight1fox3 (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## knight1fox3 (Jun 16, 2015)

_"I'd say, it's a sign from god. But don't quote me on that."_


----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jun 17, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Jul 12, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Jul 12, 2015)




----------



## NJmike PE (Oct 19, 2015)




----------

