Thou Shalt Not Test The Lord

[Sandra Craft]

First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.

Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?

I'm guessing this means Satan is behind the tabacco industry.

[Asmodean]

I'm guessing this means Satan is behind the tabacco industry.

Food production. That too. Food contains cancerogens, you know...  ???

[arian (Banned)]

Even atheism can be worshipped religiously, and so can excercise.

Why would some fool worship atheism? It's not unlike saying "I'm gonna worship not owning a cow"  ???

Exercise..? Nah. Smokes. Smokes are good. Not worthy of worship, mind you, but good.

Why worship a-theism?
Because it is a form of 'theism', its very nature is religious.

Smokes not worshipped?
Tell that to my older brother who wouldn't let his hand holding the cigarette wonder more than two inches from his lips. He has a new stick in his other hand way bofore the one he's smoking even went out. He was always a healthy chap, a roofer by trade, so when we asked him to stop smoking (once they had kids) he would say the same thing; "Smoking is good for you. See how healthy I am? Let's see you take two bundles of shingles at once up the ladder on a two story house?"
He now has six kids, all smokers and he regrets it.
Don't you think the way my brother smokes is worship?

[arian (Banned)]

First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.

Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?

Pollution, chemo-therapy etc...

It's that 'last dose, that last treatment' that kills them. What do you think 'Cancer Hospitals' were built for? Cancer-Hospitals, ... the name says it all.
Hospice is where they watch them that were chosen for extermination, die, and act like they are making their last days more comfortable, ... LOL

[Asmodean]

Because it is a form of 'theism', its very nature is religious.

It is no more a form of theism than darkness is a form of light or being flat ass broke is a form of having money. It is not - it's the lack thereof.

Smokes not worshipped?
Tell that to my older brother who wouldn't let his hand holding the cigarette wonder more than two inches from his lips. He has a new stick in his other hand way bofore the one he's smoking even went out. He was always a healthy chap, a roofer by trade, so when we asked him to stop smoking (once they had kids) he would say the same thing; "Smoking is good for you. See how healthy I am? Let's see you take two bundles of shingles at once up the ladder on a two story house?"

I wasn't talking about any one else's opinion of smokes - only my own. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what your brother thinks about smoking - I don't have any relations with him.

That said, how is any of what you've just said worship?

He now has six kids, all smokers and he regrets it.

Well, boo-hoo. Rather than regret, he should be doing the best he can with what he has. If he thinks smoking was a bad idea and doesn't want his kids to smoke, maybe he should quit and lead by example? If that doesn't work, well, then he can start again but sleep more soundly at night, knowing that he did try.

oO(Although were I him, I might have spent an evening or two regretting not using condoms often enough)

Don't you think the way my brother smokes is worship?

No. Chain-smoking and refusing to quit does not in any way amount to worship.

[arian (Banned)]

"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."

As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC² is not given such superfluous dressing.

E-Energy that my Jewish brother said = to M-mass times the C-speed of light, ... and then he squared the speed of light. You know why he squared it?

In his time it was accepted that nothing in the universe was faster than light, right? So ask yourself, why square something that is already at the max in the universe/existance that you are trying to define?

Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.

Thanks again.

[Asmodean]

E-Energy that my Jewish brother said = to M-mass times the C-speed of light, ... and then he squared the speed of light. You know why he squared it?

Yes, actually I understand why E=mc^2 pretty well.

What you seem to ignore, however, that this equation is not in units of speed, but of energy. Joules, rather than meters per second. It does make sense where E=mc would not.

In his time it was accepted that nothing in the universe was faster than light, right?

Still is.

So ask yourself, why square something that is already at the max in the universe/existance that you are trying to define?

Why is the Pythagoras' sentence as follows: c=sqrt(a^2+b^2)

Where is the sense in squareing something you are going to sqrt?

If you explain that one to me, I might indulge you. If you can not, I suggest learning maths and physics.

Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.

I don't see what you are trying to say.

[Guardian85]

Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.

If you have data backing this up, send it to the Nobel Institute. There is definetly a prize in physics waiting for you.
If not, go back to high school and stop embarassing yourself.

[arian (Banned)]

Because it is a form of 'theism', its very nature is religious.

It is no more a form of theism than darkness is a form of light or being flat ass broke is a form of having money. It is not - it's the lack thereof.

Why would you need 'light' if there was NO darkness?
Why would you be 'broke' if there was no money?
Why would you be an 'atheist' if there wern't any of them theistic gods?

Smokes not worshipped?
Tell that to my older brother who wouldn't let his hand holding the cigarette wonder more than two inches from his lips. He has a new stick in his other hand way bofore the one he's smoking even went out. He was always a healthy chap, a roofer by trade, so when we asked him to stop smoking (once they had kids) he would say the same thing; "Smoking is good for you. See how healthy I am? Let's see you take two bundles of shingles at once up the ladder on a two story house?"

I wasn't talking about any one else's opinion of smokes - only my own. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what your brother thinks about smoking - I don't have any relations with him.

OK, I'll try to be more careful and read between the lines before returning my opinion to you.

That said, how is any of what you've just said worship?

Worship;
2.  vt love somebody deeply: to love, admire, or respect somebody or something greatly and perhaps excessively or unquestioningly 
Microsoft® Encarta®

He believed smoking was 'good', and the way I observed him smoking.

He now has six kids, all smokers and he regrets it.

Well, boo-hoo. Rather than regret, he should be doing the best he can with what he has. If he thinks smoking was a bad idea and doesn't want his kids to smoke, maybe he should quit and lead by example? If that doesn't work, well, then he can start again but sleep more soundly at night, knowing that he did try.

I thank you for your opinion, even though you don't know him, or think a rats-ass to what he thinks. It is very kind of you.

oO(Although were I him, I might have spent an evening or two regretting not using condoms often enough)

I'm sure he did that too, and continues to do so. He has his problems with the kids/grand kids cut out for him.

Don't you think the way my brother smokes is worship?

No. Chain-smoking and refusing to quit does not in any way amount to worship.

Thanks, I respect your opinion, even though I do not agree.

[Stevil]

since light has no speed, it is instant.

You seem to know more than Einstien, than all of the scientists of our time or since Einstien's time.

I always thought it took light about 10 minutes to travel from the sun to earth, about 100,000 years to travel across the diameter of our galaxy.

But now you say it is instantaneous. Wow!

[Sandra Craft]

Why would you be an 'atheist' if there wern't any of them theistic gods?

Theists always get tripped up on this one.  You are misinterpreting the word "theist" as proof in and of itself that a god or gods exists when it only refers to the belief that they exist.  Those of us who disagree with their belief are therefore "a" about theism.

And before you bring it up again, you are not an atheist because you believe in a god.  

[Asmodean]

Why would you need 'light' if there was NO darkness?

Original state

Why would you be 'broke' if there was no money?

Original state

Why would you be an 'atheist' if there wern't any of them theistic gods?

And, to emphasize the point, original state.

OK, I'll try to be more careful and read between the lines before returning my opinion to you.

Reading between the lines will not get you far with me - my metaphors, when I choose to use such - are usually clearly metaphors. That snetence contained something along the lines of "smokes are good". Seeing how "good" is a subjective construct and "smokes are good" being the core of the sentence, the sentence itself is subjective.

Worship;
2.  vt love somebody deeply: to love, admire, or respect somebody or something greatly and perhaps excessively or unquestioningly  
Microsoft® Encarta®

Yes. And? Connection, still see I do not.

He believed smoking was 'good', and the way I observed him smoking.

If I like smoking because I find it pleasant, that is a conditional emotion and is therefor not worship though, no?

I thank you for your opinion, even though you don't know him, or think a rats-ass to what he thinks. It is very kind of you.

Yup. That's jolly old me - all for improving humankind one human at a time

I'm sure he did that too, and continues to do so. He has his problems with the kids/grand kids cut out for him.

Problems..? I can imagine! I mean SIX of them?! He should have used condoms at least four-five times more often than he did.

Thanks, I respect your opinion, even though I do not agree.

Fair enough. Let's get back to math now.

[arian (Banned)]

E-Energy that my Jewish brother said = to M-mass times the C-speed of light, ... and then he squared the speed of light. You know why he squared it?

Yes, actually I understand why E=mc^2 pretty well.

What you seem to ignore, however, that this equation is not in units of speed, but of energy. Joules, rather than meters per second. It does make sense where E=mc would not.

'c'^2 is energy? So are you suggesting that Einsteins equasion shold be E=MJ ?

In his time it was accepted that nothing in the universe was faster than light, right?

Still is.

So why do they claim that the outer-limits of our universe is expanding much faster than the 'speed of light'? (also all the other things they have found exceeding the speed of light in the Particle Eccelerator and such?)
Oh yea, ... because we are only concerned of the 'observable' universe, what is beyond that is none of scientific business, right? Just as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right? Only problem is that 'time' is defined as distinguishing events, so how can a pin-sized universe exist before it created spacetime? Remember the universe is said to be 'all there is'!
Oh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?

So ask yourself, why square something that is already at the max in the universe/existance that you are trying to define?

Why is the Pythagoras' sentence as follows: c=sqrt(a^2+b^2)

Where is the sense in squareing something you are going to sqrt?

If you explain that one to me, I might indulge you. If you can not, I suggest learning maths and physics.

I'm not running down that rabbit hole, sorry. I study only the parts that oppose logic like giving a speed to light, or, the truth revealed in Christ.
My quest here is to reveal God to those willing to hear, not equasions. We could argue equasions till the cows come home, and E=MC^2 is an equasion theory, 2+2=4 is fact, just as science is observing the physical world and its manifestation by using sytematic observations, what is already here, fact. Also, Sci-fy is opposed to science as religion is to knowing our Creator Bible-God, I try to define the differences.

Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.

I don't see what you are trying to say.

I am saying that 186,282mps does not define light. Another word, something traveling 186,282mps will not turn into light.

Also, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world. We don't need sun-light or cande-light to think, or to reason. The light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.

[arian (Banned)]

"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."

As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC² is not given such superfluous dressing.

Precisely. The more somebody has to sell their world view as opposed to simply proposing it and leaving the idea to let it stand its own feet the less credibility the idea has.

Hello Tank.

I'm not selling anything, I am proposing it, and my participating in here debates is proof of that.

I am here to reason, if you disagree with something I say, knock it off its feet, by all means. This is not church where we have to sit through a sermon without being able to make a comment.. or is it?

I put it out there and let it stand on its own feet, if anyone comments on it, I listen and respond. I am NOT promoting any religion, only defining them and question them.

[Too Few Lions]

'He That Is', or 'I Will Be what I Will be' is not a name, thus not described in Theism. Plese, ... please don't get offended when I say; 'you must become a real atheist', another words, don't allow the gods in theism that we have been indoctrinated with all these years hinder your search, for only then can you start to seek out the real truth.

Remember that we are searching for the 'truth', not one of them from the 'thousands of gods as in theism', I don't care how great they make him/her/it out to be. Monotheism is still 'one of them gods' usually defined in Christianity, ...  as a 'Diety' who lives in the 'supernatural realm'.

You can't have an non-theistic god, theos is the Greek word for...god. Your claim that Yahweh the god of the Bible isn't a 'theistic' god when he clearly is is just plain pathetic. It's like me buying a dog and going around telling other dog-owners that my dog is semehow different from theirs because theirs are all canine dogs, but mine's not a canine dog.
In what way is Yahweh different from any other god? Or the Bible different from any other mythology? And please don't quote from the Bible to reply to that question, a 2000 year old book of myths isn't evidence of anything other than ancient peoples' superstitions.

Oh, and I am a real atheist, just like you're a monotheist. If you were a proper atheist you'd know that Yahweh the god of the Bible doesn't really exist.

You missed my point, I said; if there was only ONE COLOR of Crayon in existance, naming it 'red' would be senseless. Yes, there are 'many colors' of crayons, just as there are many 'names' of gods in the world. That was my whole point, none of the names/colors represent our Creator, for He has no name/color. I said 'One Crayon' as in 'One God', the others are made-by-man, useless and cant color/do anything.

My creator are my mother and my father, and they do have names as it happens. The god of the Bible also has a name, it's Yahweh. The reason he has a name is that he never was the only god in the world, to claim that he's the only real god is as hypothetical and as far away from reality as red being the only shade of crayon. The Bible was created by men, and ignorant superstitious ones at that, and its god Yahweh is also a man-made creation who to use your own words is 'useless and cant color/do anything'.

Wkipedia-
Yahweh ( /ˈjɑːweɪ/ or /ˈjɑːhweɪ/; Hebrew: יהוה‎) is the name of God in the Hebrew Bible; it is often represented as Jehovah in English-language bibles.[1] The vocalisation Yahweh is a modern scholarly convention for the Hebrew יהוה (YHWH). There are many theories regarding the origin and meaning of the name, and none is regarded as conclusive - the explanation given in the Hebrew bible is "I am that I am", but the most likely meaning may be "He causes to be."

The name in the Bible is 'to be known by'. We are on a quest to get to know our God, and because of our insistance to continue to live in sin, we created false gods for ourselves as I point out in theism. People today are taught to look for our Creator in Theism, you will not find Him there, that is why I'm an atheist, who is against theism and what the idea represents. It wants to include 'He that Is' within its defenition.

Yahweh, the god of the Bible, is one of those false theistic gods you talk about, no different from Zeus, Baal or Marduk. You're not an atheist, you're a biblical monotheist, it's getting rather boring hearing you call a cat a dog all the time.

OK, how about this (please don't take it litterally, I am trying to clear it up for you, an anology. Our CreatorGod is not a crayon)

God=Crayon
Red=Yahweh
Yahweh=All there is

Unfortunately for you that just isn't the case, there's no more evidence to prove Yahweh's existence than there is Zeus, Baal, Odin or Isis' existence. You could replace the above sentence with

God=Crayon
Green=Zeus
Zeus=All there is

and it would make just as much sense