Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Hell

Several blogger have posted on the topic of hell; I have also but I am going to do another---from a different angle.

Where did we get our idea of hell? I don't mean that it exist but what it looks like. I have just read "Go to Hell" by Chuck Crisafulli and Kyra Thompson and I learned a great deal about the origins of our idea of hell.

The bible tells us that hell is a separation from god but, and I know you will correct me if I am wrong, the bible does not really describe hell or tell us exactly where it is. So where is it? What does it look like?

i believe that one of the oldest recorded stories of hell comes from the epic tale of Gilgamesh but our most vivid idea of hell comes from Dante Alighieri the author of Divine Comedy and artists Hiieronymus Bosch and Auguste Rodin.

One of the more interesting parts of the book is "My Hell"...snippets fro people you know on hell. I'll give you two:

William Shatner

Hell, for me , would be to leave here today.
Right Now.
Maybe tomorrow--that would be all right.
But not today.
I'm having too much fun.
And to leave right now...?
That would be hell.

Bob Newhart

I was thinking about hell and the "gnashing of teeth". So, I imganie everyone there would have really bad teeth. There would be a dentist ---but no Novocain.

There are many more but I do not want to infringe on a copyright so 'nuff for now. The book is great...check it out.

But for now what is your hell? So in the spirit of the the book here is mine:

My Hell
Listening to television preachers 24/7
That would be hell.

40 comments:

noreligionblog said...

Hell would be finding out your spouse turned into a creotard.

Nicole said...

I have two things to say about this post.

First: Interested, I agree with you! I dislike may of those men on "the big hair network". LOL.

And second: In looking up the word 'creotard', I discovered that it's a contraction of creationist and retard. It's used as a term of abuse for the most "wilfully ignorant creationists." Or if you prefer, "A sub-human who believes in creation as told in the bible, and refuses to understand or consider any other explanation. All creationists are retards, but not all retards are creationist (i.e. there is some hope for the latter)."

Interested: I'm sorry, but this is what Rickb was talking about when he says you are a hypocrite. It seems it's ok when your athiest friends or other athiest posters use derogatory terms towards believers. But Rickb can't use a brain analogy to explain his side of the debate.

I've been reading the past few years of your blog and when Beast was on here he said all sorts of horrible things to Rickb. And never once did you call him on it. All you would say is "You do have a way with words..."

noreligionblog said...

Nicole,

Did I call anyone in particular a creotard? Or was it a general label? Now if I said you or Rickb were creotards then you would have a point but that isn't what was said was it? If you don't like the label that is fine but it isn't gonna change until creotards stop believing in stupid things.

Rick b said...

Non, Just because you think your right does not make it so. I feel you guys are the ones that believe in stupid things.

Everything around us from single cell creatures to the human brain is so advanced we cannot fully figure it all out.

You say we just came about by evolution and yet no one really can explain it. If we see a bridge, a house, a car or whatever we know it was created, a creator, created it. Yet when it comes to the solar system and human life we stop saying we were created and we simply happened to come about by random chance. Rick b

noreligionblog said...

Are bridges, houses, cars or whatever manmade structures biological systems with an ability to metabolize and self replicate? When you can show me one of those manmade as a comparison maybe you would have a point but if you show me a manmade biological system then you would be showing god was not necessary for life to begin. You can feel atheists believe in stupid things all you like yet it was Tertullian who made the infamous statement credo quia absurdam which translated means I believe because it is absurd.

noreligionblog said...

Once again you confuse biogenesis with evolution. Evolution is what happens after life began. The process of evolution is well understood and unquestionable. There are 'debates' within the scientific community as to the mechanisms of evolution but none as to evolution itself. There are many hypothesis for biogenesis, none have been proven yet but I can assure you one or more will be proven within the next 100 years if not sooner. There is a reason the study of life's origins has had it's name changed from the study of life's origin to origins since it is now supposed that life is in no way unique to Earth and one hypothesis thinks life may have started many times independently on Earth but only one left descendants. If you find believing the bible by faith to be comforting that's fine, just don't even think you can pass it off as scientific about any topic. There is nothing in the entire bible that could not have been written by anyone in the 1st or 2nd centuries.

Rick b said...

Non,
As I have to interested before, the problems with evolution are these. You cannot prove evolution using science. Show me the transitional states? Birds going to or from Fish. Monkeys from Dogs, ect, cannot be done.

Why is it evolution or at least some scientists that teach evolution believe life arose from non-life. How far fetched is that?

Life simply arose from some poisonous gas that was struck by lighting or something, That in it's self takes great faith to believe.

If you saw the movie, expelled, Those so called great minds can only say, Life began here some how, we cannot explain how it got here or why, then at best we can only assume that it was single cell creatures that mutated to what they are today.

Funny how mutations produce "good" things back then, but now if something is mutated it is bad and maybe will even kill us, and we spend millions every year trying to figure out how to solve these mutations like cancer, MS and other such things.

Yet you guys have no real answers for this stuff. Rick b

noreligionblog said...

"You cannot prove evolution using science. Show me the transitional states? Birds going to or from Fish. Monkeys from Dogs, ect, cannot be done."

You ever saw Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx or Ardi? Those are clear and unambiguous transitional states. Anyway all fossils are transitional in some respects. The fossil record is not the only reason evolution has been proven true. As a matter of fact, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming even if we had no fossils. Here are three transitional states. Are you going to change your 'can't be done' error?

"Why is it evolution or at least some scientists that teach evolution believe life arose from non-life. How far fetched is that?"

Evolution says no such thing and you would understand that if you read my previous response. As far as what some scientists teach, you can read the evidence they present and critique their hypotheses if you are able. But until you read their hypotheses, how far fetched and foolish is it to claim they are wrong?

"Life simply arose from some poisonous gas that was struck by lighting or something, That in it's self takes great faith to believe."

That is not what the Miller-Urey experiment shows. The atmosphere used in the experiment was not as reducing as the one on the prebiotic Earth yet the experiment shows the generation of the building blocks of life can and did happen spontaneously.

"If you saw the movie, expelled, Those so called great minds can only say, Life began here some how, we cannot explain how it got here or why, then at best we can only assume that it was single cell creatures that mutated to what they are today."

Therein lies Christian arrogance at it's worst. All those great minds of science yet the answers are known better by you. Once again, the mutation is perfectly explained by evolution and for that matter, go read my article that explains how the first protocell can easily form by perfectly normal and well known chemical reactions. I am not making a claim based on that but I will say that it is the utmost in arrogance to dismiss that without even reading about it.

"Funny how mutations produce "good" things back then, but now if something is mutated it is bad and maybe will even kill us, and we spend millions every year trying to figure out how to solve these mutations like cancer, MS and other such things."

Yes and it is also funny how all of us have an average of 128 genetic mutations from our parents. Some are bad. Apparently some are either good or not bad since we are alive. Isn't that strange?

"Yet you guys have no real answers for this stuff."

You mean I wasted my time writing answers? All the articles answering your questions in textbooks on Astrobiology, Biology, Evolution, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Zoology, Taxanomy, Paleontology, Geology don't have real answers cause the dumb book that says pi is 3 does?

BTW, look at my screenname carefully. Why do you call me non?

Rick b said...

Non, Said, You ever saw Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx or Ardi? Those are clear and unambiguous transitional states.

I have seen them, they are not even close to transitional states, but if you want to believe that then thats your choice.

Non said That is not what the Miller-Urey experiment shows. The atmosphere used in the experiment was not as reducing as the one on the prebiotic Earth yet the experiment shows the generation of the building blocks of life can and did happen spontaneously.

If your correct and earth has been around for millions of years, then we were not around back then, so you and other cannot try and reproduce life in a lab because you really do not know what it was like millions of years ago.

Question, why is it we find insects, Leaves and other things embedded into amber and these things supposedly are millions of years old, yet we compare them to the same things today and they look very much alike? No major changes or translations?

How come scientists trying to prove evolution to be true needed to deceive people by creating hoaxes like the piltdown man?

How come there is evidence of Man walking with dinosaurs, yet scientists that teach a old earth, of millions of years and teach we were not alive together ignore that and never mention it? Why do I call you non? Why not. Rick b

noreligionblog said...

"Question, why is it we find insects, Leaves and other things embedded into amber and these things supposedly are millions of years old, yet we compare them to the same things today and they look very much alike? No major changes or translations?"

Probably for the same reason we find many bacteria and other fossils that look similar to modern counterparts.

"How come scientists trying to prove evolution to be true needed to deceive people by creating hoaxes like the piltdown man?"

You got your facts twisted. They were not scientists trying to prove anything.They were scammers out to profit monetarily.

"How come there is evidence of Man walking with dinosaurs, yet scientists that teach a old earth, of millions of years and teach we were not alive together ignore that and never mention it?"

Want to provide that evidence please. Even the creation institute that "found" the footprints in Texas has admitted they are fake.

"Why do I call you non? Why not."

Is it part of my screenname?

Rick b said...

Nor, there you feel better?
Anyway, under a former topic Jeff said this, and it includes evidence of humans and dino's. Rick b Blogger Jeff said...

Interested,

I haven't been here in a while, so I am dropping by and leaving a comment.

From the video:
[If evolution is true] The fossil record should display a complete temporal stratification and a very, very timely order in which things will appear.

There is a lack of convincing evidence to back up Darwin's claim that there is a common origin to all life. Evolution would require billions of mutations that have caused a true increase in genetic complexity, but the fossil record shows nothing of the sort. In a letter to Harvard professor Asa Gray, Charles Darwin wrote, "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." And in fact, Darwin was right---Science has failed to substantiate Darwin's claim that all creatures have a common ancestor. True science has shown that the theory of evolution is wrong. The evidence has been overwhelmingly in favor of Creationism. Rather than using the scientific method, evolutionists rely on pure speculation and wild imagination. The fossil record shows that the majority, if not all, of the world's 40 phyla sprang forth fully formed, without any transitionary fossils that preceded them. There is no evidence of a gradual evolution. The fossil record has failed to substantiate the claims of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin himself knew it was a problem, but he speculated that future discoveries would support his theory. But Darwin was mistaken, because they haven't. If Darwinian Evolution were correct, we should have found millions of transitionary fossils already.

Again, from the video:
Now, if Intelligent Design or Creationism is true, we wouldn't expect this at all. We would expect to find dinosaurs with humans...all at the exact same time.

As Rick mentioned, fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found alongside fossilized human footprints. Naturally, evolutionists strenuously try to completely discredit this, because this destroys the theory of evolution completely.

Examples:

Taylor Trail - A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

McFall Trail - A series of 15 human footprints on the Upper Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

Ryals Track - A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

The Morris Track - in the bed of the Paluxy River, downstream from the Taylor Trail at the Dougherty Site. While some of the detail eroded over a period of months, when it was first discovered, it was described as virtually perfect.

Burdick Track - A human footprint from Cross Branch, a tributary of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

New Mexico Track - One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs).

Large Cat Track - Just as devastating to evolutionary theory, this large mammal track is from Cross Branch, a tributary of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

Scientists may speculate about the past or future, but they can only actually observe the present. Obviously, then, the widespread assumption that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is an established fact of science is absolutely false. Therefore, Darwinian evolution can only be correctly labeled as a belief...a subjective philosophy of origins...the religion of many scientists. Despite this fact, many (though by no means all) of today's scientists and teachers still insist that evolution is an established fact of science.

noreligionblog said...

Did you even read what I wrote? The stuff in Texas was proven to be false and even admitted by creationists as I said in my answer before you wasted your time writing the drivel. The rest of the post is nothing more than an argument from incredulity and an appeal to emotion.

Rick b said...

o-ok non, your correct, I'm Wrong that settels it. Rick b

Rick b said...

Nor, I'm being sarcastic with you because it really is hard to take you serious. You say that creationists admit the Humans and Dino's is fake, yet you ask me for evidence and when I mention people you say it fake, yet where is your evidence? Who are these so called creationists that admit this?

I point out about Hoaxs in evolution, yet you claim they were no real scitents, yet I did not see the scientic community debunking this as soon as it was expoused, if they did I missed it. Then Interested said of you a while back, your a bible scholar, Yet I can prove you are clueless, I pointed out about a topic you did and show you from the Bible that you either never read the Bible because the answers you claim were not in the Bible really are, or you know they are and openly lied to your readers.

Either way you are not willing to admit you were wrong or lied, theirfore How can I trust you that your not lying now, or at least simply spouting things with out ever reading about it?

Then even if you provide sources for so called creationsts claiming this is a hoax, your still a liar or fraud when it comes to the Bible, and I will take a guess and say, you will not openly admit on your blog that you were wrong and a christian used the Bible to show you were wrong, then I honestly cannot take you serious.

Plus if your correct about the Creationts admiting hoaxs, trhen that proves at least some christians are being honest and not resorting to lies, like an athiest I know is. Rick b

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the Evolutionists all claim that those human footprints alongside, or inside,
the dinosaur footprints are either faked or corroded dinosaur footprints. But then,
they have no other choice *but* to say that, because for them to admit that humans
walked with dinosaurs would absolutely annihilate the Darwinian theory of Evolution.
So they are never going to accept that those are human footprints. Long-term/Long-Day
Creationists/Theological Evolutionists would tend to say the same thing, since they
don't believe the world was created in 6 days, either.

An Atheist absolutely cannot accept the idea of Creation, because that would mean
they could no longer be an Atheist. That would mean they are forced to admit there is a God.
So, any evidence for Creation, they are going to dispute, claim as false, or attack the source
(either you or the Scientist or the author or the publication or whatever source makes the claim).

Then again, Atheists cannot prove that no God exists anywhere in all of existence---especially since
you can't prove a negative regarding the existence of God. . How do you prove that in all places and all times,
there is no God? You can't. The Atheist's position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove, since it is an attempt
to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for the Atheist's position, and there are no proofs that
there is no God, the Atheist must hold his or her position by faith. Not only that, but in reality, since they cannot
know for sure that no God exists, what they really are is an Agnostic, because the most they can honestly claim
is that they don't know whether any God exists or not. Any proofs they try to offer for the non-existence of God
are, in the end, insufficient. Of course, they will likely deny that they hold their position by faith, or that Atheism is
a religion, or that Evolution is a religion, because they associate "faith" with God or with Christians. All they can do
is go on the attack and try to negate any evidence you offer them. In their argument, they will deny and attack any
and all theological proofs and evidences in order to try to create an evidential vacuum where no theistic argument
can survive, in order to make their position sound intellectually and logically viable.

As a Christian, I would say that I do not believe it is possible that no God exists, and I think such a claim by an
Atheist is ultimately illogical.

If an Atheist is completely honest (and not on the defensive), they would have to admit (unless they are just totally
clueless) that the possibility exists that there is a God. Therefore, the best they can really say, in all honesty, is that the possibility exists that there is no God. So really, the most they can in fact be is an Agnostic, since they cannot know
for sure that no God exists anywhere. Of course, they might say that just because something is possible does not
make it true, and also does not make it a wise position to adopt, or a wise thing to believe. For example, an Atheist
could say that it could be possible that all conspiracy theories are true, but that possibility does not make conspiracy
theories a reality, and it also doesn't mean that it is a wise thing to accept all conspiracy theories as factual.

Anonymous said...

So, since stating something is a possibility does not mean that it is in fact a reality, or that it is a wise thing to believe it,
an Atheist's statement that "no God exists" is not a viable position. Something based on nothing more than a possible
option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for viability. The Atheist cannot prove in a laboratory that God
does not exist, and they cannot know for sure (because they are not omniscient) that God does not exist anywhere
in any place in any universe. Simply stating "there is no evidence for God" does not prove that God does not exist.
Saying "there is no evidence for God" does not mean that the possibility of God's existence does not exist. So, since
an Atheist cannot know for sure that God does not exist, they are really then Agnostics, and not Atheists, because
the most they can honestly claim is that they don't know for sure. Their complete denial that God exists is only based
on emotion, blind faith that there is no God (it is blind because it is not based on any factual evidence, only on theories
at the most), and a decision not to believe in God.

Christians, on the other hand, do have evidences that God exists: our own lives, and the lives of those we know,
being changed by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit; the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in Jesus; manuscript
evidence for the fact that the Bible has not been changed over the years; etc.

Also see these:

The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
http://www.carm.org/transcendental-argument

Entropy and Causality Used As A Proof for God's Existence
http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence

Attempts to refute evidences for the existence of God does not prove that God does not exist, any more than refuting
an eyewitness account denies the reality of the event that was witnessed did not occur. The Flat Earth Society does
not believe that the earth is round, and no matter what evidence you show them, they refuse to accept that the earth
is not flat. A man who has been blind from birth can refuse to accept the idea that there is any such thing as color,
and no matter what 'evidences' you may tell him, he can stubbornly refuse to believe it, and he can continue to insist
that there is no such thing as color. At best, Atheists can only say that there are no evidences of God's existence that
have been presented so far, that are convincing to them. They can't say that there are no evidences for God, because
the Atheist cannot possibly know all the evidences that exist in the world. In fact, Romans says that Creation itself
is evidence for God's existence, and that everyone, even those who have never heard the gospel message, will be
held accountable, because Creation itself shows that God exists. The fact that Atheists refuse to believe this evidence
will be no excuse, as far as God is concerned.

So, to summarize what I said earlier, the Atheist can only claim that the evidence for God's existence has so far been insufficient. This logically means that there could be sufficient evidences in the future, and they must acknowledge that
there may indeed be a proof that is undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible. Therefore, since the Atheist
can at best only be skeptical of God's existence, and cannot know for sure that God does not exist, then the Atheist is
really an Agnostic.

Interested said...

Being an atheist means that I do not believe in the existence of god. It does not mean that I believe there is no god. Being agnostic means I have no knowledge of god. I, like Dan Barker, am both.

noreligionblog said...

Rick, your right. Everywhere but Texas dinosaurs didn't coexist with man but in Texas and only Texas they did? And you say atheists say far fetched things? BTW, i have been to the park in Glen Rose and have seen the tracks with my own eyes. Yes there are dinosaur tracks. No there are not any human footprints.

Anon, saying one does not believe in god is not saying there is no god. The god of the bible does not exist and that can be said beyond any doubt. Anything that has internal contradictions in it's definition can't exist and the god of the bible is internally contradictory.

Rick b said...

Nor, say what you want, but you know I am correct on the issue of you and the Bible, You either are a liar and misleading people by telling them something is not in the Bible when it is, or you say it is in the Bible when it's not. I have seen a few posts by you. So even if you are right on evolution, your still a liar and deceiver and I suspect you would never admit admit to your readers you were wrong and set the record straight, It's in my opinion that you have an agenda. Rick b

Interested said...

...and you don't have and agenda, Rick? Instead of continuing to say we are wrong, read the evidence for yourself. Try reading something other than christian stuff.

Rick b said...

Interested,
The only agenda I have is defending the faith that you guys attack.

I forgot to add to Nor, You said you saw the dino tracks and their is no human foot prints, Thats great, but before you said even creationists deny it, who are they, mention names and give sources so I can see for myself. You guys get on my case asking for sources and evidence, so provide it for me, other wise dont tell me these people exist yet cannot provide the evidence. Rick b

noreligionblog said...

Rick I am not going to go hunting down things so you can deny them. If you really want to learn, start here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

BTW, if I were to tell you that the two sisters in Ezekiel 23 but the ho in the bible would you get the joke?

noreligionblog said...

would be funnier if I actually wrote put instead of but :)

Rick b said...

Nice of you to tell me that creationists deny dinos and humans walked the earth, but yet you dont want to be bothered by providing me the facts. Then again no surprise you know I am right about you being a liar and wont touch that topic. Rick b

Interested said...

Rick go to the site you were given. The evidence you seek is there.

noreligionblog said...

I meant to tell you Anon that in any case a god that interacts with humans as the god of the bible supposedly does through intercessory prayer can and has been tested by science and the results not surprisingly showed that intercessory prayer is a myth. By extension, there is no god listening to prayers.

Rick b said...

How in the world can science prove or dis prove prayer?

If you take all the religions according to Christians that are false and they are praying to a false god, then of course prayer will never work because they god they pray to is false.

Then with Christians, there are times where God does not answer prayer with a yes, example, I could pray for some one dying to be healed, God allows them to die, were they healed? Depeneds on who you ask.

In the sense they died, no they were not healed, does it look like prayer failed? yes it does, Were they healed in the sense they are in Heaven and no longer here suffering, Yes they were.

But then you do not know the Bible and your not an honest person so why should I trust you to know the truth or trust what you say?

Interested, you can say your tired of me saying people are not honest, but when you know they are wrong and you say nothing that is wrong since you clearly show favortism, You call out the believers asking for evidenbce, but the athiests who are wrong you could care less, because they teach and believe what you want to hear and you want to believe what you want, you have no real intrest in the truth. If you really did you would change the way you handle things. Rick b

Interested said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html

“Throughout time, the power of prayer has been questioned by science. The analytical mind of the scientist calls for proof of the existence of a higher being. These scientists, both the faithful and nonbelievers alike, have produced studies into the affects of prayer on our physical as well as spiritual well being. Although most of us, who possess the belief that prayer can and does work, do not require physical, quantitative proof of the power of prayer, it is interesting to read the results of these studies.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Is-Prayer-Good-for-Your-Health-A-Critique-of-the-Scientific-Research
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1924985/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

“Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.”

Rick b said...

Honestly I really dont care if those mormons believe prayer works or not, In my life I have seen prayer answered, people can simply say it was luck or happen stance or what ever.

Like I said, It is really hard to trust people and take them serious when then resort to using lies and deception, if they do0 that, then how can I even trust their sources?

Then when they are expoused and refuse to change it makes it even harder to trust them. Rick b

Interested said...

Rick, some of the info I cited was positive regarding prayer. Did you read it or just decide it was negative and dismiss it? I am a fan of the placebo effect and it can be said that prayer is such a placebo.

Rick b said...

Interested, My point is, Science cannot prove or dis-prove prayer. You can cite all the sources you want, they can all say prayer is bogus, that does not make it true, and it also does not prove or disprove the Bible. Rick b

Anonymous said...

Interested, I notice as I have said before, the majority of you guys that claim no God exists must resort to lies and deception to prove your point.

Honestly how can you sit home and say, I'm going to start telling people God does not exist and write about it, but must resort to lies to do it? How can you live with your self?

You can say, where or how did I lie, And as I said before, here are some examples. You quote from people claiming they know something when they do not, I point out why and how they do not really know and you simply dont care.

Then I pointed out how for example Steve Benson could not answer my questions, Him and other could only resort to name calling and attacking me, You simply stood up for them and said, well they had it rough at one time.

If you were honest you would say, yep they could not or would not, how can I trust them if all they can do is attack.

Then You said Noreligion was a bible scholar, I pointed out how she was wrong and then she attacked me with threats. If she is so smart she would not need to resort to threats. Then She avoids the issue completely of how is she really honest and truthful if she needs to lie, or if she is not lying and she simply is ignorant, she still refuses to go back to her readers and say, Guys I was wrong, a christian challenged me and showed me where and How I was wrong and guess what I'm here to admit I was wrong.

You know as well as I do that will never happen. Then I have given 100's of example of how or where you lied, And guess what, like you, Noreligion never says, really show me where I am wrong, because Not only have I, but as a result, she removed the information from her blog and then went onto attack me.

Then you hate it when I bring this stuff up, you tell me I need to stop calling you a liar or attacking you. You know I'm honest and you dont like it, so you change the subject or shut down the threads.

How can you guys claim your honest and live with yourselves when you must resort to lies to defend your position? Rick b

Rick b said...

My last reply I did not mean to hit the Anon Button, But my name is attached to the bottom because I did write that post. Rick b

noreligionblog said...

Did you read what I wrote Rick or do you just flap your lips however you want? Science has tested intercessory prayer and found it does not have any beneficial effect and actually had a negative one. The god of the bible does not and never did exist.

Rick b said...

No, As I said, I read what you wrote and science cannot prove or disprove prayer. How can you say, we will have x number of people pray and we will see if it comes to pass or not then decide if it is true or not, thats stupid. But what about you, you use lies and when busted you avoid the issue, so why should I even take you serious and trust you if you lie and then avoid the issues? Rick b

Interested said...

Rick I don't see anyone trying to avoid the issue. I sent links to studies about prayer..I did not make a comment. Noreligion gave some good information..it looks like you ignored it. I also gave you a link about the dinosaur tracks. There is a lot of good information that refutes what you say but you are choosing not to accept it. Okay fine...you don't accept it. Minds won't be changed throug name calling. Everyone please be respectful.

noreligionblog said...

I attacked you with threats? I asked you to delete my copyrighted material. If you are to stupid to understand that by doing so you were breaking copyright law that isn't my problem. You really should be thanking Interested for deleting it. BTW, who is the she you are referring to and when did you prove me wrong about anything? You assumed I confused a story in the bible but you were the one to bullheaded to read where it clearly said it was my version of events. Tell you what, just as you claim you can't believe dishonest people, I will say I think all Christians are a bunch of retarded idiots that can't read based on the one I am speaking to.

Nicole said...

Looks like Rick is hitting a nerve again...Score!

Rick b said...

Noreligion, the she I am talking about is you. When did I prove you wrong and what exactly am I talking about? To refresh your memory, It's the topic of hell you have posted. Your clueless about it, your saying God had no reason to create hell and did not.

Thats wrong, the Bible is clear on why He created Hell and who for. Then you are clueless on some of your other topics that are based upon the Bible, but you dont care, you would never admit you were wrong.

Interested, No matter what these so called experts say you cannot prove or disprove prayer by some scientific means. Rick b

Nicole said...

Noreligion said: " there is no god listening to prayers."

False.

I went to the ER while I was on vacation last month. I was diagnosed with a bladder and kidney infection. I was in great pain. I prayed to God to take the pain away and He did albeit not immediately. I wasn't given any pain killers and my husband, who is not a believer, can attest to that. And FYI: I did take the prescribed medication to fight the infection.

Maybe Rickb or Anon know more about this, but I don't believe God hears an unbelievers prayer. It says in the bible that our sins have separated us from God and He hides his face and will not hear. As believers, we become reconciled to God thru Jesus so He hears our prayers. Your impressions Rick or Anon?