Would this also apply if the topic was "Spit or Swallow"?

Says who? Being God, could I not create an eternal paradise that would exist beyond my own existence?

One more thing ... God told Abraham to kill his son. Would you?

I don't when those beliefs cause millions of unnecessary deaths. However, I can discuss and debate them in a respectful manner. Its interesting to know that if a man hears voices and kills people, he's crazy ... if a man hears voices and pickets a health clinic, he's pious. Ask an atheist if they ever need a voice in their head to determine right from wrong. And how often has anyone heard of a serial killer or mass murderer who was an atheist?

If you wanted to stay on topic, how about saying what it is you DO to be self-sufficient? That would be contributing to the conversation. Or how about an opinion about how to BE or how to VIEW the idea of self-sufficiency? That is, after all, what the topic is about, not "who" gave you your traits.

If you merely saw this (and other threads, I would assume by your demeanor) as a chance to proclaim your love of Christ, then you're wrong. To use your own words, not everything discussed must REVOLVE around your love of whatever God you believe in. If that's what you want, there's a board specifically for religious discussion. Enjoy.

If I were God ... I'd strike myself from existence so that no one need fear eternal damnation or feel the need to make others suffer in my name.

That's saying you don't believe atheists have ethical standards or morality? That's the argument I always see, but its completely unfounded.

No, the world doesn't revolve around me, but this topic doesn't revolve around God. Contribute to conversations, please don't change them so you may sermonize.

1. If "God" were an alien, as stated by Richard Dawkins, then in order for his intelligence to have developed, his species would have had to undergo the same form of evolution as we have.

2. Intelligence/Reason is not a guaranteed outcome of evolution.

3. Intelligent Design cannot be tested in any way, shape or form unless "God" were to let himself be seen, spoken to or otherwise present himself in a manner that resembles all other life in the universe. At this point, would anyone believe it is God that is speaking?

4. Evolution is the accepted explanation of life throughout the scientific community because it is the best theory available. If another, better, explanation were to arise that could be more probable, it would be accepted over evolution. There is only really one reason evolution cannot be truly proven or not to change its status from theory: the inability of any human scientist to observe the phenomenon taking place directly for a period of one billion years.

Well, until science can tell us for sure (aside from the conjecture ... which much science is merely theory based on observation), then let's stick with "maybe" as the article says and not change it to something definitive to suit our own arguments.

I'm sorry, I was talking to the other person who deviated to "Jesus gives me everything".

Right on. I did not come to question my family's religious views (coming from southern baptists here ... sunday school, bible camp and all that) until my best friend in high school who was atheist did not hide his disbelief. I had never believed it all word for word, but the fear was there, hammered in for fifteen years by extended family members.

What I was trying to get at, I think, was that you can still get that "support" message across without seeming like a therapy group. Its just as easy for a religious group to use the same type of ads to reign in the disbelievers for sunday school. I've actually seen church billboards saying something to that effect ... Don't believe in God? Come in and let us introduce you.

Don

Is it me or does anyone else feel kind of put off that the ads in question seem to read like a support group flyer?

"Don't believe in God? Its ok, we can help you."

Certainly, the free-thinkers can come up with better ideas that don't resemble church billboards.

Nice. I like the unicorn remark. I always say "Because all my friends are atheists and if they're going to hell, I want someone cool to hang out with for eternity."

Well, everyone in fact so far, yes.

You realize we're discussing self-sufficiency in material resources here, not theology, right?

Time is not a man-made construct, only the measure of it. If we did not measure time, it would still exist, but we would have no way to differentiate events in relation to each other.

Only to those who aren't trannys. Ever listen to Eddie Izzard?

The only reason to ever be offended by a term commonly used by a group of people to identify THEMSELVES is when its improperly used. Like when you call a tranny gay, even if he's not actually gay.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying then. I think what should be focused on instead of contesting the idea of complete self-sufficiency, should be a focus on exactly how these people or groups ARE self-sufficient. I don't think it really matters how they're still dependent on one thing or another, but congratulate them on how they're contributing to the whole by not consuming resources that others--who do not care to be self-sufficient in any regard--can make use of.

Ok ... I see this all the time and I just have to say that I feel no shame/guilt for my ancestry. Sorry.

Whatever choices/decisions/atrocities/humanities my great-great-grandfather or my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather performed of his own free will are not the choices I make of mine.



This never was a peaceful island, continent or world, for that matter. Introduce a large number of people to any environment and bad stuff happens. Before people, animals were stalking, chasing and eating other animals. Want peace, destroy all life on Earth.

As far as self-sufficiency goes, it doesn't hurt and can in fact be beneficial to the community. The less resources that any one person consumes from those provided means that there are more for those who cannot provide their own and less are required for distribution. If I have my own generator, then the person next door pays less for their electricity because there's another 15kw/day that's uncontested on the grid. If I grow my own food then there is more to feed those who cannot afford their own. Etc., Etc.

And beyond all of that, its better for the environment as a whole to strive for self-sufficiency. The less that's done centrally (industrial complexes that produce things in bulk for those who cannot themselves), the less pollutant impact on the world. How many things can you think of that are mass produced (like your car) every year that isn't sold and eventually scrapped? That means wasted energy in creation, wasted materials in creation, wasted time in creation, wasted resources that could have been better used elsewhere, wasted space, wasted advertising and on and on and on, only to be destroyed and recycled (which consumes at least 15% of the recycled materials).

Does not self-sufficiency for as many individuals as possible seem a far better direction?

sorry about the double post ...