Cloned Baby Supposedly Born

[BRAVO]

there playing god... (religious or not)

[sneezer3]

Another question...

When you have comitted a sin, why do you have to say your sorry to god and not the person you I.E hurt?

god already know you have comitted the sin because he watches everyone.

And another one:

Why did god make the humans supreme? There are no other living organisms on earth that has or will be as technologic as us.

On the other side, it's no real pity in being a cat or a dog wither as they have good lives they too.

Ahh. at lest decent questions to answer 8)

I'l IM you and tell you the answers to all of those questions a little later. ;) so we won't go offtopic. but first i'l answer once since it is sort of a realated question.

WHO MADE GOD?

Nobody made God. He is the First Cause and the Uncaused, the Creator of the universe.

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM... - Exod 3:14

... I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. - Isa 44:6

If there is someone who made God, then by necessity, there must also be a "someone" who made that "someone" who made God. The list would go on and on indefinitely. But no matter how far back we go, there must still be a Self-Existent One by virtue of the visible creation we can see. The truth is that, God is the Self-Existent One, the Creator of all things and the Savior of mankind.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. - Jn 1:3

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. - Isa 45:22

Although this may be hard to understand. he always is and always was. he has always existed.

<Defence for attack for answer of that question with evolution Reserverd>

I won't pretend I'm a physisist, but the big bang theory claims that all matter and energy used to be in a single point, of practicly infinite density and temperature. Time is affected by gravity, slowed down. So in fact before the big bang explosion, there was no time. It always existed, so his doesn't really comply with option 3.

Then again, I'm not some scientist and I don't pretend to be. Unless you are one, stop yelling at people that you found out the truth of it all.

Yes but...

You don't have to be a vet to fix your dogs ears. you don't have to be a docter to save someones life. you don't have to be a computer to do math. you don't have to be somebody at Fox news to know the news. you don't have be a Mathmatics person to know what 2X2 is. You don't have to be a scientist to know the laws of phyiscs. or to know if something can or cannot happen.

[emprworm]

I won't pretend I'm a physisist, but the big bang theory claims that all matter and energy used to be in a single point, of practicly infinite density and temperature. Time is affected by gravity, slowed down. So in fact before the big bang explosion, there was no time. It always existed, so his doesn't really comply with option 3.

First of all, time is a measurement of change. To postulate that all matter and energy existed in a single point would not be the same as saying "no time" unless that point was in complete stasis. In such an event, there could not possibly be any cause for a system in complete stasis to suddenly start 'changing'. If this "point" was not in complete stasis, then it is fully still the universe and time is fully existing. Postulating that a closed system in total stasis could, of its own accord, start changing requires great faith! For there is no example in our natural universe of matter/energy in total stasis, NOR is there any example in our natural universe of self-caused change. The faith required to believe this theory is akin to the faith of your average Zen Buddhist clapping with 1 hand.

Another point, some postulate that this point was "infinitely small" which is precisely equal to nothing, therefore such a claim has no meaning whatsoever.

Then again, I'm not some scientist and I don't pretend to be. Unless you are one, stop yelling at people that you found out the truth of it all.

I dont know the truth of it all. I only proclaim that your position is as much faith based as anyone elses. All positions- the religious and the atheist- are founded in faith. This means that no one has any basis to call position #1 irrational, especially considering that position #1 is the only one that does not throw out the principle of causality.

if everything must be caused by something, you don't come further by saying god created the universe. How did god appear if everything must have been cause by something?

Just how in the world could an eternal immutable being require a cause? Please enlighten me here. That makes about as much sense as me saying "I always lie". Its an absurd statement.

[Cyborg]

Could we get back to topic?

It's no purpose in discussing what we don't understand or what we don't have proof for.

[DjCiD]

Well there is no proof of this cloned baby is there.... end disscussion, thread locked. :P ;) ;D j/k

[Anathema]

I'm not saying my position is more provable then yours, but you did. I never said anything about "an infinitely small point", wich wouldn't exist because it's nothing. I said in a single point. Gravity effects dimensions (including time) by curving it.

[Acriku]

Well the baby was supposedly delivered quite a few days ago, I wonder then they will reveal her? And have proof she is a clone?

[Anathema]

She'll probably get all kinds of diseases, and die young, like Dollly...

[Acriku]

Dolly died young? I thought she was only served to the President :D

Well cloning is too risky with diseases and such, but if we come to know more about chromosomes and genes (even though we mapped our gene code completely) the risks might be able to be lowered significantly.

[Anathema]

President? She was cloned in England :P

As of yet, we have no idea why she got sick. She aged quickly too.

[Acriku]

You know, like the French gave the US the statue, well England gave the US dolly with parmesian and tomato sauce.

[SurlyPIG]

Yes, I did that AFTER you brought up the inquisition and the crusades and started to judge all Christians according to them.

That was in response to your claiming all priests and the priesthood were completely immaculate and never did anything wrong. ::)

In the end it is mostly a matter of faith, yes. So is that somehow bad? Am I somehow inferior to you because I have faith in something?

Exactly when did I say that it was? Stop putting words im my mouth. I said it was illogical, nothing else.

You haven't been to Mars, either. But that doesn't mean you can't know anything about it.

The theory that supports what I said is the Big Bang theory. Do you consider THAT to be wild and unproven? Then how did the universe come into existence, mr. atheist?

The big bang theory outlines how this universe came into existence. And it is a pretty wild theory. It doesnt say anything about what is outside the universe, or what was before the universe, because there's no way to know.

So let me get this straight: rather than helping Christians, they shouldn't be helping ANYONE?

But you already admitted yourself that there are many such organizations who help non-Christians. And many have been created specifically for the purpose of helping non-Christians. Yes, they also try to convert them while they're at it. So what's wrong with that?

This is just one example of how the religion is designed to grow itself. It's not a religion of love, it's a religion of design. And I have NEVER heard of any Christian organization that just gives to others without trying to convert them. But I've heard of lots like this:

Boy scouts: Must be Christian to join

Christian reading club: must be Christian to read

Christian food bank: must be a Christian to eat (how very loving of thy neighbour)

Now please explain to me how creating something bigger than yourself has anything to do with world domination... They were only trying to serve God, as Jesus had taught them. What does that have to do with taking over the world??

Okay, I'll be blunt. This is what I think of when I think of Jesus and Christianity:

Jesus was a poor, poor man wallowing in self pity. He had no money, he was born out of wedlock and he did not know who his father is. One day he thought "Hey, instead of telling people that some guy shagged my mother, I'll tell them my father is God." He was appropreately laughed at. As for the rest of the religion, he thought, "Wow, I'm a big loser. I'm not a king or a Rabbi, I don't even have a job. I know, I'll create a religion with me as the savior. That way I'll be famous for generations to come." That's what I mean. Of course, that is ultimately the purpose of ALL religion. It is not love. It is domination. All that preaching is just a means to achieve it.

"Raging hate" = very powerful hate

You haven't been "raging", you have only been extremely hateful. You don't think so? Let's see...

Very well, you will be in italics...

- you call all Christians willing to die for God insane -No, I called them irrational and gullible, and maybe foolish.

- you accuse us of trying to take over the world -That's the ultimate goal of any religion; expand, grow, convert. That goal is only met when everyone on the world is a Christian. Sounds like it's trying to takeover the world to me.

- you call my beliefs "stupid", "dumb", etc. -That is my interpretation of them. Unlike you, I still respect them. I respect your right to believe whatever you want to. And I have a right to think whatever I want to about your beliefs, as long as I don't act upon that as you have. I don't believe you're a "disgusting inhuman piece of filth" for your beliefs.

- you say Christian beliefs fly in the face of everything logical and rational -Many of them do. Again, how are any of these things "ragingly hateful"?

- you say the Christian idea of God sounds like a fairy tale -I'm not the only one here that things that...Again, how is this hateful at all. It's my opinion. It's an interpretation.

- you say Christianity serves only to divide people and increase the ranks of those who believe -See above...

- you call me a manipulated puppet -Yes. I believe you're being manipulated to serve Christianity. That's how I interpret the bible. A means to manipulate.

Ah, so now the Christian martyrs who were persecuted and killed for the simple fact that they were Christians are no different from Muslim suicide bombers?? And you say I have a warped view of the world...

You have not answered me. What do you think of them? They died for their beliefs just as the early Christians did. The only difference is the cause they died for. You said "I have respect for anyone who dies for their beliefs" Well, out with it now, do you support and respect the actions of a muslim suicide bomber.

Sneezer is right. I said I have no respect for atheism. I deliberately avoided saying "atheists", because that is not true. There are many atheists whom I respect, Nema included. You're just not one of them.What I meant was that I have no respect for atheism as a whole, and for what it stands for.

Ah yes, a theist that demands respect yet shows none for others. How is it that you expect me to respect, let alone believe in your beliefs if you will not show any respect for mine?

Clearly there can only be one god, one religion. Thousands of years of "Holy wars" have proven that.

So what do you suggest? An atheist holy war to cleanse the world of religion? ::)

Is that how you interpreted that statement? History has proven that whenever people of difference live amongst each other, war and hate crims are commonplace. Religion teaches people to be intolerant of other people's beliefs. Just look at your first commandment. "You shal have no other gods before Me"

About the columbine response...I just think it's so pointless. Many, MANY others would say the same thing, and IMO they'd all be wasting their lives; throwing them away for a God they can't feel. I don't believe in an afterlife...so I think that lone decision was not whether that person believes in god...it's whether or not they want to live.

[sneezer3]

You know, like the French gave the US the statue, well England gave the US dolly with parmesian and tomato sauce.

hmm. i know about the kloned baby recently. but who is dolly? I have no idea what you talking about could you please explan. and maybe give a link?

I might remember it as soon as you give me a clue even. ;)

well. thanks :)

[emprworm]

REPLY TO ACELETHAL:

I said it was illogical, nothing else.

and how is that, exactly? How is it illogical to believe in Creation?

Because this keeps getting convieniently ignored, I will repeat it-

There are three....and only three....possible answers to the origin of our universe. Please note that only one must be true while the other two are false.

1. The universe began to exist, and was externally caused.

2. The universe began to exist, and caused (or effected) itself.

3. The universe has always existed infinitely in the past.

How is option #1 more irrational than option #2 and #3 Ace? Please enlighten the community.

FYI: #1 is the only option that does not toss out known laws of physics, btw.

The theory that supports what I said is the Big Bang theory.

Fine and dandy. I believe the Big Bang too. I believe God created the universe. The Big Bang does not answer the question of the origin of the universe. We must go back to those three possibilities. So, how did you go about saying option 1 is irrational again? Last I checked, all finite changing things need causes for their existence. Last I checked, the universe is merely a series of finite changing things. The sum of any set of finite changing things that need causes is still a finite changing thing that needs a cause. Looks like your option #2 is getting less rational all the time.

The big bang theory outlines how this universe came into existence.

no it doesn't. It explains nothing regarding the cause of the BANG or the source of the energy contained within the BANG. Unless you have something to add to it, please enlighten us. And before you start quoting Guth and his frothy space time foam, keep in mind this one simple word: faith.

And I have NEVER heard of any Christian organization that just gives to others without trying to convert them.

so? Freedom of choice. If you dont like the message that comes with the free food and shelter, then dont believe. Doesn't make it evil. Is one's mind so weak, that it cannot withstand a simple missionary saying a few things about Jesus?

Boy scouts: Must be Christian to join

Christian reading club: must be Christian to read

Christian food bank: must be a Christian to eat (how very loving of thy neighbour)

have you heard of this?

Christian missionaries serving 20 years in Yemen as doctors and nurses, saving literally tens of thousands of children during the time who are Muslim and helping and treating other Muslims, excuted in cold blood- perhaps even by people they once helped as children.

A common story. Ever hear of those?

I've also heard of Atheist clubs requiring you to be an atheist to join. And? Big deal.

you call all Christians willing to die for God insane -No, I called them irrational and gullible, and maybe foolish.

Foolish? How is option #1 any less rational than your option #2, which tosses out the Principle of Causality- which all practical science is based upon?

I believe you're being manipulated to serve Christianity. That's how I interpret the bible. A means to manipulate.

I think, Ace, you should enlighten yourself to the world of the Christian scholars who regularly debate world renown atheist physicists and decimate them like chopped liver.

click here for one debate. Please make sure you click on Peter Atkins to see his credentials as an atheist scientist and debator.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-atkins.html

another debate- you can read the entire transcript:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley0.html

The video's of these are amazing. its fun watching the atheists sweat and adjust their ties as the "xian" rips them apart infront of a live audience

[Cyborg]

Eprworm... You can't make everyone have your point of view at this. Why are you always retaliating against others view at god?

[emprworm]

Cyborg, please read this quote:

you call all Christians willing to die for God insane -No, I called them irrational and gullible, and maybe foolish.

So if I contend against someone who calls all Christians guillible, irrational, and foolish, you accuse me of retalliating?

Are you being fair here, Cyborg? Where is your outcry against Ace for calling all christians irrational? Surely you would be appaled at such a statement.....right?

[Acriku]

Empr what do you have against atheism? Your statements show much hatred for it, although I don't know why. Someone who chooses not to follow blindly to a book and a sky pixie (heard that in an atheism forum, pretty fuunny) is very smart IMO. In this aspect atleast. But there are a few bad apples, basically arseholes who are atheists as well. So please drop your hate. And that debate shows nothing, nothing except the knowledge of those two, or lack thereof.

[emprworm]

oh but Mr. Acriku, there was no hate in my post at all! No ad-hominem whatsoever to Acelethal. In fact, I reviewed it to ensure such was the case. If you found ad-hominem in that post, please point out the specific line, so I can promptly edit it.

Your statements show much hatred for it

which statements were those again? Please choose statements only from my post to Acelethal or Cyborg, which were the posts you responded to.

Thank you.

[Cyborg]

To emprworm:

Acelethal has his point of view, which he shows in his posts where he call those who want to die for god insane and stuff.

YES, I think it's insane to die for something that I'm not sure that even exist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack your religion or you, I only agree with acelethal on that point.

[emprworm]

LOL! Cyborg, Ace's point is that ALL Christians are irrational....perhaps foolish.

And you dare accuse me of being intolerant?

Please point out a statement where I have said "all atheists are idiots."

Tables are turned on you, Mr. Cyborg. Since by your own admission you agree that ALL Christians are basically idiots, I think I will now Quote Acriku:

Cyborg (and Acriku) what do you have against creationism? Your statements show much hatred for it, although I don't know why. Someone who chooses not to follow blindly to some Guth Space-Time-Foam or self-caused universe that violates all laws of physics (pretty fuunny) is very smart IMO. In this aspect atleast. But there are a few bad apples, basically arseholes who are theists as well. So please drop your hate. And that debate shows nothing, nothing except the knowledge of the one, or lack thereof.

[emprworm]

So long as Acelthal, Cyborg, (Acriku?) and others continue to publicly state that all Christians are irrational and foolish, I will therefore continute to quote and requote this argument, ad-infinitum until it is addressed, or the subject dropped by the atheists.

There are three....and only three....possible answers to the origin of our universe. Please note that only one must be true while the other two are false (philosophers have known this for centuries)

1. The universe began to exist, and was externally caused.

2. The universe began to exist, and caused (or effected) itself.

3. The universe has always existed infinitely in the past.

How is option #1 more irrational than option #2 and #3? Please enlighten the community. Note that for you to empirically say that option #1 is irrational while emphatically declaring options #2 and/or #3 to be more rational requires evidence. To make claims as to the rational feasibility of one option over another puts the burden of proof on YOU.

FYI: #1 is the only option that does not toss out known laws of physics, btw.

There is no hate in this question, so responding with something like "Please stop hating me" is ad-hominem rubbish and a very weak way to dodge the question.

I await a response from an atheist, thanks.

[IxianMace]

Option 1 is in no way more or less irrational than options 2 and 3. Since we need evidence to prove anything in this case, and since we do not have any SOLID evidence that makes one theory more likely than the other, I would say that all options are equally rational. It just depends on what a given person finds more plausible or easy to believe.

[Edric O]

That was in response to your claiming all priests and the priesthood were completely immaculate and never did anything wrong.

I never claimed such a thing. They are only human, like all of us.

The big bang theory outlines how this universe came into existence. And it is a pretty wild theory. It doesnt say anything about what is outside the universe, or what was before the universe, because there's no way to know.

But it does say that space-time as we know it exists only within the universe. In other words, there is no such thing as "before" or "outside" - not in the usual meaning of the words, at least.

This is just one example of how the religion is designed to grow itself. It's not a religion of love, it's a religion of design.

And WHO designed it? Do you believe there was some evil mastermind behind it all, who laid a plan stretching for a few millenia? ::)

- you call all Christians willing to die for God insane -No, I called them irrational and gullible, and maybe foolish.

- you accuse us of trying to take over the world -That's the ultimate goal of any religion; expand, grow, convert. That goal is only met when everyone on the world is a Christian. Sounds like it's trying to takeover the world to me.

- you call my beliefs "stupid", "dumb", etc. -That is my interpretation of them. Unlike you, I still respect them. I respect your right to believe whatever you want to. And I have a right to think whatever I want to about your beliefs, as long as I don't act upon that as you have. I don't believe you're a "disgusting inhuman piece of filth" for your beliefs.

- you say Christian beliefs fly in the face of everything logical and rational -Many of them do. Again, how are any of these things "ragingly hateful"?

- you say the Christian idea of God sounds like a fairy tale -I'm not the only one here that things that...Again, how is this hateful at all. It's my opinion. It's an interpretation.

- you say Christianity serves only to divide people and increase the ranks of those who believe -See above...

- you call me a manipulated puppet -Yes. I believe you're being manipulated to serve Christianity. That's how I interpret the bible. A means to manipulate.

So, basically, I was right. You admit to all those things. And if THAT isn't hateful, then I don't know what is.

You have not answered me. What do you think of them? They died for their beliefs just as the early Christians did. The only difference is the cause they died for.

No, not the cause. The most important difference is HOW they died. The Christians were brutally murdered by forces they could not control. Muslim terrorists kill themselves in order to take as many enemies with them as possible.

As for respect... I respect them, yes. The same way I would respect a worthy enemy before going into battle against him. They are evil, but determined and extremely brave. That demands at least some respect. (though not nearly as much as those who die for a noble cause)

Ah yes, a theist that demands respect yet shows none for others. How is it that you expect me to respect, let alone believe in your beliefs if you will not show any respect for mine?

I never demanded respect for myself. You can consider me a pitiful idiot for all I care. I only demanded respect for people who were hundreds of times better, braver and more noble than either of us.

And I'll never expect you to convert. You are far too gone for that. As far as I'm concerned, you are a lost cause. With the risk of sounding cliche, I WILL pray for you.

Religion teaches people to be intolerant of other people's beliefs. Just look at your first commandment. "You shal have no other gods before Me"

And you conveniently ignore "Thou shalt not kill"... ::)

About the columbine response...I just think it's so pointless. Many, MANY others would say the same thing, and IMO they'd all be wasting their lives; throwing them away for a God they can't feel.

Who the hell are YOU to tell them how to live their lives, or when to die? Sometimes death is preferable to living on. This was one of those times.

And who are YOU to judge when a life is wasted and when it isn't?

Personally, I believe that if you have nothing to die for, you have nothing to live for.

Okay, I'll be blunt. This is what I think of when I think of Jesus and Christianity:

Jesus was a poor, poor man wallowing in self pity. He had no money, he was born out of wedlock and he did not know who his father is. One day he thought "Hey, instead of telling people that some guy shagged my mother, I'll tell them my father is God." He was appropreately laughed at. As for the rest of the religion, he thought, "Wow, I'm a big loser. I'm not a king or a Rabbi, I don't even have a job. I know, I'll create a religion with me as the savior. That way I'll be famous for generations to come." That's what I mean. Of course, that is ultimately the purpose of ALL religion. It is not love. It is domination. All that preaching is just a means to achieve it.

You have the right to hold that opinion, Ace. I also have the right to hold the opinion that you're a filthy and disgusting excuse for a human being.

Now aren't we just one big happy family? ::)

I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of atheists who spew out insult after insult towards Christians, Jesus and God, and then whine and cry "intolerance" at the slightest hint of retaliation. You insult my beliefs and my God, I retaliate. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?

(Have I lost my temper? You bet I have! This isn't an argument any more, it's a hateful flame war. Thanks to both of us.)

[SurlyPIG]

and how is that, exactly? How is it illogical to believe in Creation?

If you could see God and he showed you how he created the universe, told you when he did it and what it was like, then not only would it be logical, it would be the ONLY answer. There is absolutely no sign He exists. None. Therefore believing in him is illogical.

For all we know there could be a planet in orbit around the sun constantly opposite from earth. How would we know it's there? Lets say it's in closer than mercury and its camoflaged. Ships cannot reach it. But it is still believed to exist. We have absolutely no reason to believe it is there. We have no reason to believe it's not there either. Would you believe in this planet emprworm? If yes, then you are consistent. If no, then please explain to me how this is any different than believing in God.

About those three possible beginnings to the universe; I did not know that was directed at me, otherwise I would have responded. Anyway, unlike those debaters I don't delude myself into thinking that I know the origins of the universe. It is far more complicated than we can understand at this point

The big bang theory DOES outline how the universe came to be, but not WHY. It states what the universe is, but doesn't so much as allude to why it occurred.

Looks like your option #2 is getting less rational all the time.

Why would you atutomatically assume that I believed in option #2? Why would you automatically assume I believed in any of them? They're all illogical. They all defy the laws of physics. There's no way to know which one, if any of them are true yet. Science has not got us that far.

The big bang theory outlines how this universe came into existence.

no it doesn't.

Yes, it does. It doesnt say WHY. Again, I do not delude myself into thinking I know why. It's just a guessing game right now. Anybody's scientific guess is as good as the next guy's.

If you dont like the message that comes with the free food and shelter, then dont believe.

How touching. What if religous organizations controlled the right to live? Would you believe then? Or how about this; if you were very poor, living in say, a Buddhist-dominated society, living on the streets, would you convert to Buddhism to gain access to the social services and charities? No, you wouldn't. Bah, witholding the needs of life in order to convert people. That's pretty freakin' low.

Christian missionaries serving 20 years in Yemen as doctors and nurses, saving literally tens of thousands of children during the time who are Muslim and helping and treating other Muslims, excuted in cold blood- perhaps even by people they once helped as children.

Keyword; missionaries. They only offer help to convert. Terrible that they were killed, but honestly, I'm not surprised they were (not to diminish the disgrace of their killers, no less). I mean you're waltzing your way into a country trained in the practice of medicine, and saving lives only because you want people to become a member of your religion. Can you imagine what that would look like from their perspective?

"Doctor, I'm dying, can you help me?"

"Do you accept the Lord, and the fact that Jesus died for you?"

"No sir, I'm Muslim"

"Well then you'll just have to find a Muslim doctor."

And you have completely warped my words in that last reply.

I said that, in my opinion, people who were willing to die for God are foolish. If you were that girl, and some psycho was pointing a gun at you, would you say "Yes, I believe in God." knowing full well that you're throwing away your life for an entity you have absolutely no reason to believe exists? That's what I mean is foolish. It's a waste of life. I don't mean going to church or reading the bible or celebrating Easter or participating in Lent. I mean DYING for all of that.

[Edric O]

I said that, in my opinion, people who were willing to die for God are foolish. If you were that girl, and some psycho was pointing a gun at you, would you say "Yes, I believe in God." knowing full well that you're throwing away your life for an entity you have absolutely no reason to believe exists? That's what I mean is foolish. It's a waste of life. I don't mean going to church or reading the bible or celebrating Easter or participating in Lent. I mean DYING for all of that.

Ace, you understand nothing... Any true Christian would answer "yes" to that madman. Any true Christian is willing to DIE for the Lord. If he is not, then he is only a hypocrite.

There is no better way to die than giving your life for God.