Questions and Answers (answers go in comments)
#1 How does one find a bank that carries your best interest at heart?
#2 How can one defend being an atheist and not being perfectly capable of critical thinking?
#3 Is the Vatican the worlds biggest provider of child pr0n? (in 1992, the vatican spoke to the public and said that they were about to honour Galileo Galilei by making a statue representing him. but they said that they found other more important things to spend their money on, and some claim that it was spent on more servers for all their child porn, probably a joke)
#4 If you give money to the United Nation´s Children´s Fund, will the money go where you intend it to go? (i.e. poor children who will starve without financial aid from people such as you and I, who are way better of)
#5 Are the Illuminate really trying to get rid of all the worlds religions, except Gaia?
#6 Why is it unsafe to wire large sums of money overseas?
#7 Does the bible REALLY say that shrimps are an abomination?
#8 If there is such a being/thing/deity, where did god come from? (humor is allowed)
#9 Can someone explain this?
Christian Apologetics attempt to rationalize and defend Christian faith and the Bible. Given that it is morally wrong to:
•
deliberately slaughter men, women, and children;
•
hold women captive for slavery, sex, or both;
•
force people to cannibalize friends and family;
•
practice any kind of human sacrifice; and
•
torture people because of their beliefs. Then whomever claims to have committed such atrocities (god or human) is as reprehensible as the acts themselves. Consider:
•
Genesis 7:23.
Every living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out.
•
Numbers 31:17-18.
Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
•
Jeremiah 19:9.
I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters.
•
Judges 11:30-39.
I will sacrifice [my daughter] as a burnt offering.
•
Revelation 14:10-11.
They will be tormented with burning sulphur…
Defending these acts demands calling into question the morals of the defenders.
source is here –> number 51: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62630233/100-Facts
#10 If the world will end soon, then why recycle?
#11 Soul, Vudu or Qiai?
I like these questions, because one can discuss them for a very long time and there will most likely be a lot of different interesting answers.
I would like it very much if YOU would answer some or all of the questions with your beliefs or opinions 
1. no clue.. game theory sigur at ongin bani kann hava my best interest at heart
2. er critical thinking, ik bara grenj ? :p
3. heldigvís kenni eg onki til child pr0n.. merkeligt at spyrja eftir child pr0n leverandør Magni ! (hatta var eitt hint til hvussu láturligt vatikani var í 1992 tá tey søgdu at tey fóru at reisa eina standmynd av Galileo Galilei, men funnu okkurt anna at brúka pengarnir til, onkur helt vi at tey brúktu pengarnir til størri servarir til teirra barnaporno, Red)
4. tað eru vanlig fólk sum tú sum góðtaka at 80% minst ferð til administratión.
5. Ja tað er eitt “ting” í gongd sum er við at skapa eina religion of ONE… um tað er ein elita sum tú leggur upp til har veit eg ik.. sikkurt ikkurt… bara nutcases..
6. #6 Why is it unsafe to wire large sums of money overseas? ? .. it is ?
7. ney
8. tað haldi eg ikki verður avsløra enn :p … men sum eg skilji so var tað firsta her positivt, og so kom okkurt negativt.. áren tað ? .. ja tað er ik avsløra :p
9. huff hettar stravi… to a point…
10… jubbi ferdigur.. behøvist eg lesa rest ?… eg haldi at ikki at Christian Apologetics gevir so nógva meining at arb við sum nógv halda…
3. No. As far as I am aware, no Vatican official has ever produced any porn, child or otherwise. And while not excusing the moral depravity of certain Catholic clergy and the parts of the institution that protects them, the proportion of pedophiles in the Vatican is not higher than anywhere else.
7. Yes, in so far as what is in the Bible can be called what the Bible says. It’s important to note that the Bible isn’t a book; it’s a library of books, written by numerous authors over a period of many centuries. So it’s not a unified single statement about anything. It contains many points of view and speaks from and to many different social, cultural and religious settings. But yeah, abominable shrimps are in there.
8. Theistic philosophy has traditionally taught that God doesn’t come from anywhere. Coming from somewhere is a characteristic of our contingent universe, a universe which owes its existence to God, its creator. It’s a mistake to assume that the rules of our universe pertain to its creator. They don’t.
9. There might be real misunderstandings about the Biblical material or theological concepts that apologetics of various kinds should legitimately seek to correct. I think there are many of those. I meet a lot of atheists who have no idea what they’re on about when they talk about the Bible or just general Christian dogma. That said, there are things in the Bible, the theological tradition and church history that are indefensible. For various reasons, it’s hard for some to accept that and they then go out of their way to defend the indefensible. That’s stupid, counterproductive and a waste of precious time. And I don’t think it’s very consistent with what I believe is the core tenets of Christianity.
Alright, Arni!
that´s the response I was aiming at
other points of view are also very welcome
#7: abominable shrimps
REASON 1: God Cares!
In Mark 7, Jesus makes it clear that spiritual “cleanness” is not affected by what goes into your mouth and stomach. But does that mean God doesn’t care what you put in your body or how you take care of it? By abstaining from those meats listed as unclean in the Bible, I make a statement about God: I believe God cares about the whole person: spirit, soul and body!
REASON 2: God is NOT arbitrary!
It seems logical to me that God would not provide such an elaborate categorization in Leviticus 11 of those animals which are clean vs. unclean unless the distinction had some basis in physical reality. Many of the animals labeled as “unclean” are primarily scavengers. They do not have the kind of multiple digestive system that the cud-chewers do, so the poisons that they consume go directly into their flesh. Only the unclean animals are regular hosts to such parasites as the trichina worm.
Isn’t it amazing that almost every cookbook notes that you should always be extra careful to fully cook pork to a well-done state, but they never mention that their unspoken reason is so that you will be sure to kill the trichina worms in their little cysts!
It is an accepted fact that much of the pork in America, even with all our “modern” health precautions, probably contains trichina. Health authorities also warn against eating shell fish at certain times of year because they are poisonous then. They don’t bother to mention that the shellfish have the same scavenging habits all year long that causes this problem. Trichinosis and possible poisoning is bad enough, but the unclean animals are host also to much more serious problems for humans. The AIDS virus and other serious diseases may have been spread by humans eating contaminated monkeys and/or other unclean animals.
By abstaining from those animals listed as unclean in the Bible, I am making another statement about the nature of God: I do not believe God is capricious and arbitrary.
REASON 3: It makes sense to believe God!
All of the same reasoning about “law and grace” which some attempt to apply to “do away” with the Sabbath and Holy Days is also used to “do away” with any notice of the distinction of unclean meats. By abstaining from unclean meats, I am making an effort to be consistent in the way I view the issues of law and grace: What I eat or don’t eat doesn’t “earn” me salvation. It doesn’t make me “more spiritual” than the next person. It doesn’t “earn Brownie Points” with God. It just makes sense to me to accept God’s word on what He created to be used for food.
REASON 4: From the beginning it was so!
God did not first make the distinction among animals known at Mount Sinai. Noah knew of the distinction centuries before the “Law” was given on Mount Sinai-and long before Israel (Jacob) started the family later known as the nation of Israel. Noah took seven pairs of each clean animal and only one pair of each unclean animal on the ark. I see no reason to think that the distinction was created just at the time of the Flood. It would seem most logical that it had been made at creation as Abel sacrificed animals. His sacrifice was acceptable to God. Given all the other evidence in scripture, I cannot imagine that he sacrificed a pig! It makes sense to me that this distinction, which didn’t start with the giving of the Old Covenant, isn’t ended by the coming of the New.
Since you where too lazy to study this subject, then I’ll be lazy and just google and copy it from http://bit.ly/r5hzzu
#9 A) deliberately slaughter men, women, and children
I believe you are referring to Ezekiel 9:1-8
This one is a vision the prophet Ezekiel is having.
Its similar to what happened to Sodoma and Gomorrah.
There lived Lot, among all the ungodly people. An angle (?) came to visit Abraham, and told him of Gods upcoming judgement of the city and all its inhabitants.
Ezekiel did the same thing as Abraham did, he plead with God for Israel and its remnant. (“Ah, Lord GOD! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?” (verse
God is Holy, and he will punish at the end of the day. He is mercy full, and willing to wait (2000 years now). And when that day comes, men, women, and children will be treated according to Holiness, which far exceeds anything we can come up with.
For more http://bit.ly/oO6oWj
Orki ikki at svara hesum spurningum av tveimum høvuðsorsøkum:
1. Havi ikki skil fyri teimum ella
2. Havi ongan áhuga í teimum
Orsøkin til vantandi áhugan er, at eg langt síðani havi bundið frið við meg sjálva viðvíkjandi trúgv. Í høvuðsheitum eri eg sannførd um, at menniskjaligi heilin ongantíð verður førur fyri at skilja alt. Úr einum alheimsligum sjónarhorni vita vit stórt sæð einki, og ongastaðni finst meiri enn millum himmal og jørð. Tað er alt, sum tað skal vera.
#1 Banks are businesses and businesses always have profit as highest priority. Of course, one sound business model is to make the costumer happy. However, said happiness will always be curtailed by what’s economically feasible regarding said profit-making. You can’t really find a bank with your best interest at heart but you might be able to find a compromise on the tightrope between profit, ethics, and costumer-satisfaction.
#2 Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of gods. You don’t have to possess any special acuity, or indeed any whatsoever in order to be unconvinced of something. That being said, many atheists consider their atheism to be inextricably linked with them holding as personal virtue rationality, critical thinking, or what-have-you. Now, it is a – perhaps unfortunate – fact that no human being can ever be an ideal reasoner. However, virtues might be worthwhile aspiring to as abstract ideals even when not feasibly attainable. As such, even if we aren’t fully rational, we can still strive to be. “Aim for the moon, and if you miss you’ll land among the stars.” And all that jazz. As a side-note some atheists actually defend their atheism by reference to their rational short-comings. Isaac Asimov for instance:
#3 No, as Arni said there is no evidence to link the Vatican to child pornography although there is plenty to link them to the systematic rape and organised cover-up of said rape and continued protective sanction of the rapists. I don’t know if Arni’s claim is true that there are proportionally no more paedophiles in the Catholic Church than expected of the baserate, although it sure doesn’t seem that way, but I’ve never considered that the issue. The Vatican’s crime wasn’t the rape of children – that was the crime of the individual priests – the Vatican’s crime was knowingly letting it go on and on and on while doing everything in its power to help the priests keep up the “work” and doing nothing to help the victims. The Vatican might not be the world’s biggest provider of child-porn, but they certainly seem to be one of the biggest criminal organisations. Bigger than the mafia by far.
#4 There are no guarantees in life. You can never be sure that there won’t be a corrupt official or a thief somewhere along the chain of transactions. However, if it worries you, do some research first. Find out which charities have been involved in scandal, have been criticised for unethical conduct etc. Find out what countermeasures these charities take in order to ensure your money is well spent. I have no idea about the United Nation’s Children’s Fund, as I haven’t researched them, so I haven’t really answered your question, but there you go. As a side I recommend Kiva very strongly. Providing a man with the means to fish will always be more useful than providing him with fish. Not that providing him with fish is entirely without its merits, mind.
#5 Of course not! Now take off that tinfoil hat this very instant!
#6 I’m sure I wouldn’t know. Is it?
#7 Yes and no. The Bible doesn’t mention shrimp specifically. Although it does mention finless and scaleless sea-animals. And yes, that includes shrimp among other things.
#8 Christianity is the belief that before existence and causes someone existed who caused both. Obviously God went back in time to the time before there was time and created his uncreated self. Everyone knows that.
#9 Yes, but the explanation won’t be good; only embarrassing to the explainer.
#10 Indeed. I believe if is the keyword here. The conditional is sound, the antecedent is false thereby invalidating the consequent. Or – well – strictly speaking the world will end sooner or later, but you should recycle so as to slow down that process rather than help it along.
#11 None of the above. Emergence for me, please.
P.s.
Existence is not a first-level property, Arni. Don’tcha know?
I am definitely liking these answers
I´m am not gonna answer any of the questions I have posted, because.. I posted them 
My word is law on this site!
#4 Eg veit ikki.. eg veit bara tað at tað er betur at geva enn ikki at geva. Okkurt kemur fram av tí ið verður givið… Vit gera tað rætta við at geva… Um øll siga, nei eg tími ikki at geva tí at tað er so korrupt, so hevði slett ikki staðið eingongd.. Vit kunnu eisini sjálvi fara avstað til tey ið treingja til.. so veit man at hjálpin er komin fram.
#5 We wouldnt know… tað sum Illuminaty ger er hemmiligt
Kanska tú hevði dáma hesa heimasíðuna http://www.vigilantcitizen.com
#7 Tað stendur nógv um hvat tey skuldu eta og hvat tey ikki skuldu eta. Alt fyri teirra egna besta, teirra heilsu. Alt skuldi reinsast væl og lógirnar vóru har so tey kundu liva og ikki blíva sjúk. Møguleikarnir vóru ikki teir somu sum í dag. Um vit hugsa soleiðis so geva nógvar av lógunum meining, um ikki allar
um man bara tekur sær tíð at seta seg inní tingini, og um man minnist til at hasar bøkurnar vóru upprunaliga skrivaðar til “ein fyrsta lesara” tvs. ikki beinleiðis til mín og tín, men vit eru so vælsignaði at vit hava fingið lov til at lesa tær..
#8 Guð skapti tað “at koma frá onkrastanið…” 5 Mós 29.29
#9 Nógv ið stendur skriva í Bíbliuni er søga. Hygg at søgu heimsins, its not really desirable is it. Guð var keddur 1 Mós 6.6. Tað hevði verið kalt av Guði um hann einki legði í, um heimurin sá út sum hann gjørdi tá og einki gjørdi við tað. Tað hevði eisini verið kalt av Guði um hann ikki koyrdi Adam og Evu úr Edens hava, tá ið syndin var komin. Fyristilla tær um vit í allar ævir skuldu liva í hesum? Eg líti á Guð. Hann sigur í 5 mósubók “eg eri tann ið gevi lív og tann sum tekur lív…” I trust God. Um Guð er góðskan sjálv, so hevði tað verið sera ófitt av honum um hann ikki VILDI hava okkum hjá sær, um hann ikki gjørdi alt fyri at fáa okkum til sín…
“practice any kind of human sacrifice…” Fólkini gjørdu tað tí tey fylgdu avgudum.. tey ofraðu børnini hjá sær til avgudar.. Guð bað tey ikki gera tað… Um vit lesa Gamla testamenti samanhangandi ella í contextið, so síggja vit hvat gekk fyri seg..
Force people to cannibalize friends and family.. Guð ávarðaði tey.. hann segði at um tit tilbiða avgudar jamen so fer hettar at henda..
Dómarabókin lýsur eina SERA myrka søgu hjá Ísrael.. “Everybody did what was right in their OWN eyes…” Not Gods eyes… hevur einki við Guds hjarta ella persón at gera… Dómarabókin 21.25
Eyð
Always the fair one
Heini, I’m not going to pretend that I know what you’re on about! Enlighten me, please!
Well, Arni, if you don’t know what I’m on about, that’s slightly worrying. It makes me suspect that your advocacy of the – distinction between a contingently existing universe and God – solution to the ‘whence God?’ problem was just you parroting someone else without any real understanding.
What we’re both on about – you, apparently, without realising it – is modal logic. Specifically alethic modality.
We’re talking about necessity, possibility, and contingency. Let’s go over them quickly and in layman’s terms. Something is necessarily true if it couldn’t possibly be false. (Or necessarily false if it couldn’t possibly be true.) Something is possibly true if it’s not necessarily false. And something is contingently true if it’s neither necessarily false nor necessarily true.
How does this apply to God and the universe? Well, the question was “whence God?” And you say that God, unlike the universe, is not contingent, so we shouldn’t ask that question. So, let’s say, ok. The universe is contingent. This means that it’s neither necessarily true nor necessarily false that the universe exists. The universe could have gone either way. It’s contingent. If God is not contingent, then God couldn’t have gone either way. God couldn’t possibly have failed to exist. God is necessary. So your implicit argument goes something like this:
This is all well and fine so far. The argument is perfectly valid and it’s a thoroughly coherent explanation of why it makes sense to ask what caused the universe while it doesn’t make sense to ask what caused God. For something to be caused to exist there must have been a time where that something didn’t exist. However, if something couldn’t possibly fail to exist, then there can never have been a time where that something didn’t exist (it’s impossible) so that something must therefore be uncaused.
The problem though is the claim that “God exists necessarily.” I mean, for one, the person who asks “well, where did God come from?” is likely to not believe in God, so you won’t get this person to agree to God being this person who couldn’t possibly have failed to exist. If the questioner truly believed this, he would be a theist. So since whoever’s asking the question probably doesn’t believe this, the person is not likely to accept your reason as to why it makes no sense to ask “whence God?” Well, it makes no sense because the universe is contingent and God is necessary. Alright, then. Prove the necessity of God. Go on. This is precisely what ontological arguments are all about.
So, Arni, if you want us to accept that it makes no sense to ask what caused God on the basis of the contingency of the universe and the non-contingency of God, you must provide us with a sound ontological argument, mustn’t you? You must defend your controversial premises. (Even if you apparently weren’t aware that the necessity of God was a premise of yours.) Now, the biggest obstacle for you to provide an ontological argument will be the Kantian objection that existence is not a predicate.
In layman’s terms, you can’t say that something must exist, that it is absolutely impossible for it not to exist, because ‘existence’ adds nothing ‘extra’ to the description of the subject. ‘Does exist’ is simply not the same kind of claim as ‘is red’ or ‘likes soup.’ A Superman that exists and a Superman that doesn’t – all other predicates being equal – are equally strong. Even if we define ‘God’ as ‘a being which couldn’t fail to exist’ if we say “well, yes, but no such being exists’ then we cancel out both ‘God’ and God’s alleged impossible non-existence, just as the colour of a ‘perfectly green unicorn’ doesn’t remain, when we say the unicorn doesn’t exist. All we can say is that IF the perfectly green unicorn exists, then it’s perfectly green. Or IF God exists, then God exists necessarily.
But I assume that few people who ask you where God came from will accept the ‘God exists’ part of your if statement anyway, so there will be no reason to accept the ‘exists necessarily’ part of the conditional either. And if there is no reason to accept the ‘God is necessary’ part, then there is no reason to accept the conditional “If God is necessary, then it makes no sense to ask what caused him” either. So your “solution” only works for people who already believe in God and believe that he is necessary and therefore doesn’t require a cause.
Moreover, if you truly believe, that “If God exists, God’s existence is necessary,” then I can easily prove that God doesn’t exist.
Now you, Arni, have to disagree with premise two in this argument. However, since the burden of proof lies with whomsoever seeks to limit the possibilities, the onus is then on you, yet again, to produce a sound ontological argument.
Are you up for it?
CS Lewis artfully makes the point in the “Magician’s Nephew” that there can be several people confronted with the evidence for God yet they can interpret that evidence quite differently. Lewis describes Uncle Andrew’s direct encounter with Aslan where he vehemently denied what he was seeing and hearing as making himself look stupid. And Lewis, the former atheist himself, continues, “Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. Uncle Andrew did.” When it comes to proof for God, the evidence is cumulative and therefore acceptable proof.
This evidence, or proofs, for the existence of God invites those atheists to consider it- especially for those who claim that there is none. At the very least it should be reasonably concluded that atheism (the absolute claim that there is no God after considering all possible knowledge) is a highly irrational position.
Psalm 14:1 & Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.