Yun

I've heard about the story of this ancient king, he lived a long time ago in very barbarous times.

He actually came from humble roots, being a slave at one point in his life after being kidnapped from his rustic tribal setting. He worked hard to better himself and eventually gained himself a kingdom by his might and hard work.

He stated that the best thing in life is to: "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."

Are you familiar with this story, and what do you think of his statement?

Something like 5 years ago, in this section, someone (I can't remember who, and it wasn't me) started rating the various trolls based on originality, humor, deceptiveness, and general personality.

For a couple of months we all had fun calling the trolls out, but also telling them what kind of score they were getting as well.

Would you like to bring back this practice?

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-proje...

No, this does not apply to all Atheists.

However, not a day goes by on Y!A in which several Atheists (in an attempt to imply the superiority of their ideas over those of the religious) claim that religion will soon be extinct and is shrinking every day.

Did you just fail to look at actual research and assume this to be the case or are you choosing to pretend that the research doesn't exist because it hurts one of your favorite statements.

I was taking a shower about 30 minutes ago, when I noticed something very dark and small on the bathtub floor by my foot. I thought it might be a clump of my wife's very dark hair, and moved my foot, thinking it was stuck under my heel. It disappeared, but something didn't feel right.

About a minute later I saw it come back up, and of course I jumped out of the shower as fast as I could.

I wear glasses, so I couldn't see it clearly. However, After I had jumped out, it extended itself up what was probably a full foot, and I could see the tongue flick out for a moment. It went back down when I moved back from the tub.

It had to be a reasonably thin snake, since the drain has some metal that divides it into four smaller holes, but it was impressively long for something that thin.

How did this thing get in there? How do I deal with it?

I've covered both shower drains with clear containers with weighted objects on top, so if it comes up it can't get into the house.

I live in a mobile home, so that might make a difference with the sewer lines.

I know that you consider the Roman Catholic Church the Mother of Harlots and source of corruption in Christianity. I understand that you take a very public stance that taking part in the things given by and associated with the RCC is therefore taking the mark of the beast...

So, can you explain to me why the Bible Version purchased by CT Russel for the use of the Watchtower Society, called the "Emphatic Diaglott," and the newer New World Translation that replaced it are both based on the Vaticanus Manuscript?

Why would you want to follow a document found in, maintained at, and named for the very city that is the center of power for the Pope and RCC?

The Emphatic Diaglott's full name actually states that it comes specifically from that source.

Doesn't that mean that your own versions that you have used for the Bible are themselves giving you the mark of the beast?

Yes, I am asking this a second time, since the first time I didn't get any JWs.

I know that you consider the Pope to be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church the Mother of Harlots. I understand that you take a very public stance that taking part in the things given by and associated with the RCC is therefore taking the mark of the beast...

So, can you explain to me why the Bible Version purchased by CT Russel for the use of the Watchtower Society, called the "Emphatic Diaglott," and the newer New World Translation that replaced it are both based on the Vaticanus Manuscript?

Why would you want to follow a document found in, maintained at, and named for the very city that is the center of power for the Pope and RCC?

The Emphatic Diaglott's full name actually states that it comes specifically from that source.

Doesn't that mean that your own versions that you have used for the Bible are themselves giving you the mark of the beast?

Before anyone says that this is posted in the wrong section (I'm looking at you Fireball), I am aware.

I don't go into the Politics section, because it is just too messed up in there.

Additionally, I think those in this section will appreciate it more.

Seeing that a study of the personal items of Adam Lanza (the Sandyhook shooter) showed he was influenced by DDR and pictures of hamsters and lego men, should we outlaw those things for the sake of preventing future violence?

I would like to hear the JW interpretation of this passage.

If you would be so kind as to come back, I might have some additional questions as we continue.

Looking at these two different approaches to explaining things from the past, in particular religion, these two groups have interesting theories.

Ancient Alient Theorists say some or all of religions are the product of aliens visiting ancient mankind for some purpose. They would say that the various deities and spiritual beings are either primitive man's attempt to imitate the powers of the aliens, or are directly inspired by the aliens as part of their purpose.

Many Atheists (I will admit not all) take the stance that religion was invented by powerful men in order to keep the masses in check and following their despotic lead. They would say that religion is inherently harmful because of this origin.

Ancient Astronaught theorists base some of their thoughts on the similarities between some modern technology and what ancient religious texts describe and the depictions of said ancient beings bearing similiarities to men in space suits or the modern representation of aliens.

The Atheist theory on this is based on... well... nothing other than just conjecture, since there is no recorded or oral history of any culture not having religion and then having it invented. They just say their theory loudly and with conviction and expect people to accept it as fact.

So, which one has more validity based on the previously provided facts?

Just a little while ago the question was asked what the big problems with evolution are:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj5Wd...

The vast majority of answers were things like: "we understand all of evolution" and "it has no problems."

What do you reply to an article like this?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/12/167052782/land-creat...

It discusses recent findings that suggest how the first "large" or "complex" lifeforms on Earth didn't appear first in the sea and then move onto land, as has always been the accepted view of the evolutionary community, but the other way around.

How perfectly understood and lacking in problems is a theory that has such a major possible contradiction in it?

If you could answer this question for me, there would be great rejoicing.

Don't make me count past three to get an answer.

Wrong answers that come out below the correct number will be cast into the Pit of Infinite Peril and those coming out above will be fed to the Black Beast of Argh.

No asking Tim for the answer.

This is not intended as criticism in the least of the present administration.

I'm just curious as to whether anyone else thinks that the timing of this event is very coincidental with the current strain taking place in that region.

The fact that the US is presenting a posthumous medal to a man killed while taking part in the war between North Korea and South Korea right when there is a new pseudo-crisis taking place there is very interesting to me.

Your thoughts?

I've noted that many of you Atheists (not all) are very active in the Politics section as well, so I wanted to hear your opinion on the fact that the vast majority of the political figures that you support are religious.

Many of you spend all day in R&S mocking religious people, but you seem so excited about supporting religious people in politics.

According to a poll conducted among the 111th Congress (2009-2011) only 5 called themselves "unspecified/don't know/refused to answer." That's 0.9% of Congress.

If we add in the non-Christians and Jews (you know the ones that you like to malign the most), we're only up to a total of 12. That's 2.2% of Congress. That number is including the Muslims.

Let's be really generous and include the "Pietists, Friends/Quakers, and the Protestant - Unspecified" in case some Atheists were too ashamed to call themselves such and pretended to be part of those groups. That brings us to a total of 53. So now we have 9.9% of Congress.

Let me also point out that our current President is religious and cited his religion as an inpsiration for some of his most notable policies.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that the vast majority of you not only voted for, but also supported political candidates that were Christians or Jews of some form. And you did that while openly mocking religion and calling any person believing such things stupid/insane/deluded.

What does that say about the consistency of your position?

I've noted that many of you Atheists are very active in the Politics section as well, so I wanted to hear your opinion on the fact that the vast majority of the political figures that you support are religious.

You spend all day in R&S mocking religious people, but you seem so excited about supporting religious people in politics.

According to a poll conducted among the 111th Congress (2009-2011) only 5 called themselves "unspecified/don't know/refused to answer." That's 0.9% of Congress.

If we add in the non-Christians and Jews (you know the ones that you like to malign the most), we're only up to a total of 12. That's 2.2% of Congress. That number is including the Muslims.

Let's be really generous and include the "Pietists, Friends/Quakers, and the Protestant - Unspecified" in case some Atheists were too ashamed to call themselves such and presented to be part of those groups. That brings us to a total of 53. So now we have 9.9% of Congress.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that the vast majority of you not only voted for, but also supported political candidates that were Christians or Jews of some form. And you did that while openly mocking religion and calling any person believing such things stupid/insane/deluded.

What does that say about the consistency of your position?

I am asking it in this section, since Gerard himself frequently makes an appearance (or his alter-ego Italian Spiderman).

This dramatic blow to French society, due to a 75% tax rate on earnings over a million Euros, may have equally dramatic results. What do you think those will be?

Will it make the French even more bitter and resentful of others? Will it make them even more arrogant, since they are too "elite" even for their own people? Will the egress of wealthy Frenchmen lead to a collapse of their economy, since they will no longer be able to prop it up by their insane taxes?

Discuss!!!

Hey everyone.

This is something that I hope both Theists and Atheists can agree on.

Sure, this section is full of trolls and people looking to insult others. That's just par for the course in here.

However, there is nothing more annoying to me than those that paste the same set of lines into every answer they give. Sometimes they take the time to put in a sentence or two regarding the actual question, but the rest of what they post is just the same thing over and over.

You know who those people are, they either have their canned speech on "God isn't real" or "Pray the Rosary."

It doesn't even matter to me if the person is in agreement with my stance; I can't stand people that just say the same things over and over again.

No matter what your perspective on the issues, how do you feel about those that just copy/paste those statements for every question?

From what I understand, it was because he thought they were too girly.

Is this correct?

Happy Guy Fawkes Day!

In honor of the tremendous event that it is, I was wondering what others think would have happened if the Gunpowder Plot had been executed properly?

The complete decapitation of the British government (king and Parliament) by the destruction of the House of Parliament would have left a gaping hole in the rule of Britain. Would it have led to the creation of a pro-Catholic government, as the conspirators intended, or could it have led to a religious war of retaliation?

I want to hear creative and informative opinions on this from historically minded people.