Duck, why is your premise (god exists) more valid than migueld's (God does not exist)?

Perhaps you should prove OBJECTIVELY why God does exist? I believe you will fail. However, migueld will also fail to prove god does not exist. Thus, we are stuck at an impasse. Neither side can prove their claim objectively correct; god exists or god does not exist.

migueld, what religious ideas has Huckabeee or Romney proposed that you are so afraid of? It seems you are merely afraid of having a man of faith in office. Many presidents have had religious beliefs while in office, however, this hasn't made them prone to theocratic ideals. Your fear is misguided.

Thee "gates of hell" comment was disturbing to say the least...Romney thinks that "god" comes from outer space and they are "gods" themselves...Bush thinks this current war is a crusade...All I'm saying is if there is one and people wished to believe in it fine....try the 10 commandments...especially the one that says "thou shall not kill"...seems all these "Christian" presidents want/need to see people die. Couple that with the fact that Romney and Huckabee never served...it's always the cocksuckers that never seen combat that want to have war..Take a trip through a history book...untold millions have died as a direct result from religion...I personally want to see a atheist get elected..free from all these crazy ass apocalyptic notions and death. Don't that sound fair?

Besides, the burden is on the ones that believe in that crazy shit...i was not born with sin...and i don't think for a second I'll be burning in some hell...C'mon...God is so great, yet an angel he made turns on him then they have some kind of fucking cosmic bet about who will get the most to follow them? Then God sends down a son who ends up getting killed and then gets reborn and tells everybody" fuck off your on your own till i get back..peace" Then we will have all sorts of problems and millions will die...good bad, children etc...then a big ass war between god and Satan...but we all know who wins in the end?..

So why have all that shit to start with?....it's all fucked up. Before Christ there was who?...before that there was what?..the latest example is Mormons.... every few hundred years there is some crazy religion and a bunch of dumb asses that fall for it... We are just here...like a rock, a fucking frog...a goat...etc...just fucking here..no more..no less..

Maybe people just can't comprehend the notion that we are no different then all the other things that live here. since we as humans make up only a tiny percentage of all species on earth..and apparently the only things that think we are created by some super power, I would say mathematically...........that religion is full of shit.

__________________
"People have so manipulated the concept of freedom, that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they have left."

Last time I checked these people still wanted our government and the constitution. You seem to be afraid of a theocracy which neither candidate is proposing.

Candidates can have faith and religious beliefs. This doesn't mean they will somehow override the constitution and enforce radical moral laws. Its good to be cautious but there have been no warning signs. All you have presented is that they are religious and are pandering to the religious right for votes, nothing more.

Religion is just the easiest tool to manipulate people with. If it wasn't religion it would be something else. Surely you understand religion is not the problem it is ignorance caused by the inability of people to question and analyze their own beliefs and others.

The burden of proof is on them to prove their god exists. This is true. However, the burden of proof is also upon atheists to prove god does not exist. Otherwise the answer remains that the existence of God is unknown just like the flying spaghetti monster.

PS - I understand the Mormon religion fairly well. You, obviously, need to do a little more research unless you were attempting to belittle their beliefs with oversimplification and ignorance.

If you think for one second that they want to keep America intact, then my friend you need to read some books....All the candidates except Paul and Dennis K. are members of the Council of foreign relations.

here is a small explanation:

the CFR and its friends in the mass media (largely controlled by CFR members such as Katherine Graham of the "Washington Post" and Henry Luce of" Time, Life"), foundations, and political groups have lobbied consistently to grant the United Nations more authority and power.

Bush and the "War of terror" were but one of the latest calls for a "New World Order."Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, "Kissinger ON THE COUCH."

In it he states "The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States." Most members are one-world-government ideologists whose long- term goals were officially summed up in September 1961 State Department Document 7277, adopted by the Nixon Administration: "...elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces...by the time it (UN global government) would be so strong no nation could challenge it."

In an article by Kingman Brewster, Jr. entitled "Reflections on Our National Purpose." Our purpose should be, according to him, to do away with our nationality, to "take some risks in order to invite others to pool their sovereignty with ours..." These "risks" include disarming to the point where we would be helpless against the "peace-keeping" forces of a global UN government. We should happily surrender our sovereignty to the world government in the interests of the "world community." Today we have the spectacle of Spc. 4 Michael New, a U.S. soldier in Germany who refuses to wear the uniform of the UN, facing an "administrative discharge." He states rightly that he swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations.

Meanwhile, others who attempt to destroy the Constitution and our sovereignty are given honors and position...At least they are not hypocrites...only supremely arrogant. "In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault..." in the opinion of Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974.


James Warburg, son of CFR founder Paul Warburg, and a member of FDR's "brain trust," testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, "We shall have world government whether or not you like it--by conquest or consent."

If I were you, I would be studying this council...

__________________
"People have so manipulated the concept of freedom, that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they have left."

Oh..i have looked into that plenty..wrote up a nice little thread on it also...here is the link:

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/gen...-vote-god.html

__________________
"People have so manipulated the concept of freedom, that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they have left."

The burden of proof is on them to prove their god exists.

BULLSHIT

YOU HAVE TO PROVE OTHERWISE OR YOU BASE YOUR BELIEF ON NO FRIGGIN EVIDENCE

__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM
^You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT

~777~ "THE AWACS ANGEL CODE"

The belief of "I don't know" is the only belief allowed by a lack of evidence that is the logical and consistent.

Duck, you have yet to objectively prove your God exists, either deductively or inductively. Thus, your presupposition that your God exists is invalid.

I'VE DONE IT AND DONE IT

THE COSMIC ENERGY WEB - The Godscience Manifesto

AFTERLIFE- DOES IT EXIST? THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE

Live Search: CIA STARGATE and GOD

Live Search: RENEGADE REMOTE VIEWERS FROM CIA STARGATE

YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE READING

AND YOU STILL CAN'T PROVE GOD IS NOT REAL

__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM
^You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT

~777~ "THE AWACS ANGEL CODE"

I have not claimed "God is not real" I have claimed that there is insufficient evidence to say he is real or he is not real. Make sense?

The links are all a bunch of garbage written by lunatics without any sort of review by someone with credible credentials. How do you determine the truth value of an argument duck? There are lots of logically correct arguments in the world but few of them hold truth-value. IE the Flying Spaghetti monster is logically sound but not very likely.

How did you come to the conclusion that these poorly written articles are objective truth? Have you ever heard of something called peer-review?

Yes "I don't know" (agnosticism) IS the only logical and consistent belief, but only because it is not making a claim one way or another, so requires no evidence to support it.

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark