People without religion don’t kill, torture & suppress untold millions to make them bow to their atheistic, communistic claptrap….ooops!

I’m really convinced you’ve escaped from a padded cell.

religious foke the burden of proof is upon you to brove the existence of god not me to disprove it….

No foke folk have to brove prove anything to you or anyone else.

As for 49% believing Bain is the murderer…..yep, I’m one of them. Not a shred of evidence that Robin did it, even the supposed “motive” is dodgy at best. Amazing what good lawyers can do for you!

That’s your readership in a nutshell Dave! We know it all. Let’s not let the evidence get in the way of our prejudices and opinions now, shall we?

I also happen to be a non believer however I do not feel the need to denigrate or abuse those who are, you pinko’s demand tolerance for all sorts of things that many of us find repulsive yet you refuse to offer the same respect or tolerance to those who do not share your views.

Please take your narrow minded hatred somewhere else.

James, I should I have added that to allege lack of reason on the part of believers is an indication that you are unable to come to grips with the basics of their position, and that is faith.

Believers do not pretend to understand the mysteries of life time and the universe, but allow themselves to believe that some unseen spiritual force of far superior intellectual capacity does. This faith excuses them the need to rationalize their position for by its very existence it is an admission that they do not fully understand.

The rationalist rejects this faith as an issue due only ridicule and contempt, however cannot explain by means of science or reason the correctness of his own position. Therefore it is the non believers like you James who are wanting for argument, not the religionists, and once again therefore, the onus of proof falls upon you.

..and anyway, since you speak with such certainty, why ever would you be reluctant to explain your position. You claim to understand, so spit it out. What’s the problem?

That is true, in so far as the belief is a private one. When the belief spills over in to the puiblic sphere,then it is a public matter and open to criticism and ridicule.

Would you say “Why bag a political party,any political party for that fact ,its their business to believe or not.”?

People without religion don’t fly planes in to skyscrapers.

People without religion do not claim land that is not theirs based on the ramblings of an ancient book.

People without religion do not deny themselves the pleasures of this earth.

People without religion do not lie to their children about punishment and reward.

People without rleligion live good lives beause they know it is the best way to live, not in anticipation of reward or fear of punishment.

People without religion treat others as equals.

Me ,I dont care if there is a god or not, I have my own beliefs,they are mine and no-one elses.
Religon to me is a personal thing ,if you want to have a god in your life good on you.
If not the same thing,but dont force or condem others for their beliefs.

Give it a rest Jimmy. You just accused me of copping out, and here you are as usual using brain dead self professed libertarian mantras to try and escape your own onus of proof.

The onus of proof is on the party wishing to convert the other.

Since I feel no compulsion to convert you, and agree that you can believe in a spiritual solution to the mystery of the universe or disbelieve, as you may choose, I am under no compulsion to prove anything.

However, if you feel you wish to convert people from the point of view that there is a spiritual element to the mystery of the universe to your own creed of secularism, then it is your obligation to provide proof.

“The onus of proof is on the one making the positive assertion…” is just weak illogical self serving crap, like so much of what so called Libertarians “believe” in. Even have their own bible that they “faithfully” quote from at every opportunity. They are nobody to be sneering at religionists of any persuasion.

People dismissive like you are of religion display an ignorant and immature failure to comprehend human nature.

I do not believe in any god but I do not consider myself better off for it. But in the eyes of history, I am a christian.

“Not necessary when disbelievers are unable to explain time, or the universe, and its beginnings, its limits or its purpose.”

Nice cop out there Red…..”because we cannot yet explain something it therefore means a God did it?” Please!

The onus of proof is on the one making the positive assertion…that a God exists…not on the one who holds the negative position….that there isn’t one as its impossible to prove a negative.There may well be a God somewhere….but its on the belivers head to prove it….and so far they have failed.

Not necessary when disbelievers are unable to explain time, or the universe, and its beginnings, its limits or its purpose.

I can hardly believe that intelligent people in a modern society can continue to think the bible is relevant. Ultimately, nobody can actually know what is out there

I quite agree, JCW.

That’s probably why people who believe in G-d call it faith. One thing that puzzles me however, is, why people who don’t believe in G-d, seem to imagine that their position of unbelief, is based on anything other than faith.

I mean, you can’t prove that G-d doesn’t exist, anymore than can people who believe that He does exist.

Yeah, that is soooooo rare. Jurors never ever do that!!

My first juniored trial, a rape trial, where a guy raped his ex-wife at knife-point. The jury convicted after a popodopolous from the judge, gave a stern leniency direction to the judge in sentencing, then were all over us at the end of the trial, crying and telling us how hard it was.

My first seniored trial, the jurors met us outside and said, “man you were lucky!” to me and my client. That was more like it. But hey, who cared, we won.

They actually hugged us, the defence team. It was quite sickening and confusing for me as junior counsel.

That’s right, it is weird and serious TVNZ. Rarely happens.

My second seniored trial, the jurors met us outside and said, “man you were lucky!” to me and my client. That was more like it. But hey, who cared, we won.

So rare and serious isn’t it TVNZ, because after all, you said it was?

No, what is weird and serious is the irresponsible ex-parte use of journalism in New Zealand. You are journalists…get it!!!?

Don’t just take a stance, point your yacht to the wind and use your egoes as motors.

I think you are all more disgusting in such a small country you should have far more accountabliity. And then you wonder why you too get chewed up in the tall poppy land when one of you goes astray.

(Tony Veitch).

Thank God for blogging.

That’s why it’s dangerous. It’s also wonderful, amazing, magnificent, brilliant, mysterious, unusual, inexplicable and justified with dozens of other words that fail my limited vocabulary.

Surprised you asked, really.

I agree that Matthew’s adultery passage is a striking illustration of the dangerous and tempting issues with respect to one’s vivid thoughts regarding a partner to whom you’re not married.

Can you explicate there Reid?

I’m sorry but how are you even able to type that again? I mean, shouldn’t you have gorged your eyes out by now, or have you seriously never lusted after a woman before. Or are you kinda content with the idea of going to Hell with both your eyes?

Uh Rebel, your original question was about:

“Jesus saying that if you hate someone you’re just as bad as a murderer”

I’ve shown you why I don’t agree.

“would you still think that if it showed that support for Liarbore in Mt Albert was running at 95.4% +/- 4%?”

How could that be true, don’t you read Oily’s blog and his “insider information” that National are cruising to victory?

Actually sonic, I just wanted you to repeat “Liarbore” in your comment.

Bwahahahahaha etc,