Does God Exist?

Well you're a long way off the reservation!

I was born and bred in the old Roman town of Leicester (England) and my family goes back generations in the area, it was occupied over its 2000-year history by the Coritanian tribe, Romans, Vikings, Saxons and Normans.
The fearsome Roman 14th Legion was stationed in Leicester for a while, maybe a distant ancestor of mine was a Centurion badass which would explain my awesome dominance of the PC wargaming scene, ha ha

Sorry for not getting it...but I would still like to know about your true god. Can you expound on it?

The problem we atheists face, or the responsible ones amongst us, is that if God does not exist the Christian church is leveled with dust along with all its works. Islam too.

If we, with simple solipsistic sophistries draw attention to the absurdities and unrealities of the Church as a means of toppling the edifice we are faced with what is to be done next.

It is all very well to think that our brilliant youthful insight that the cow does not jump over the moon, which is shared by all the clergy, and that the outward and visible symbols of the Church are out of date, but it does not solve the baffling complexity of what is to replace it.

Neither is it any good to pretend there is no need to have an alternative.

We have seen what happens when the state over-ruled the Church on homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Jumping for joy, parades and bounding down to the Town Hall to get "married" in the glare of the publicity which attends any novelty in the sexual field of operations. Abortion just as popular, more so, but attended with such extreme discretion that the shame of it is palpable.

Thus, and it's simple, we do nothing and let nature take its course or we legislate to retain those aspects of the Church's teaching which are necessary to the orderly functioning of society which had not previously been legislated for.

Adultery ceases being a sin and becomes a crime punishable in the here and now. As does fornication without the permission of the Secretary of State for Shagging. Everybody knows that wanking inhibits economic performance and physical well being and that it is the duty of a State to promote and maximise those wonderful characteristics. Hence chastity rings which prevent wanking which can be unlocked electronically as a reward for obedience, productivity and breaking records.

The logical, the rational, necessity of finding an alternative to the benign supervision of the Church in such matters, assuming nature is not to take its course, is obvious and any promoter of atheism who relies on the absurdities and unrealities contained in the traditions of the Church to make his case is a limp-wristed wussie who is having himself on.

We atheists should go down on our knees and thank God that He exists because we wouldn't know what to do without Him. This debate would not exist to begin with.

What you fail to grasp is that if there were no religion there would also be no such provincial tenets on and sex and marriage in the first place.
Who says a person must be married? Who says I cant have sex with someone who is having sex with someone else on a regular basis? Why shouldnt a woman choose to abort a fetus? Why should two people of the same gender not have sex? This would cause the breakdown of society?
I would agree that some laws have their place. But lets face it, a lot of our laws have a basis in religious ridiculuosness and serve no real or useful purpose.

What you fail to grasp is that there is religion and there are tenets on sex and marriage. If there was no earth or no humans there would be no tenets on sex and marriage.

What a vacuous retort. And if a bullfrog had wings he wouldnt bump his ass.

At least spendi has imagination! LOL

well put!

Nothing there was "well put!" Q. It was childish and relies on the Bible for its authority.

Danke! But of course, it's not mine. But it does concisely represent that Bronze Age myth in a nutshell.

All it represents, FB, is a desperate and ridiculous attempt to prove that sexual promiscuity is respectable.

Why don't you defend promiscuity? I hope it isn't because you lack the nerve.

It's because I don't have a taste for either red herring nor staw men. Thanks for trying, though.

Let yourself off there, FB, eh what??

Do assertions like that carry weight in your social circles? If they do "social circles" is in question. It's more like asses braying.

Science does not have the courage of its convictions either.

Yes, logical fallacies do carry weight in my social circles. Sorry if they don't in yours.

then you didn't get it.

I certainly will defend casual sex when someone explains why it needs defending.

We holy men don't do "casual sex"..
I tried it in the past (including with prostitutes) but I hated it, there was no lurv, no warmth, no tenderness..
For example June dragged me into bed on only our second date but it was a total flop (literally) because she was a complete stranger to me, I tried explaining that I'd like to get to know her as a friend first, which could take months but she was too impatient and said "Huh, I like men with a bit of life in 'em!"
Mind you, she wasn't so hot herself, she just lay there like a cold sack of potatoes hardly moving or making a sound and I almost had to check her pulse to see if she was still alive.
She'd have been an ideal date for Jimmy Saville..

"Jimmy Savile had sex with dead bodies in mortuary, shocking hospital report reveals"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/recap-jimmy-savile-sex-dead-3767280#ixzz35yCSC0DG

who is holy in this sentence and why?

Who says sex is about love warmth and tenderness?