Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Gillipig]

Right, I understand that, but I don't understand the "Drake's bullshit" variable at the end--or rather, I don't understand the implied criticism about the equation being bullshit...

It's the most vague part of the equation. He basically have to guess how long he thinks a civilisation lasts before it goes under. That number may be impossible to even vaguely estimate without having already encountered several, not just one, but several alien civilisations. The number he himself estimated was lower than what common sense probably will tell you, and that's been the basis for some of the criticism he's recieved. He put the number at 482 years, after 482 years of broadcasting it's presence, the average civilisation perishes. Don't make me go into detail how he derived that, all I know is that it was very unscientific. Okay I'll say a little, he based his assumptions on how long different civilisations on earth have managed to make it. I have no idea why he thinks that was compatible to alien civilisations. To wrap it up:
If filled with correct information "The Drake Equation" can produce a vague estimate of the number of civilisations in our galaxy with similar or exceding technology as us. If accurate information is not available (as it is right now) the estimate will just be too vague for any conclusions to be drawn. Nonetheless, there's nothing wrong with the equation, it serves us little good right now, but maybe in a couple of hundred years, when we might be able to more accurately estimate the value of these variables, it can be used (if perhaps a bit modified) to give us a good insight into how rare alien civilisation are.
This all presumes we're not alone in the galaxy, neverless the universe, and of course, we can't be sure that we aren't alone until we find some other life out there.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks, crispy. That helps. Good luck in Hollywood too.

And thanks, Gillipig.


Okay, anyway, where's the evidence for God, guise?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Re: drake equation. There's a non-fiction book by asimov called "etraterrestial civilizations" that goes fairly in-depth into asimov's speculation of e.t. intelligent life and our chance of contact. Idk how close it is to drake's, but it was a pretty good read. inb4 jonesy and "toilethead"

[john9blue]

I'd really like to hear why you think that story is more likely than the FSM.

truth be told, i'm not really familiar with the whole FSM mythos, so i don't know what explanations people may have created to support the FSM existing... what i do know is that it was intentionally created to be extremely unlikely and ridiculous.

meanwhile you have the gods of major religions, which share many common traits and have been the topic of scholarly thought and debate for centuries.

is it really so crazy to think that one might be much likelier than the other?

do you even have a way to measure the likelihood of something existing?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10...

I'd like you to go through your reasoning for why me, bbs, crispy etc are 10 times more dim than, y'know viceroy who thinks biblical prophecies are 100% true and that modern evolutionary theory is some huge conspiracy that tens of thousands of people subscribe to just to make kids not believe in god anymore. Or maybe 10 times more dim than warmonger who thinks companies are putting cameras in his cans of soup so they can watch him in his undies for some unspecified nefarious purposes. 10 times more dim than jay maybe, who not only believes in bible prophecies, but also has a go at interpreting them for himself?

You have an irrational dislike for atheists, even though our positions are virtually identical. We both assign the same place for god both in society and in our personal lives (unless you happen to pray a lot). However, in your dislike of atheists you seem to prefer to align yourself with those who not only place a high importance on god in their personal life, but would also like to forcefully introduce god in government, schools and whatever else.

It really is bizarre. Did an atheist kill your dog as a child?

wait wait wait

i'm not sure why you consider me aligned with young-earth creationists, or with people who want religion in our schools, or why you think that i think they are so much smarter than the average atheist...

ITT i've been treating every faith equally, with the same amount of scrutiny (including FSM and atheists). i dislike atheism in particular for two reasons:

- i believe it's the future. there's going to be a widespread conversion to atheism (in some ways there already is)... and not the agnosticism that you like to call atheism... i mean anti-religious atheism, the kind that acts like a cult. why would i spend my time worrying about a religion which is already in decline?

- i believe that society will be worse off if/when atheism becomes mainstream. i realize that people with optimistic views of human nature will disagree with me, but that's a different discussion that i think i've already had.

so, from my perspective, you've got a rapidly growing movement which is based on fallacious ideas like the FSM, and which threatens the moral fabric of our civilization. what would you do if you were in my place?

[Symmetry]

I'd really like to hear why you think that story is more likely than the FSM.

truth be told, i'm not really familiar with the whole FSM mythos, so i don't know what explanations people may have created to support the FSM existing... what i do know is that it was intentionally created to be extremely unlikely and ridiculous.

meanwhile you have the gods of major religions, which share many common traits and have been the topic of scholarly thought and debate for centuries.

is it really so crazy to think that one might be much likelier than the other?

do you even have a way to measure the likelihood of something existing?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10...

I'd like you to go through your reasoning for why me, bbs, crispy etc are 10 times more dim than, y'know viceroy who thinks biblical prophecies are 100% true and that modern evolutionary theory is some huge conspiracy that tens of thousands of people subscribe to just to make kids not believe in god anymore. Or maybe 10 times more dim than warmonger who thinks companies are putting cameras in his cans of soup so they can watch him in his undies for some unspecified nefarious purposes. 10 times more dim than jay maybe, who not only believes in bible prophecies, but also has a go at interpreting them for himself?

You have an irrational dislike for atheists, even though our positions are virtually identical. We both assign the same place for god both in society and in our personal lives (unless you happen to pray a lot). However, in your dislike of atheists you seem to prefer to align yourself with those who not only place a high importance on god in their personal life, but would also like to forcefully introduce god in government, schools and whatever else.

It really is bizarre. Did an atheist kill your dog as a child?

wait wait wait

i'm not sure why you consider me aligned with young-earth creationists, or with people who want religion in our schools, or why you think that i think they are so much smarter than the average atheist...

ITT i've been treating every faith equally, with the same amount of scrutiny (including FSM and atheists). i dislike atheism in particular for two reasons:

- i believe it's the future. there's going to be a widespread conversion to atheism (in some ways there already is)... and not the agnosticism that you like to call atheism... i mean anti-religious atheism, the kind that acts like a cult. why would i spend my time worrying about a religion which is already in decline?

- i believe that society will be worse off if/when atheism becomes mainstream. i realize that people with optimistic views of human nature will disagree with me, but that's a different discussion that i think i've already had.

so, from my perspective, you've got a rapidly growing movement which is based on fallacious ideas like the FSM, and which threatens the moral fabric of our civilization. what would you do if you were in my place?

Get a grip?

[john9blue]

symmetry, please, the adults are talking.

[Symmetry]

symmetry, please, the adults are talking.

Says the manchild with a My Little Pony fixation.

[crispybits]

truth be told, i'm not really familiar with the whole FSM mythos, so i don't know what explanations people may have created to support the FSM existing... what i do know is that it was intentionally created to be extremely unlikely and ridiculous.

The FSM mythos is that there is an undetectable being, the FSM, who created the world one morning with it's noodly appendage when it had a bad hangover (hence the apparent flaws in the universe, suffering etc). There is more background to it than that which a quick google will tell you more about, but the basic tenet of Pastafarianism is that you shall have no dogmatic beliefs (which itself is a contradiction, and that's part of the religious critique in and of itself too)

ITT i've been treating every faith equally, with the same amount of scrutiny (including FSM and atheists). i dislike atheism in particular for two reasons:

- i believe it's the future. there's going to be a widespread conversion to atheism (in some ways there already is)... and not the agnosticism that you like to call atheism... i mean anti-religious atheism, the kind that acts like a cult. why would i spend my time worrying about a religion which is already in decline?

- i believe that society will be worse off if/when atheism becomes mainstream. i realize that people with optimistic views of human nature will disagree with me, but that's a different discussion that i think i've already had.

so, from my perspective, you've got a rapidly growing movement which is based on fallacious ideas like the FSM, and which threatens the moral fabric of our civilization. what would you do if you were in my place?

How does militant atheism act like a cult? What properties does it share? (Genuine questions here, I'm not sure what you mean by that)

Atheism (talking about the "cultish" militant atheism a la Hitchens here) is an anti-philosophy. Without religion to feed it, it dies, because it holds no beliefs of it's own. It doesn't claim to tell us anything about the universe around us, about morality, about the creation of the universe or anything else. About the only claim it makes is that we should think critically about claims made, specifically by religious people, and apply the same standards of evidence to those claims as we do to any other claim about anything else.

I'm not sure how the claim that we should critically analyse the evidence for all claims made before accepting them as the truth is fallacious. The only way I can think of would be if the claim itself didn't stand up to it's own principle. But it's what we do every day, we look at claims made by people and we assess the evidence and probabilities that the claim is true or false or half-true and act according to that.

To say that atheism threatens the moral fabric of our society assumes that religion is the source of all morality, and the only reason why anyone acts in a moral way is due to religious belief. Do you honestly believe that? Because if you don't then you believe that there are secular sources for morality, and that moral judgements can be made without reference to religious teachings, and therefore by extension that our moral fabric will still be there even if we could click our fingers and remove God and religion from all human society right this second.

(That's not even touching the argument that a good deed done for the sake of doing a good deed is a morally superior act to a good deed done because you expect to be rewarded for it later on down the line.)

[Symmetry]

How does militant atheism act like a cult? What properties does it share? (Genuine questions here, I'm not sure what you mean by that)

How is it militant? Don't be lazy and use terms you don't agree with, Crispy.

Atheism (talking about the "cultish" militant atheism a la Hitchens here) is an anti-philosophy.

An odd claim. What's an "anti-philosophy"? Was Socrates a philosopher?

Without religion to feed it, it dies, because it holds no beliefs of it's own. It doesn't claim to tell us anything about the universe around us, about morality, about the creation of the universe or anything else. About the only claim it makes is that we should think critically about claims made.

Why do you consider this to be bad?

[crispybits]

It's just called "militant atheism", it's a label for the kind of Hitchens atheism I think J9B was describing. It's moderately apt, in that instead of sitting back and just dismissing theism it confronts it head on and takes it on.

As for anti-philosophy, that's more like you don't see an anti-slavery movement today, because slavery has been abolished pretty much everywhere. Atheism is not a philosophy in and of itself, it's a rejection of the philosophy of theism. If the philosophy of theism were to disappear tomorrow, then anti-theism (another term used for the kind of atheism J9B describes) would also disappear. there would be nothing to be "anti" about.

I consider the last quote a good thing. After all these pages and all my posts I'm amazed you would think otherwise.

[john9blue]

symmetry, please, the adults are talking.

Says the manchild with a My Little Pony fixation.

wtf? so everyone who likes my little pony is a manchild? tell that to medefe, you ignorant f*ck.

[john9blue]

How does militant atheism act like a cult? What properties does it share? (Genuine questions here, I'm not sure what you mean by that)

Atheism (talking about the "cultish" militant atheism a la Hitchens here) is an anti-philosophy. Without religion to feed it, it dies, because it holds no beliefs of it's own. It doesn't claim to tell us anything about the universe around us, about morality, about the creation of the universe or anything else. About the only claim it makes is that we should think critically about claims made, specifically by religious people, and apply the same standards of evidence to those claims as we do to any other claim about anything else.

religion will always exist in some form... i don't think it's realistic to say that atheism will "disappear once its goal is complete" because there will always be people with theories about the origin of our universe, and people who have different theories, etc.

To say that atheism threatens the moral fabric of our society assumes that religion is the source of all morality, and the only reason why anyone acts in a moral way is due to religious belief. Do you honestly believe that? Because if you don't then you believe that there are secular sources for morality, and that moral judgements can be made without reference to religious teachings, and therefore by extension that our moral fabric will still be there even if we could click our fingers and remove God and religion from all human society right this second.

religion is one source of morality, yes. it's arguably the most prevalent source of morality in human history. you would really rather leave people to their own moral devices instead of have them follow a code which has been proven to work for centuries? we have no proof that a godless civilization works, and yet you blindly believe it. pretty ironic tbh.

[chang50]

I'd really like to hear why you think that story is more likely than the FSM.

truth be told, i'm not really familiar with the whole FSM mythos, so i don't know what explanations people may have created to support the FSM existing... what i do know is that it was intentionally created to be extremely unlikely and ridiculous.

meanwhile you have the gods of major religions, which share many common traits and have been the topic of scholarly thought and debate for centuries.

is it really so crazy to think that one might be much likelier than the other?

do you even have a way to measure the likelihood of something existing?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10...

I'd like you to go through your reasoning for why me, bbs, crispy etc are 10 times more dim than, y'know viceroy who thinks biblical prophecies are 100% true and that modern evolutionary theory is some huge conspiracy that tens of thousands of people subscribe to just to make kids not believe in god anymore. Or maybe 10 times more dim than warmonger who thinks companies are putting cameras in his cans of soup so they can watch him in his undies for some unspecified nefarious purposes. 10 times more dim than jay maybe, who not only believes in bible prophecies, but also has a go at interpreting them for himself?

You have an irrational dislike for atheists, even though our positions are virtually identical. We both assign the same place for god both in society and in our personal lives (unless you happen to pray a lot). However, in your dislike of atheists you seem to prefer to align yourself with those who not only place a high importance on god in their personal life, but would also like to forcefully introduce god in government, schools and whatever else.

It really is bizarre. Did an atheist kill your dog as a child?

wait wait wait

i'm not sure why you consider me aligned with young-earth creationists, or with people who want religion in our schools, or why you think that i think they are so much smarter than the average atheist...

ITT i've been treating every faith equally, with the same amount of scrutiny (including FSM and atheists). i dislike atheism in particular for two reasons:

- i believe it's the future. there's going to be a widespread conversion to atheism (in some ways there already is)... and not the agnosticism that you like to call atheism... i mean anti-religious atheism, the kind that acts like a cult. why would i spend my time worrying about a religion which is already in decline?

- i believe that society will be worse off if/when atheism becomes mainstream. i realize that people with optimistic views of human nature will disagree with me, but that's a different discussion that i think i've already had.

so, from my perspective, you've got a rapidly growing movement which is based on fallacious ideas like the FSM, and which threatens the moral fabric of our civilization. what would you do if you were in my place?

Atheism is already mainstream in nearly every developed country outside N.America and civil society has not collapsed.On the contrary we are talking about some of the most civilised countries around.Naturally change is difficult,painful even.One of the biggest problems as atheism gains appeal is that ex-theists are often much more zealous and impressionable than those who never believed and they bring their intolerant attitudes acquired as believers with them.I agree it's the future and the internet with its inexorable scrutiny of ideas is the battleground,and one where ultimately theism will decline slowly over time.

[BigBallinStalin]

Atheism is a pile of turds, but at least they admit that it's a pile of turds--instead of manna from heaven.... UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE (you know who you are).

[crispybits]

religion will always exist in some form... i don't think it's realistic to say that atheism will "disappear once its goal is complete" because there will always be people with theories about the origin of our universe, and people who have different theories, etc.

There are people today who still believe in psychic powers. There are people today who still believe in astrology. There aren't anti-psychic or anti-astrology movements in the same way that there is an anti-theist movement, because society accepts that these things are bullshit. There is a strong anti-theist movement precisely because people are still using religion as a justification for their actions, and society has a significant proportion of people who are willing to accept that as the truth.

Can you imagine a school board putting astrology into the school curriculum, saying that it must be taught to children as a valid theory? Can you imagine a country saying that another country's psychic powers program is enough of a reason in and of itself to go to war? The kind of strong anti-theism that you dislike doesn't die off when everyone says "there is no God", because you're right that probably never happens. But it dies off when society stops accepting religious claims as any sort of truth, as any sort of justification for any real world actions. Anti-theists don't care if people want to believe that God is there, it only cares that people want to impose some sort of control over others based on the premise that God says it's the right thing to do, with no other justification than this.

religion is one source of morality, yes. it's arguably the most prevalent source of morality in human history. you would really rather leave people to their own moral devices instead of have them follow a code which has been proven to work for centuries? we have no proof that a godless civilization works, and yet you blindly believe it. pretty ironic tbh.

I'd rather leave our ethical standards up to the sum total of society and what can be argued to be right or wrong in a fully inclusive and rational debate. As chang says we already have largely atheist societies in the world today, and the moral fabric of these societies has not collapsed. Moral debates still take place, the difference is that each side on each issue must come up with valid rational arguments based on evidence why their moral position is correct. Neither side can simply say "because God says so" and expect it to be some sort of debate ender.

The fact that I could go into the bible or the quran or pretty much any mainstream religious text, and find numerous examples of immoral behaviour being condoned by God is a demonstration itself. Not that those religions are inherently immoral, but that our moral standards change and evolve over time. If we use religion as a basis for morality, then we stop that moral evolution at a point, we say "this is what morality is because God says so" and no further discussion is allowed. Later, when we come up with a new problem that wasn't imagined at the point where the book was written, not easily covered by the rules in the book, what do we do then? Or if later on someone makes a compelling case why rule X in our book was wrong, that something that we considered immoral then is, in the structure of a vastly changed future society, now the morally correct thing to do, we are unable to accept that argument, because God says they are wrong, and who you gonna believe? Tying morality to any fixed standard, patronised by an unfalsifiable and unanswering higher power, is not good for a society in the long haul.

[Gillipig]

I've never understood why so many Christians today seem to think we get our morals from the Bible. Consider the law, these are quotes taken from the Bible that seems to deal with punishment for various types of crimes.

Exodus 22:3-4

"But if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double."

With other words:
"If someone who is broke, commits a crime, he shall be sold into slavery." I'm pretty sure that's not how it works nowadays.



Exodus 21:16

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

With other words:
"Slavers shall be executed." This goes gainst the former quote, which didn't have a problem with putting people in slavery. But anyway, not how it works today either.


Genesis 9:6

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

With other words:
"Killers shall be killed." That's how it works in Texas and a couple of other states, as well as China, North Korea, Iran and a lot of other questionable democracies. Not how we do it in most of the civilized world however.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

With other words:
If a man rapes a virgin (it says nothing about non virgins) he must pay her father a sum of money and marry the girl he raped."................this is a rapists dream I would imagine. You see a girl that you like but she doesn't like you, you ask her if she wants to marry you, she says no, so you rape her and then she's forced to marry you. Christian values sure are interesting. Oh and by the way, that's not how it works today.

[crispybits]

On that last one, why aren't more Christians standing up and saying that Amanda Berry should marry Ariel Castro, and that Castro should pay fifty shekel's to Berry's father? I mean it's a cut and dry case surely?

[Gillipig]

On that last one, why aren't more Christians standing up and saying that Amanda Berry should marry Ariel Castro, and that Castro should pay fifty shekel's to Berry's father? I mean it's a cut and dry case surely?

Either they don't know their Bible, or they cherry pick from it. Cherishing certain bits but ignoring others. If this book truly is written by men connected to god (which is the claim) then who are you to decide which parts shall be ignored and which parts that shall be followed?

*The question is not directed to crispybits but to those who consider we get our morals from the Bible*

[chang50]

On that last one, why aren't more Christians standing up and saying that Amanda Berry should marry Ariel Castro, and that Castro should pay fifty shekel's to Berry's father? I mean it's a cut and dry case surely?

Either they don't know their Bible, or they cherry pick from it. Cherishing certain bits but ignoring others. If this book truly is written by men connected to god (which is the claim) then who are you to decide which parts shall be ignored and which parts that shall be followed?

*The question is not directed to crispybits but to those who consider we get our morals from the Bible*

Only a sociopath would get his morals from the Bible,I'm shocked children are even allowed to read it.

[crispybits]

While we're vaguely touching on biblical morality, I thought I'd throw in one of my favourite clips of the West Wing.

[2dimes]

While we're vaguely touching on biblical morality, I thought I'd throw in one of my favourite clips of the West Wing.

I don't know why people have altered a Greek word to describe their club, claiming to follow a person's teaching yet, ignore what is actually written. Yahushua instructed about nearly that exact sort of thing, when he spoke to the Pharisees, Saducees and other religious Hebrews.

Even though like Moses, he never spoke to anyone that was not a Hebrew his teaching is true and right for all. Much like portions of the Torah, "Thou shall no murder." for example. Pretty tough to come up with a good reason not to make that a town ordinance if you ask me.

Of course they very much would have answered the questions since they were still actively miss managing those laws. Likely there would be violence resulting in death since the two main groups were so opposed to each other.

Would anyone like to live in a place where murder is perfectly acceptable, even if there were no guns?

[crispybits]

Yeah thou shalt not murder sounds like a great start.....

Here is my top ten list of people the Bible says to kill.

10) Anyone who doesn't believe a priest

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” Deuteronomy 17: 12 NLT

9) Fortunetellers

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” Leviticus 20: 27 NAB

8) Witches

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Exodus 22: 18 NIV

7) Those who work on the Sabbath

“The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' “ Exodus 31:12-15 NLT

6) Non-virgins

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” Deuteronomy 22: 20-21 NAB

5) Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20: 13 NAB

4) Followers of other religions

“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.” Exodus 22:20 NIV

3) Sons of sinners

“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.” Isaiah 14: 21 NAB

2) Atheists like me

“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13 NAB

1) Rape victims

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 NAB

Stolen from here

[BigBallinStalin]

i'm not sure why you consider me aligned with young-earth creationists, or with people who want religion in our schools, or why you think that i think they are so much smarter than the average atheist...

ITT i've been treating every faith equally, with the same amount of scrutiny (including FSM and atheists). i dislike atheism in particular for two reasons:

- i believe it's the future. there's going to be a widespread conversion to atheism (in some ways there already is)... and not the agnosticism that you like to call atheism... i mean anti-religious atheism, the kind that acts like a cult. why would i spend my time worrying about a religion which is already in decline?

- i believe that society will be worse off if/when atheism becomes mainstream. i realize that people with optimistic views of human nature will disagree with me, but that's a different discussion that i think i've already had.

so, from my perspective, you've got a rapidly growing movement which is based on fallacious ideas like the FSM, and which threatens the moral fabric of our civilization. what would you do if you were in my place?

How does x-amount of people becoming atheist threaten the fabric of our civilization?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah thou shalt not murder sounds like a great start.....

Here is my top ten list of people the Bible says to kill.

10) Anyone who doesn't believe a priest

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” Deuteronomy 17: 12 NLT

9) Fortunetellers

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” Leviticus 20: 27 NAB

8) Witches

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Exodus 22: 18 NIV

7) Those who work on the Sabbath

“The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' “ Exodus 31:12-15 NLT

6) Non-virgins

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.” Deuteronomy 22: 20-21 NAB

5) Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20: 13 NAB

4) Followers of other religions

“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.” Exodus 22:20 NIV

3) Sons of sinners

“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.” Isaiah 14: 21 NAB

2) Atheists like me

“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13 NAB

1) Rape victims

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 NAB

Stolen from here

Since there's no commandment against raping anyone, then I guess it's all right to rape those in the top 10 list shortly before killing them in the name of our Dear Lord, the murder prohibitionist, Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost/God--whichever one he is at the moment.

[crispybits]

If they're female and you rape them within city limits it also gives you justification to kill them - double bubble!!