View Full Version : Freedom From Atheism Foundation
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 02:15 PM
Its because its unreasonable to have highly organized extremely complex structures that are the very building blocks of life and tell people that they just kinda happened that way for no rhyme or reason.
it's not though. the conclusions are immediately skewed into where you set out from in the notion exploration. people look at the same thing and see differences all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that what they're looking at is what it is. this is similar to the buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant. dna itself and the pattern called evolution doesn't prove or disprove any divine existence.
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 02:16 PM
look at the episteme of the notions
myriverse
05-21-2014, 02:18 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying.. All of the greats from Franklin to Einstein have been deists for a reason. Science proves things aren't just the adorable fantasy that things exist without being created, a quite common atheist belief.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Od1jMdQIer4/UjpBl0Gh9dI/AAAAAAAAAQs/ntWVKdaUOPU/s1600/Big_Bang_Nothing_Exploded.jpg
Posting jpgs loaded with falsehoods means nothing. The Big Bang does not posit that nothing exploded.
Einstein was not a deist. He was a pantheist and the nature of the universe was his "god."
DeruIsLove
05-21-2014, 02:19 PM
Posting jpgs loaded with falsehoods means nothing. The Big Bang does not posit that nothing exploded.
Einstein was not a deist. He was a pantheist and the nature of the universe was his "god."
This is accurate.
HawkMasterson1999
05-21-2014, 02:23 PM
To be a true atheist you have to have some measure faith that there is no god whatsoever. A true scientist should consider themselves agnostic instead because our understanding on the universe is so pathetically limited that we couldn't possibly know if a god exists or not. So far, science doesn't really offer a satisfactory alternate explanation for the origin of our realm (universe if you prefer). Sure, they have the big bang theory but many scientist believe that to be part of a repeating cycle (rubber band theory) which leaves the questions of origin unanswered.
I'm not talking about "God" as described by any specific religious text. Its pretty simple to discredit the things written in the bible, quran, etc. Obviously these are man made texts with all the flaws of man included. It's like a 2000 year old game of telephone and all the players have their own agenda.
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 02:25 PM
To be a true atheist you have to have some measure faith that there is no god whatsoever. A true scientist should consider themselves agnostic instead because our understanding on the universe is so pathetically limited that we couldn't possibly know if a god exists or not. So far, science doesn't really offer a satisfactory alternate explanation for the origin of our realm (universe if you prefer). Sure, they have the big bang theory but many scientist believe that to be part of a repeating cycle (rubber band theory) which leaves the questions of origin unanswered.
I'm not talking about "God" as described by any specific religious text. Its pretty simple to discredit the things written in the bible, quran, etc. Obviously these are man made texts with all the flaws of man included. It's like a 2000 year old game of telephone and all the players have their own agenda.
mein neger checkin dat episteme
Shamalam
05-21-2014, 02:25 PM
Its because its unreasonable to have highly organized extremely complex structures that are the very building blocks of life and tell people that they just kinda happened that way for no rhyme or reason.
Congratulations, you've joined the legions of mongoloids that have no idea how evolution actually works and are too lazy/ignorant/stubborn to read about it for ten minutes. Ten minutes. That's all it takes for anyone with an IQ above that of a doormat to realize that a simple process, over billions of years, can result in these incredibly complex systems that our human brains (which are also the result of these systems...) cannot yet fully comprehend. There are literally mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and no evidence against it. That is how scientific theories work. Try to follow along.
Rhuma7
05-21-2014, 02:28 PM
To be a true atheist you have to have some measure faith that there is no god whatsoever. A true scientist should consider themselves agnostic instead because our understanding on the universe is so pathetically limited that we couldn't possibly know if a god exists or not. So far, science doesn't really offer a satisfactory alternate explanation for the origin of our realm (universe if you prefer). Sure, they have the big bang theory but many scientist believe that to be part of a repeating cycle (rubber band theory) which leaves the questions of origin unanswered.
I'm not talking about "God" as described by any specific religious text. Its pretty simple to discredit the things written in the bible, quran, etc. Obviously these are man made texts with all the flaws of man included. It's like a 2000 year old game of telephone and all the players have their own agenda.
You have Atheism and Agnosticism backwards.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 02:28 PM
Science proves no such thing, and the fact that you think otherwise suggests a complete lack of understanding of how science actually works. In fact, "things exist without being created" actually seems to apply quite well to your idea of a creator/god. If nothing can exist without a creator, who created god? Did he just create himself one day? If he was able to come into being without being created by something greater, why can't the same be true of all life as we know it?
And while we're at it, what gives you the right to decide for us who the "great" scientists are? I could just as easily cherry pick some "great" atheist scientists, too, but what would that prove?
The fact that we can't comprehend that God wasn't created gives a lot of credence to the fact that we were created. A created being would have no comprehension of how a non-created being could have existed without being created. We always have to assign a beginning and an end to everything. Its a human limitation.
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 02:32 PM
The fact that we can't comprehend that God wasn't created gives a lot of credence to the fact that we were created. A created being would have no comprehension of how a non-created being could have existed without being created. We always have to assign a beginning and an end to everything. Its a human limitation.
you tripped up a bit there
DeruIsLove
05-21-2014, 02:36 PM
The fact that we can't comprehend that God wasn't created gives a lot of credence to the fact that we were created. A created being would have no comprehension of how a non-created being could have existed without being created. We always have to assign a beginning and an end to everything. Its a human limitation.
STOP SAYING "FACT" WHERE THERE ARE NONE
Shamalam
05-21-2014, 02:41 PM
The fact that we can't comprehend that God wasn't created gives a lot of credence to the fact that we were created. A created being would have no comprehension of how a non-created being could have existed without being created. We always have to assign a beginning and an end to everything. Its a human limitation.
You are literally spewing nonsense now. I'm sitting here trying to decipher what you're trying to say, and I just can't. Would you like to try again?
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 02:44 PM
Congratulations, you've joined the legions of mongoloids that have no idea how evolution actually works and are too lazy/ignorant/stubborn to read about it for ten minutes. Ten minutes. That's all it takes for anyone with an IQ above that of a doormat to realize that a simple process, over billions of years, can result in these incredibly complex systems that our human brains (which are also the result of these systems...) cannot yet fully comprehend. There are literally mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and no evidence against it. That is how scientific theories work. Try to follow along.
Ah man! Ya got me! I haven't ever read any pro evolution books. I don't even know who Charles Darwin is.
Couple questions.
Life started billions of years ago on a young earth that was devoid of life and basically inhospitable for life at that point? Correct?
How is it that after billions of years of life developing through evolution, on an old earth that is perfectly suited to sustain life, we don't see any RNA or DNA forming up randomly in any bodies of water? Or anywhere for that matter.
I mean the magic ingredient in any evolutionary theory is time. Well we're farther from the start of evolution then we ever have been before. We're billions of years into this thing. We should be seeing life popping up all around us.
DeruIsLove
05-21-2014, 02:49 PM
Ah man! Ya got me! I haven't ever read any pro evolution books. I don't even know who Charles Darwin is.
Couple questions.
Life started billions of years ago on a young earth that was devoid of life and basically inhospitable for life at that point? Correct?
How is it that after billions of years of life developing through evolution, on an old earth that is perfectly suited to sustain life, we don't see any RNA or DNA forming up randomly in any bodies of water? Or anywhere for that matter.
I mean the magic ingredient in any evolutionary theory is time. Well we're farther from the start of evolution then we ever have been before. We're billions of years into this thing. We should be seeing life popping up all around us.
Stop saying evolution when you talk about abiogenesis. You also don't know much about abiogenesis.
Nihilist_santa
05-21-2014, 02:50 PM
You are literally spewing nonsense now. I'm sitting here trying to decipher what you're trying to say, and I just can't. Would you like to try again?
It is not that complex. He is basically stating that a superior being like a God being without beginning is a hard pill to swallow for finite creatures as ourselves trapped in this materialist construct. Kind of makes me think of the flat landers.
The big bang is a materialist answer to the "how" question but it falls apart imo when you apply the constants of the materialist universe to the big bang. How can a big bang happen without time? Time is a result of the big bang yet there is no causality/causation(sp?) before this?
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 03:07 PM
Stop saying evolution when you talk about abiogenesis. You also don't know much about abiogenesis.
There can be no evolution without abiogenesis. The two are intrinsically connected. You can't deny the existence of a creator and remove the need to answer for the origin of life. In order to come to.the conclusion that we have evolved, you have to prove how we came to be. Abiogenesis is the foundation of evolutionary thinking. Without the foundation you have nothing.
DeruIsLove
05-21-2014, 03:14 PM
There can be no evolution without abiogenesis. The two are intrinsically connected. You can't deny the existence of a creator and remove the need to answer for the origin of life. In order to come to.the conclusion that we have evolved, you have to prove how we came to be. Abiogenesis is the foundation of evolutionary thinking. Without the foundation you have nothing.
Wrong.
Ask the Pope.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 03:19 PM
Wrong.
Ask the Pope.
Theistic evolution? Yeah that's just not true. Very weak attempt by religion to placate to the masses.
DeruIsLove
05-21-2014, 03:21 PM
Gonna take another break from responding to your trollish drivel.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 03:23 PM
Plus when your religion is based on the ideals of dominionism it isn't very much of a stretch to relegate God to the backburner.
mgellan
05-21-2014, 04:36 PM
Atheists postulate there isn't a god. Theists postulate there is.
What's the difference?
Wrong, atheists don't believe in gods. Thats different than postulating there is no god, since that's unprovable so it's stupid to accept the burden of proof for a negative assertion. So there's a huge difference.
Regards,
Mg
I don't believe in the flying spagetti monster and postulate there is no flying spagetti monster
Orruar
05-21-2014, 04:53 PM
Atheist: It would be illogical to do Y
Believer: I do Y!
Anyone surprised? Didn't think so.
mgellan
05-21-2014, 04:57 PM
Maybe you atheists don't choose to believe in the typical Christian God, but in modern days, it is completely and absolutely 100% absurd to claim that God doesn't/couldn't exist considering the amount of proof that is currently present in modern day science.
Take your fingers out of your ears, stop saying LA LA LA and listen - atheists don't claim there are no gods, we state we don't believe in them. Thats it. If there's a super-race out there that has tech indistinguishable from magic atheists express no opinion on that by simply not buying what the Bible thumpers are saying. But "something out there" doesn't have the remotest connection to the reality of your sky daddy.
As for why atheists are often anti-theists, look at my situation - I lost my job because I innocently admitted I was an atheist to a Christian superior. I fear the day I come "out" as an atheist because I could lose my current job, I would get tossed out of Scouts, have my house egged and my tires slashed, and yes even in a civilized country some religious nut could decide I don't need to live.
So sorry that atheists annoy you. Until you religious fucks stop harassing us and passing laws that serve your stupid little delusion, the atheists that can afford to come out are going to be in your fucking face til it's safe for the rest of us. it worked for the LGBTQ crowd, we're up next.
Suck it up buttercup.
Regards,
Mg
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 05:01 PM
Take your fingers out of your ears, stop saying LA LA LA and listen - atheists don't claim there are no gods, we state we don't believe in them. Thats it. If there's a super-race out there that has tech indistinguishable from magic atheists express no opinion on that by simply not buying what the Bible thumpers are saying. But "something out there" doesn't have the remotest connection to the reality of your sky daddy.
As for why atheists are often anti-theists, look at my situation - I lost my job because I innocently admitted I was an atheist to a Christian superior. I fear the day I come "out" as an atheist because I could lose my current job, I would get tossed out of Scouts, have my house egged and my tires slashed, and yes even in a civilized country some religious nut could decide I don't need to live.
So sorry that atheists annoy you. Until you religious fucks stop harassing us and passing laws that serve your stupid little delusion, the atheists that can afford to come out are going to be in your fucking face til it's safe for the rest of us. it worked for the LGBTQ crowd, we're up next.
Suck it up buttercup.
Regards,
Mg
another person who's seen the episteme of it all. yeah i banter like a lunatic, but it ain't a word-salad i speak in
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 05:06 PM
another person who's seen the episteme of it all. yeah i banter like a lunatic, but it ain't a word-salad i speak in
The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.
So sorry that atheists annoy you. Until you religious fucks stop harassing us and passing laws that serve your stupid little delusion, the atheists that can afford to come out are going to be in your fucking face til it's safe for the rest of us. it worked for the LGBTQ crowd, we're up next.
police stations can't even have christmas trees and you act like atheists are persecuted
mgellan
05-21-2014, 05:15 PM
police stations can't even have christmas trees and you act like atheists are persecuted
Not being able to put up a Christmas tree is persecution? Awwww, cupcake!
Yes, you no longer have the privilege of ignoring that everyone else doesn't care about your religion. You no longer have the privilege of forcing everyone else to celebrate your holidays.
That being said, I put up a Christmas tree in my house, and enjoy the holidays as a secular occasions. It's my house, I do what I want. You can do whatever you like in your house. But when it's shared space, you don't get to shit it up with your religious crap.
Regards,
Mg
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 05:23 PM
Not being able to put up a Christmas tree is persecution? Awwww, cupcake!
Yes, you no longer have the privilege of ignoring that everyone else doesn't care about your religion. You no longer have the privilege of forcing everyone else to celebrate your holidays.
That being said, I put up a Christmas tree in my house, and enjoy the holidays as a secular occasions. It's my house, I do what I want. You can do whatever you like in your house. But when it's shared space, you don't get to shit it up with your religious crap.
Regards,
Mg
You have no idea of the origins of Christmas celebrations do you? Something that is inherently religious can never become unreligious. It would have to be disregarded as a whole. By participating in the religious customs of Christmas you are validating the pagan worship of the progenitors of the Christmas celebration.
Nihilist_santa
05-21-2014, 05:38 PM
Not being able to put up a Christmas tree is persecution? Awwww, cupcake!
Yes, you no longer have the privilege of ignoring that everyone else doesn't care about your religion. You no longer have the privilege of forcing everyone else to celebrate your holidays.
That being said, I put up a Christmas tree in my house, and enjoy the holidays as a secular occasions. It's my house, I do what I want. You can do whatever you like in your house. But when it's shared space, you don't get to shit it up with your religious crap.
Regards,
Mg
Big on privileged are we. You should feel so privileged to live in western nation traditionally identified with Christianity that puts up with minority atheist bullshit. You relish twisting a nations laws to allow room for your lack of belief even so far as demanding others not participate so as not to offend your sensibilities. Last time I checked people stopped forcing conversion at the end of a sword hundreds of years ago (westerners) so who exactly is forcing you to deal with all of this? Oh noez you heard a Christmas jingle. Oh noez you got to take off work for a holiday you dont believe in? Heavens no you mean strangers gave you gifts out of the kindness of their hearts? Take that pariah complex somewhere else. Atheist like other special interest groups don't actually want equality they want special privileges and to be seen as dominant.
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 05:38 PM
police stations can't even have christmas trees and you act like atheists are persecuted
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
police are a public service and in order to have a christmas tree, all rituals of that time or similar manner, regardless of calendar, would have to be honored.
The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episteme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 05:40 PM
Big on privileged are we. You should feel so privileged to live in western nation traditionally identified with Christianity that puts up with minority atheist bullshit. You relish twisting a nations laws to allow room for your lack of belief even so far as demanding others not participate so as not to offend your sensibilities. Last time I checked people stopped forcing conversion at the end of a sword hundreds of years ago (westerners) so who exactly is forcing you to deal with all of this? Oh noez you heard a Christmas jingle. Oh noez you got to take off work for a holiday you dont believe in? Heavens no you mean strangers gave you gifts out of the kindness of their hearts? Take that pariah complex somewhere else. Atheist like other special interest groups don't actually want equality they want special privileges and to be seen as dominant.
is
so much talk of logic without it being mentioned that logic is the rule of non contradiction within rhetoric. rhetoric is a method of persuasion that uses logical arguments in order to establish an authority over the convinced. you're all wanting that power of authority like good god seekers.
making more sense now?
atheist try to make things like pot smoking into a religion
Shamalam
05-21-2014, 05:50 PM
Aww, don't give up now r00t. You were making such cogent arguments earlier!
Nihilist_santa
05-21-2014, 05:51 PM
is
making more sense now?
Great now you are trying to contradict me with your own contradiction. Yeah look we get it in between poop socking and posting tranny porn you took some community college philosophy courses. Can you actually stick to the debate or are you going to continue this semantic circle jerk?
Point is no one is forcing anyone to adopt religion but on the other hand a concerted effort is being made to strip people of religious freedom. See the contradiction there? The victims have become the aggressors. No different than the LGBT crap.
Freedom of religion is the choice to believe or not and not have your head cut off for it or be thrown in jail. It doesn't mean you need to drag people into court for wearing a cross pin at the DMV. Modern atheist wont be happy til religion is no longer allowed which is the antithesis of religious freedom.
yea the first amendment nowhere states there is a separation of church and state. that is 21st century atheist propaganda the founding fathers hate, forcing their tyranny on us
Daldolma
05-21-2014, 06:17 PM
i like when atheists argue against respecting the democratic process and then complain about other people forcing things on them
Eliseus
05-21-2014, 07:38 PM
Congratulations, you've joined the legions of mongoloids that have no idea how evolution actually works and are too lazy/ignorant/stubborn to read about it for ten minutes. Ten minutes. That's all it takes for anyone with an IQ above that of a doormat to realize that a simple process, over billions of years, can result in these incredibly complex systems that our human brains (which are also the result of these systems...) cannot yet fully comprehend. There are literally mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and no evidence against it. That is how scientific theories work. Try to follow along.
lol, A + B got to C so it must = X. GG lmao, lots of evidence there.
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 08:07 PM
Great now you are trying to contradict me with your own contradiction. Yeah look we get it in between poop socking and posting tranny porn you took some community college philosophy courses. Can you actually stick to the debate or are you going to continue this semantic circle jerk?
Point is no one is forcing anyone to adopt religion but on the other hand a concerted effort is being made to strip people of religious freedom. See the contradiction there? The victims have become the aggressors. No different than the LGBT crap.
Freedom of religion is the choice to believe or not and not have your head cut off for it or be thrown in jail. It doesn't mean you need to drag people into court for wearing a cross pin at the DMV. Modern atheist wont be happy til religion is no longer allowed which is the antithesis of religious freedom.
you're not ignoring the sentence about seeking power are you? the overarching point is that religion doesn't operate like it used to in current secularized societies, but the behaviors of people haven't changed, especially with centralized foci being used to generate debate in a public forum. my critique is that the atheists that argue what your stating are no different than the believers that also display dominance seeking behavior. women have authority over men in current society so i have to quote timothy here:
11) A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
another note:
strict interpretation of the constitution would have everyone who owns a gun in well regulated militias that would be regulated by the federal gov in today's day and age due to the funding that would be needed in order for states to have their well regulated militias. to the point of religions, gov agencies cannot favor one religion over another in terms rituals or symbols (like the christmas tree), but a loop hole was found with the usage of private money being used to have displays put up on public/gov buildings (the baphomet statue in oklahoma) which didn't appease those seeking christian statues.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 08:19 PM
No. Just....no.
That is false analogy and a logical fallacy.
Evolution as an analogy of the alphabet provides evidence for every ascending letter and how A became B, how B became C how C became B so on and so forth all the way up to "X".
If there was no good reason and no evidence to support M turning into N then the scientific theory would be picked apart by other scientists in the field and either scrapped completely or left sitting at that crossroad. It would never become a scientific theory.
Not actually. Actually the evidence for evolution goes something like.
A..D.....J...N....S...WXYZ. Ignore the missing letters, we will fill that in with best guesses and hypothesis. Don't get all angry over any actual missing evidence of letters, we are very confident that we will find evidence for those letters at some point in the future. In the mean time here is my theory on how A became B and led to D. It's very simple if you forget any actual science.
GnashingOfTeeth
05-21-2014, 08:19 PM
PIE>
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 08:28 PM
Not actually. Actually the evidence for evolution goes something like.
A..D.....J...N....S...WXYZ. Ignore the missing letters, we will fill that in with best guesses and hypothesis. Don't get all angry over any actual missing evidence of letters, we are very confident that we will find evidence for those letters at some point in the future. In the mean time here is my theory on how A became B and led to D. It's very simple if you forget any actual science.
it doesn't appear that you've worked out your argumentation of a whole where spirituality and materiality aren't separated.
Eliseus
05-21-2014, 08:51 PM
No. Just....no.
That is false analogy and a logical fallacy.
Evolution as an analogy of the alphabet provides evidence for every ascending letter and how A became B, how B became C how C became B so on and so forth all the way up to "X".
If there was no good reason and no evidence to support M turning into N then the scientific theory would be picked apart by other scientists in the field and either scrapped completely or left sitting at that crossroad. It would never become a scientific theory.
No, I got it right, X is variable or in this situation the idea. A + B = C is the answer, therefor it would = X. SUCK IT
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 09:16 PM
it doesn't appear that you've worked out your argumentation of a whole where spirituality and materiality aren't separated.
Sorry. I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Please expound upon your meaning.
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 09:52 PM
Sorry. I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Please expound upon your meaning.
that's okay. ponder it a while with a dictionary.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 10:08 PM
that's okay. ponder it a while with a dictionary.
No I understand the words. I'm just not sure what you mean by them. Do you mean I haven't found a point of argument wherein spirituality and materialism are coexistent?
Ahldagor
05-21-2014, 10:23 PM
No I understand the words. I'm just not sure what you mean by them. Do you mean I haven't found a point of argument wherein spirituality and materialism are coexistent?
yup. you're starting point is of their connection. the atheists argue by separating them and eliminating the spiritual. how people are viewing the entire debate is inherently shaped from prior notions, and the two separated on one camp and unified on another cannot reach any sort of consensus which pushes the debate to a call of action which brings up a whole new set of questions.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 10:32 PM
yup. you're starting point is of their connection. the atheists argue by separating them and eliminating the spiritual. how people are viewing the entire debate is inherently shaped from prior notions, and the two separated on one camp and unified on another cannot reach any sort of consensus which pushes the debate to a call of action which brings up a whole new set of questions.
No I recognize that materialism is a form of spirituality. You're just changing out worship of a creator with worship of the creation. Man becomes his own god. That's the whole point of evolution. Its a continuation of Gnostic mysticism.
Lojik
05-21-2014, 11:21 PM
I think Daldoma hit the nail on the head earlier. Also, what's the difference between a "creator" and the laws of physics/probability/etc? If you can't provide a substantial differentiation then you might as well argue about whether it should be called soda or pop.
Glenzig
05-21-2014, 11:30 PM
I think Daldoma hit the nail on the head earlier. Also, what's the difference between a "creator" and the laws of physics/probability/etc? If you can't provide a substantial differentiation then you might as well argue about whether it should be called soda or pop.
Coke!! The only correct answer is Coke!!!
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 03:03 AM
No I recognize that materialism is a form of spirituality. You're just changing out worship of a creator with worship of the creation. Man becomes his own god. That's the whole point of evolution. Its a continuation of Gnostic mysticism.
on the right track. my personal stance is that none of the argument actually or will ever matter in a person's day to day life. evolution proved or not doesn't change the fact of our existence as an existent being within a greater being, but that level of greater being cannot, at the same time, be stretched or construed to a greater totality that proves a creator being because that falls into the a priori which inherently cannot allow for a creator being to have come from nothing (aquinas). have you read any of the writings of st. john of the cross? worth it with the usages of language as having given a commonality within which a god can exist between and outside of individuals. some medieval metaphysics that are a lot more interesting (absolutely a subjective claim) than current particle metaphysics that send people on tangents of infinitude which link back with (more so) to the infinitude that mr. plato put into place with his notions.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 03:09 AM
"evolution proved or not doesn't change the fact of our existence as an existent being within a greater being"
This is not a "fact", far from it. It is you attempting to find philosophers that share your theistic delusions. Any crazy person can find another crazy person that was smart but had bad ideas, and adhere to a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.
You are practicing Confirmation Bias.
so you willed yourself into being? get with contemporary philosophy and out of the 1800s
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 06:32 AM
Also, how did your god will itself into being?
If a god can just always exist, so could have matter.
Sorry to humiliate you.
that you're no better than rellapse with your clinging to a notion of trolldom that died with the advent of the internet is really funny
Rellapse40
05-22-2014, 06:50 AM
what do you expect from a dick sucking fgt
Herpa Derp
05-22-2014, 06:50 AM
This whole thread is pretty toplel.
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 07:50 AM
"evolution proved or not doesn't change the fact of our existence as an existent being within a greater being"
This is not a "fact", far from it. It is you attempting to find philosophers that share your theistic delusions. Any crazy person can find another crazy person that was smart but had bad ideas, and adhere to a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.
You are practicing Confirmation Bias.
That might be the first thing you've said that makes sense. And I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately for you it also fits how the theory of evolution was popularized to a tee.
"one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched.... The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories. (One Long Argument,1991, p. 99, Ernst Mayr (1904–2005), Professor of Zoology at Harvard University)
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." ("Billions and Billions of Demons," Richard Lewontin (b. 1929), PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University)
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 08:24 AM
You have no idea who that guy is do you. If he was so opposed to 99.9% of the "scientific community", they sure never picked up on that themselves. Seems to me that he could be considered a major player in the scientific community, and especially among evolutionary scientists.
A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.
In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics,[3][4] Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. In 1979 he and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the term "spandrel" into evolutionary theory. From 1973 to 1998, he held an endowed chair in zoology and biology at Harvard University, and since 2003 has been a research professor there.
He's actually still a professor.
RobotElvis
05-22-2014, 12:11 PM
Also, how did your god will itself into being?
If a god can just always exist, so could have matter.
Sorry to humiliate you.
You have accessed in humiliating yourself with that flippant statement. Matter is non-eternal. The second law of thermodynamics proves that. Try again please.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 01:51 PM
"evolution proved or not doesn't change the fact of our existence as an existent being within a greater being"
This is not a "fact", far from it. It is you attempting to find philosophers that share your theistic delusions. Any crazy person can find another crazy person that was smart but had bad ideas, and adhere to a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority.
You are practicing Confirmation Bias.
it's not though. the conclusions are immediately skewed into where you set out from in the notion exploration. people look at the same thing and see differences all the time, but it doesn't change the fact that what they're looking at is what it is. this is similar to the buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant. dna itself and the pattern called evolution doesn't prove or disprove any divine existence.
it was apparent that you hadn't read the thread. you're late with that claim against them, and it's really funny that you assume i believe in the christian god.
what do you expect from a dick sucking fgt
is that what your father said to you as he railed your tight little asshole when you were 6? i understand you want to make the thread about you being raped by your father, but that wouldn't change anything of the past.
Ikonoclastia
05-22-2014, 01:56 PM
Unless somebody has some secret proof of what existed before the universe existed (big bang) or proof of the existence of a creator (which is not scientifically impossible) then you're all going to have to agree to disagree.
Science can't say for certain there is not a creator, nor can't science and a creator together not be possible and people who believe in a creator can't say for certain there is a god (because belief in god requires not knowing or faith).
Why is it scientifically impossible to prove the existence of a creator? You guys "proved" evolution with major gaps in the evidence.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 02:24 PM
Why is it scientifically impossible to prove the existence of a creator? You guys "proved" evolution with major gaps in the evidence.
the materialistic requirements. there's a lot of physical evidence that is used to make the line of evolution (using human evolution for a model), and where there are missing fossils the changes can be traced using older fossils in comparison to younger ones. that argument banks on the a priori model for disproof, but when the a priori is applied to a notion of a creative deity it also refutes that notion. aquinas did that (paraphrase: God is the uncaused cause) and it has been the argument perpetuated by the early church and subsequent churches since the 1200's.
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 02:25 PM
Unless somebody has some secret proof of what existed before the universe existed (big bang) or proof of the existence of a creator (which is not scientifically impossible) then you're all going to have to agree to disagree.
Science can't say for certain there is not a creator, nor can't science and a creator together not be possible and people who believe in a creator can't say for certain there is a god (because belief in god requires not knowing or faith).
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I don't feel that anyone should have any belief forced upon them. But I also deserve the right to defend my beliefs. I also feel that science and God/the bible/faith are compatible. The issue isn't with science, that's a straw man argument intended to persuade people to believe that those who have a belief in God cannot also have a belief in science. The issue comes in where evolutionary science is concerned. Much like the early church fathers twisted the meaning of scripture to fit their own personal views that included all manner of occultic and pagan religious beliefs, evolutionary scientists have twisted the scientific process to fit their own personal beliefs, which include many of the same occultic and pagan religious beliefs.
I love science myself. It has always been one of my favorite subjects. But evolution does not follow the scientific method. It follows the same method as all of the religions that it seeks to condemn.
Also, faith is not an absence of knowledge.
the materialistic requirements. there's a lot of physical evidence that is used to make the line of evolution (using human evolution for a model), and where there are missing fossils the changes can be traced using older fossils in comparison to younger ones. that argument banks on the a priori model for disproof, but when the a priori is applied to a notion of a creative deity it also refutes that notion. aquinas did that (paraphrase: God is the uncaused cause) and it has been the argument perpetuated by the early church and subsequent churches since the 1200's.
So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 02:29 PM
great scene from a good series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVgK5HKj3P4
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 02:40 PM
So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?
depends on your interpretation of the Revelation of St. John. 144k, 12k from the 12 tribes, is in there, so are you one of the lucky chosen? at that point it becomes pascal's wager which is also his folly because if you cannot know the mind of god then how does one know that god won't punish you for being superstitious, having a lack in one's faith essentially. if your interpretation of Revelation is looser than that then the question of a potential stance of contradiction comes into play in regards to interpreting the text. it's a muddy situation, and if it is all true and comes to fruition it would be a grandiose eschatological enactment; i have a good idea of what would happen to me though.
Shamalam
05-22-2014, 02:41 PM
So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Lojik
05-22-2014, 02:41 PM
i have a good idea of what would happen to me though.
The gif you posted earlier?
What I am saying is that making a statement like "proving god exists is not scientifically possible" is in itself unscientific, as the statement goes against the scientific method since you are jumping from hypothesis to conclusion without conducting any experimentation or analysis.
Basically related to why people find atheists so annoying.
It's basically like saying its impossible to prove micro organisms exist just because you don't have a microscope.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 02:47 PM
The gif you posted earlier?
nah. i've been in this scenario before, so i'm pretty much damned. though i have to say it isn't the good and evil demarcation that most people think, but that angels are demons and demons are angels.
http://www.hauntedamericatours.com/DEMONS/solomon.jpg
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 02:50 PM
It's basically like saying its impossible to prove micro organisms exist just because you don't have a microscope.
even the ancient greeks theorized atoms without the benefit of the tools we have today
even the ancient greeks theorized atoms without the benefit of the tools we have today
just like we theorize God?
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 02:53 PM
just like we theorize God?
not sure. haven't explored the thought process that they used.
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 02:57 PM
It's basically like saying its impossible to prove micro organisms exist just because you don't have a microscope.
What "proof" are you talking about? You're contradicting yourself here.
On one hand you are ignoring/denying the literal mountains of evidence in support of the evolutionary process and on the other you are making the assumption that non-theists want "proof" of the Christian God when there isn't even a shred of evidence to begin with.
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 03:03 PM
What "proof" are you talking about? You're contradicting yourself here.
On one hand you are ignoring/denying the literal mountains of evidence in support of the evolutionary process and on the other you are making the assumption that non-theists want "proof" of the Christian God when there isn't even a shred of evidence to begin with.
You keep saying "literal mountains of evidence". If its not too much to ask, can you show us something from these mountains that is undeniable proof for the theory of evolution? Something that can't be refuted. Something that is concrete. Factual. If you can I would actually be very interested in reading it.
I will excuse that the mountains of evidence for evolution are wholly underwhelming and unconvincing if you actually look into it.
What I am saying is that while I agree it is currently impossible to prove God (actually I'm not saying that, proof of creation and thus a creator is all around us), it certainly is not scientifically impossible.
It's been said before but the point is just so strong. A million monkeys on typewriters (in a word: randomness) would never bang out the source code for EverQuest. What makes you think something a trillion times more complex (the universe) could occur by randomness, for no reason?
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 03:22 PM
It's been said before but the point is just so strong. A million monkeys on typewriters (in a word: randomness) would never bang out the source code for EverQuest. What makes you think something a trillion times more complex (the universe) could occur by randomness, for no reason?
What's random? The laws of physics are anything but. You're grasping for straws here.
I'm not even going to respond directly to your regurgitated "the evidence of a creator is all around us" garbage as it's no stronger than the evidence of god people who hear voices in their head have.
What's random? The laws of physics are anything but. You're grasping for straws here.
I'm not even going to respond directly to your regurgitated "the evidence of a creator is all around us" garbage as it's no stronger than the evidence of god people who hear voices in their head have.
Yes, that's exactly right. They're not random, implying they were consciously derived.
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 03:27 PM
You keep saying "literal mountains of evidence". If its not too much to ask, can you show us something from these mountains that is undeniable proof for the theory of evolution? Something that can't be refuted. Something that is concrete. Factual. If you can I would actually be very interested in reading it.
Do your own research. I'm not here to hold your hand when you don't even have a basic idea of what the evolutionary process is. What was it? "A to B to C = X or some drivel? Considering there are more links between great apes and man than letters in the alphabet exist, why bother arguing when you ignore that too?
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 03:29 PM
implying.
All of your posts summed up. I'm sorry that you don't believe in, understand, or practice the basic tenants of the scientific method.
Implications form the basis of the theory of evolution
Lojik
05-22-2014, 03:31 PM
All of your posts summed up. I'm sorry that you don't believe in, understand, or practice the basic tenants of the scientific method.
in b4 "fuck swype"
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 03:32 PM
kagers, don't get pretentious. that's what pisses people off about a lot of atheists. they just come off as assholes who obviously have no intention of a peaceful philosophical engagement with others.
What I proposed is clearly not a scientific theory regardless, rather a philosophical thought.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 03:37 PM
What I proposed is clearly not a scientific theory regardless, rather a philosophical thought.
that's the funniest thing about the bill nye and ken ham debate. from the outset it was impossible for either to convince the other because of the inherent contradictory notions they were arguing from while trying to pull the other into their own grounds for argument.
I don't think anyone with an operating brain denies that existence can spontaneously manifest. We all know God did it. Science's job is to answer the how.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 03:39 PM
ex nihilo
heidegger's being and time is read you might like r00t
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 03:41 PM
Do your own research. I'm not here to hold your hand when you don't even have a basic idea of what the evolutionary process is. What was it? "A to B to C = X or some drivel? Considering there are more links between great apes and man than letters in the alphabet exist, why bother arguing when you ignore that too?
I have done a great deal of research. I don't feel that my knowledge of the subject is absolute though. I'm just curious as to the info you have access to that is so insurmountable in favor of evolution. I have yet to find such evidence. If you do indeed have information to the degree that you claim, it would be worth your while to let us know so the whole debate can be put to rest.
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 03:46 PM
I have done a great deal of research. I don't feel that my knowledge of the subject is absolute though. I'm just curious as to the info you have access to that is so insurmountable in favor of evolution. I have yet to find such evidence. If you do indeed have information to the degree that you claim, it would be worth your while to let us know so the whole debate can be put to rest.
More evidence does not need to be provided, enough evidence is there to have the necessary models fir it to be a "scientific theory". The only reason the debate is even a thing is because of the willful ignorance of people like you who refuse to see the tangible evidence in front of them. There's no implying there's no assumption, stop pretending that there is.
Oh wait you and naez are both famous trolls on this subject.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 03:52 PM
any of you looked into the demiurge or zoroastrianism?
There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. Ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation. A concept ridiculed by biology. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution. Natural selection is conservative, not creative.
Versch
05-22-2014, 03:55 PM
It's been said before but the point is just so strong. A million monkeys on typewriters (in a word: randomness) would never bang out the source code for EverQuest. What makes you think something a trillion times more complex (the universe) could occur by randomness, for no reason?
Hey, the Clockmaker theory! Now that's a blast from the past.
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 03:57 PM
any of you looked into the demiurge or zoroastrianism?
Yes. Same basic concept as the Demiurge of Gnosticism.
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 04:04 PM
evolutionists
There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist' there are those who practice science and there those who don't. The term evolutionist was coined by naive naysayers in a desperate attempt to appeal to the masses when creationist dogma and non-science began to work in tandem with one another.
Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation.
No it is not. This is the fiftieth time you've tried to shove abiogenesis into the evolutionary debate.
They are two separate issues. Stop.
Evolutions envisages spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that develop greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency
I mean you either believe in spontaneous generation, or God putting it there. It's black or white.
Rellapse40
05-22-2014, 04:11 PM
There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 04:11 PM
More evidence does not need to be provided, enough evidence is there to have the necessary models fir it to be a "scientific theory". The only reason the debate is even a thing is because of the willful ignorance of people like you who refuse to see the tangible evidence in front of them. There's no implying there's no assumption, stop pretending that there is.
Oh wait you and naez are both famous trolls on this subject.
I wasn't actually asking for more evidence. I was asking for some concrete, factual, and indisputable evidence. That's what you're claiming. I haven't found any such evidence for evolution. Some findings seem pretty air tight on the surface, but fall flat against the scientific method.
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 04:25 PM
I mean you either believe in spontaneous generation, or God putting it there. It's black or white.
It doesn't matter how it got there when you are discussing how those species change over time.
The pope believes that God started the spark of life a billion years ago and it took off from there. Dawkins believes spontaneous generation is more plausible. Either could be right. Either being right wouldn't effect evolutionary study whatsoever.
DeruIsLove
05-22-2014, 04:26 PM
Until aliens of course. But that's an unknown unknown.
Ahldagor
05-22-2014, 04:31 PM
Hey, the Clockmaker theory! Now that's a blast from the past.
good ol' mr. paley.
a lot of the debate is a teleological argument, so instead of harping on my "look at the episteme of the notions", here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
Champion_Standing
05-22-2014, 04:53 PM
I'm not very sold on being a Atheist Crusader, I mean...a fucking Christmas Tree rustles your jimmies so hard that you are still pissed about it in May? Clearly a belief system that is bringing you much contentment.
Fuck, I would rather get baptized in a river by a bunch of lunatics speaking in tongues.
Glenzig
05-22-2014, 05:06 PM
It doesn't matter how it got there when you are discussing how those species change over time.
The pope believes that God started the spark of life a billion years ago and it took off from there. Dawkins believes spontaneous generation is more plausible. Either could be right. Either being right wouldn't effect evolutionary study whatsoever.
So God is imminently deniable. There is no evidence for God. However, in order for there to be no evidence for God there would have to be no evidence for design or first cause. Design and first cause are insurmountable roadblocks to the atheist belief of the non existence of God. So you can scream from the rooftops that God doesn't exist, that there is no need for God and no evidence for him, but when confronted with the problem of origins, all of a sudden it may be possible for God to exist. The subject is changed, and the focus is shifted to physical processes and theories on control mechanisms.
You can't have evolution without explaining origins. Christopher Hitchens actually explained very well that theistic evolution is not a plausible theory. That leaves you with having to account for the origin of life by purely physical self starting means, which cannot be done.
paulgiamatti
05-22-2014, 05:27 PM
Christopher Hitchens actually explained very well that theistic evolution is not a plausible theory. That leaves you with having to account for the origin of life by purely physical self starting means, which cannot be done.
I think he called this the "infinite regression" argument, to which there hasn't ever been a solid refutation.
Something to keep in mind though is that even the most staunch, militant atheists or anti-theists aren't actually making any absolutist truth-claims like "god does not exist" or "evolution is true", they're just simply declining to believe in any sort of divine entity or supernatural realm. It's about having a healthy amount of skepticism and doubt rather than proving something is or isn't true.
I didn't actually read this thread but on the first page someone referred to atheism as its own religion or something to that effect, and this is probably more true than most self-proclaimed atheists would like to think. I think Noam Chomsky put it fairly accurately when he said, in a way, people like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are religious fanatics in their own regard. Hitchens a devoted follower of statism, Dawkins of evolutionism, and so forth.
Personally, I wouldn't say unbelief can be equated with religious fanaticism, but I get his point.
Gaffin 7.0
05-22-2014, 11:46 PM
yall need jesus
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 01:09 AM
I mean looking at it from a dumb ass point of view, Our minds cannot comprehend the time it is suppose to take with evolution right? If we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today. Every spot on this earth should be filled with fossils and proof? We can piece together a 3 million old T rex but we cannot prove evolution in fossils? Sounds like a lot of rubbish some fgt with 2 much time on his hands made up 2 me.
So i am suppose to take some uptty faggt with 2 much education opinion on how the world "evolved" (dawkins).... over thousands of years old text?
Let's not forget we have been trying to reproduce how the pyramids were constructed with modern equipment. The same people we are spitting on saying they knew nothing. LOL
*****s plz
You say god does not exist cuz there is not proof
well there is no proof we evolved from apes shit would take millions of years to produce and not a single fossil can be uncovered?
lol
yall dumb
n i don't have faith in shit
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 01:22 AM
nm i got faith in sluts but that is it
all women from that slut Jesus had to the women today
sluts
u feels
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 08:57 AM
I agree to disagree with DEISTS.
THEISTS make claims and their holy books teach dogma that are in direct conflict with science.
Once again, you can say you believe in a prime mover and we can agree to disagree. As soon as you start saying your god intervenes in the affairs of humans you are making a scientific claim that can be analyzed, dissected and evaluated for veracity.
The giant mountain of evidence that proves theism is a delusion is staring at you in the face and you are there, once again, staring blankly, holding an empty sack.
Saying; "Science cant prove there is no god, so therefore all hypothesis's could be equally valid" is, wait for it....yes, another one....a logical fallacy.
You theists need to stop shrouding your true beliefs by arguing like you are deists. It is disingenuous at best. I believe in the bible. Can you show me what is in direct conflict with science from the bible?
Versch
05-23-2014, 09:09 AM
I mean looking at it from a dumb ass point of view, Our minds cannot comprehend the time it is suppose to take with evolution right? If we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today. Every spot on this earth should be filled with fossils and proof? We can piece together a 3 million old T rex but we cannot prove evolution in fossils? Sounds like a lot of rubbish some fgt with 2 much time on his hands made up 2 me.
So i am suppose to take some uptty faggt with 2 much education opinion on how the world "evolved" (dawkins).... over thousands of years old text?
Let's not forget we have been trying to reproduce how the pyramids were constructed with modern equipment. The same people we are spitting on saying they knew nothing. LOL
*****s plz
You say god does not exist cuz there is not proof
well there is no proof we evolved from apes shit would take millions of years to produce and not a single fossil can be uncovered?
lol
yall dumb
n i don't have faith in shit
https://lh4.ggpht.com/KpdWbBE0_Xb16pAf4MaxpnCJUysvF3Dv6mXsRcmP_GG9EkVqhI CWSAW0ShYf5W4EQwA=w300
Orruar
05-23-2014, 09:20 AM
I believe in the bible. Can you show me what is in direct conflict with science from the bible?
Of course he can't. Everything in the bible is perfectly in line with science. I mean, it's the perfect word of god (we know this because it says so) and so if anything in there is not in line with science, then science must be wrong. For instance, the bible helped correct our silly scientists who thought the earth was billions of years old when in fact it's closer to 6000.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 09:23 AM
I believe in the bible. Can you show me what is in direct conflict with science from the bible?
Seriously? How about you start reading from Genesis 1:1 and get back to us. If you don't find ten things that disagree with modern science in the first handful of pages, we have nothing further to discuss. It's impossible to have a debate when we can't agree on simple facts.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 09:24 AM
I mean looking at it from a dumb ass point of view, Our minds cannot comprehend the time it is suppose to take with evolution right? If we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today. Every spot on this earth should be filled with fossils and proof? We can piece together a 3 million old T rex but we cannot prove evolution in fossils? Sounds like a lot of rubbish some fgt with 2 much time on his hands made up 2 me.
So i am suppose to take some uptty faggt with 2 much education opinion on how the world "evolved" (dawkins).... over thousands of years old text?
Let's not forget we have been trying to reproduce how the pyramids were constructed with modern equipment. The same people we are spitting on saying they knew nothing. LOL
*****s plz
You say god does not exist cuz there is not proof
well there is no proof we evolved from apes shit would take millions of years to produce and not a single fossil can be uncovered?
lol
yall dumb
n i don't have faith in shit
Mr. Prollapse, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may Science have mercy on your soul.
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 09:32 AM
evolution is tru but where are the infinite amount of fossils to support it?
You morans will believe anything
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 09:35 AM
Of course he can't. Everything in the bible is perfectly in line with science. I mean, it's the perfect word of god (we know this because it says so) and so if anything in there is not in line with science, then science must be wrong. For instance, the bible helped correct our silly scientists who thought the earth was billions of years old when in fact it's closer to 6000.
You see this is where you are confused: Genesis 1:1a "In the beginning."
Science: " In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang."
The bible says the universe had beginning, science says the universe had a beginning.
I see no contradiction. Try again.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 09:37 AM
Of course he can't. Everything in the bible is perfectly in line with science. I mean, it's the perfect word of god (we know this because it says so) and so if anything in there is not in line with science, then science must be wrong. For instance, the bible helped correct our silly scientists who thought the earth was billions of years old when in fact it's closer to 6000.
The new earth theory is not supported by the genesis account. That is where you are confusing the Bible with what people say about the Bible.
moklianne
05-23-2014, 09:44 AM
The Earth was created in 7 days? lol
Btw, you guys keep falling for troll accounts.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 09:57 AM
You see this is where you are confused: Genesis 1:1a "In the beginning."
Science: " In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang."
The bible says the universe had beginning, science says the universe had a beginning.
I see no contradiction. Try again.
You left out the best part of Genesis 1:1!
God created the heavens and the earth.
And there we have our disagreement. Shall we move on to Genesis 1:7?
7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky
Ahh, so the sky is blue because it's just made of water! Science would certainly have a hard time refuting this. Let's continue!
16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars
The moon is now a light source! I'm sure science will say something about how it simply reflects the light from the sun, but can we REALLY be sure about that? It's not as if any humans have ever set foot on the moon to test this theory.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 10:23 AM
You left out the best part of Genesis 1:1!
And there we have our disagreement. Shall we move on to Genesis 1:7?
Ahh, so the sky is blue because it's just made of water! Science would certainly have a hard time refuting this. Let's continue!
The moon is now a light source! I'm sure science will say something about how it simply reflects the light from the sun, but can we REALLY be sure about that? It's not as if any humans have ever set foot on the moon to test this theory.
So the abundance of design in our universe disagrees with the concept of our being created? If you have a purely physical scientifically airtight explanation of the origin of the universe that no one has ever heard, let us know. Otherwise our being created only agrees with what is known about the physical universe.
Have you never heard of clouds? You know, they hold water above the earth and then it comes back down in the form of rain. How is it unscientific to say that there is water above the earth?
When you walk outside at night it isn't completely pitch black. Why? Well look up in the sky, there is a big round shining object, the moon. It is allowing me to see to a degree that I'm not totally blind. From my perspective it is a source of light. Not an u scientific statement. It would be unscientific to claim that the moon stores energy from the sun and retransmits it at night. That's an unscientific statement.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 10:31 AM
You left out the best part of Genesis 1:1!
And there we have our disagreement. Shall we move on to Genesis 1:7?
Ahh, so the sky is blue because it's just made of water! Science would certainly have a hard time refuting this. Let's continue!
The moon is now a light source! I'm sure science will say something about how it simply reflects the light from the sun, but can we REALLY be sure about that? It's not as if any humans have ever set foot on the moon to test this theory.Your personal disagreement with the cause of the universe doesn't mean Gen 1:1 is unscientific, it simply means the Bible provides a first cause, some
Thing science is want to explain.
Genesis 1:7 yet again here is where you are thinking about what people say ABOUT the Bible as opposed to what the Bible says. Here is the meaning of Gen 1:7 On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur “between the waters and the waters.” Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens.
If you want scientific harmony with a water canopy in the early stages of earth watch "How the earth was made" on the history channel. In fact that program hormonizes well with the Genesis creation account.
To say that the Bible is unscien moon is a source of lighttific by calling the moon a light source is to say that modern science has failed because we use the colloquial expressions "sunrise" and "sunset". We of course know that the sun does not actually move, but the effect is due to the earth axis and rotation. To the ancient observer the moon was a light source. That is an argument of semantics not science.
Still I have yet to see a contradiction. Try again.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 10:37 AM
The Earth was created in 7 days? lol
Btw, you guys keep falling for troll accounts.
The word Day can be used as an expression to denote a period of time other than 24 literal hours. The creative days were epochs. Its like saying "back in my day", or "in the days of the dinosaurs". I'm pretty sure you don't think of a literal 24 hour day when you hear those expressions. Do you?
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 11:07 AM
So the abundance of design in our universe disagrees with the concept of our being created?
Again, you don't understand the definitions of the words you're using, and you're conflating correlation with causation. There is an enormous difference between "design" and "complexity." Just because something is too complex for us to 100%, completely understand at this point in time, does not mean that it necessarily HAD to have been "designed" that way. I'm sure there exists some combination of words to help you understand this concept, but I have neither the time nor the desire to come up with them.
Have you never heard of clouds? You know, they hold water above the earth and then it comes back down in the form of rain. How is it unscientific to say that there is water above the earth?
Please point out where the bible mentions clouds in Genesis 1:7? There are plenty of people more intelligent than you who have already dissected and agreed upon the meaning of these passages. The "dome" mentioned before was literally thought to be a solid dome separating the heavens from the earth. They believed there were holes in this dome to let the sun and moon pass through, and also to let the rain in. They literally believed there was a massive body of water on the other side of this dome, and that was the source of rain as they knew it. Can you at least agree that this interpretation is 100% incompatible with modern science?
When you walk outside at night it isn't completely pitch black. Why? Well look up in the sky, there is a big round shining object, the moon. It is allowing me to see to a degree that I'm not totally blind. From my perspective it is a source of light. Not an u scientific statement.
Sorry, but we live in the 21st century, and that is the very definition of an unscientific statement. If you had NO evidence to suggest otherwise, you could certainly hypothesize that the moon is a source of light. Unfortunately for you, we know beyond any doubt that this isn't true. The moon is just a rock that reflects the sun's light. That is a scientific fact, and since the bible disagrees... it is incompatible with modern science.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 11:10 AM
The word Day can be used as an expression to denote a period of time other than 24 literal hours. The creative days were epochs. Its like saying "back in my day", or "in the days of the dinosaurs". I'm pretty sure you don't think of a literal 24 hour day when you hear those expressions. Do you?
Do you have a time machine? Seems to me we could save a lot of time by just going back and asking the original authors what they meant, instead of twisting the words they ACTUALLY WROTE to better fit with your preconceived ideas.
But I guess if you had a time machine, we could simply go back to the beginning of the universe and put this "debate" to rest for good.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 11:13 AM
Again, you don't understand the definitions of the words you're using, and you're conflating correlation with causation. There is an enormous difference between "design" and "complexity." Just because something is too complex for us to 100%, completely understand at this point in time, does not mean that it necessarily HAD to have been "designed" that way. I'm sure there exists some combination of words to help you understand this concept, but I have neither the time nor the desire to come up with them.
Please point out where the bible mentions clouds in Genesis 1:7? There are plenty of people more intelligent than you who have already dissected and agreed upon the meaning of these passages. The "dome" mentioned before was literally thought to be a solid dome separating the heavens from the earth. They believed there were holes in this dome to let the sun and moon pass through, and also to let the rain in. They literally believed there was a massive body of water on the other side of this dome, and that was the source of rain as they knew it. Can you at least agree that this interpretation is 100% incompatible with modern science?
Sorry, but we live in the 21st century, and that is the very definition of an unscientific statement. If you had NO evidence to suggest otherwise, you could certainly hypothesize that the moon is a source of light. Unfortunately for you, we know beyond any doubt that this isn't true. The moon is just a rock that reflects the sun's light. That is a scientific fact, and since the bible disagrees... it is incompatible with modern science. Yet again you make a claim based upon what people say about the bible. The Greeks felt that the planets the sun and moon resided within physical spheres, they were wrong. The bible does not say the dome was solid therefore speculation on that is not proof of the bible being unscientific.
Ikonoclastia
05-23-2014, 11:18 AM
The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.
Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.
I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.
We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.
Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 11:22 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography_.28shape_and_struct ure_of_the_cosmos.29
In the Old Testament the word shamayim represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God.[29] The raqia or firmament - the visible sky - was a solid inverted bowl over the earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.
This is not something that I personally came up with. This is all widely agreed upon by biblical scholars and theologians across the globe. If you claim that the original authors had something in mind other than what is written, the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that. You can't just say "well maybe they meant this instead!" just because it's easier for you to reconcile with the modern world we live in.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 11:24 AM
The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.
Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.
I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.
We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.
Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark.
Thank you for this. I wish more people could see it from your perspective.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 11:30 AM
Do you have a time machine? Seems to me we could save a lot of time by just going back and asking the original authors what they meant, instead of twisting the words they ACTUALLY WROTE to better fit with your preconceived ideas.
But I guess if you had a time machine, we could simply go back to the beginning of the universe and put this "debate" to rest for good.
The bible writer of Genesis wrote in the Hebrew langular. It is very poetic and the words used have different meanings based upon the context. That is a fact.
To say that the word day could refer to an indefinite epoch is not a translation by any means.
Why back in my day people would have understood that. (by the way I am referring to an indefinite time period not a literal 24 hour day).
I thought the knock on persons that believe in the bible is that they are literalists? Seems Sham is a bit of a literalist himself.
Lojik
05-23-2014, 11:41 AM
The bible writer of Genesis wrote in the Hebrew langular. It is very poetic and the words used have different meanings based upon the context. That is a fact.
We need more facts.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 11:41 AM
The bible writer of Genesis wrote in the Hebrew langular. It is very poetic and the words used have different meanings based upon the context. That is a fact.
To say that the word day could refer to an indefinite epoch is not a translation by any means.
Why back in my day people would have understood that. (by the way I am referring to an indefinite time period not a literal 24 hour day).
I thought the knock on persons that believe in the bible is that they are literalists? Seems Sham is a bit of a literalist himself.
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So you're suggesting that the original authors used the word "day" (or whatever the original pre-translated word was) twice in two sentences, with two vastly different meanings? Why wouldn't they use a different word and avoid the confusion altogether? Do you think they lacked the vocabulary to express the concept of an extended period of time as opposed to a single day/night cycle?
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 11:52 AM
We need more facts.
Is the term in Genesis for day a literal 24 hour day? No. Here is the fact.
Genesis 2:2 tells us God began to rest on the seventh DAY. Was it a 24 hour literal day?
Hebrews 4:10 For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own.
God was still in the day of rest from the creative process over a thousand years from the writing of Genesis.
Conclusion: Hebrew is a poetic language the meaning of the word depends on the context, the context here is that the term day in the Genesis account is an indefinite period of time. That is proven by the writer of Hebrews, Paul, who wad himself a Hebrew scholar.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 11:55 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography_.28shape_and_struct ure_of_the_cosmos.29
This is not something that I personally came up with. This is all widely agreed upon by biblical scholars and theologians across the globe. If you claim that the original authors had something in mind other than what is written, the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that. You can't just say "well maybe they meant this instead!" just because it's easier for you to reconcile with the modern world we live in.
Its also not something that is actually found in the bible. The word Raqia can have several different meanings, this shouldn't be hard to grasp, after all, every language has many words that have more than one meaning. The most common translation is "firmament", but its not.the only accepted translation. "Expanse" is also an accepted translation.
Though the formation of the expanse, or atmosphere, surrounding earth did not involve a ‘beating out’ of something as solid as some metallic substance, yet it should be remembered that the gaseous mixture forming earth’s atmosphere is just as real as land and water and has weight in itself (in addition to carrying water and innumerable particles of solid materials, such as dust). The weight of all the air surrounding earth is estimated at more than 5,200,000,000,000,000 metric tons. (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 1, p. 156) Air pressure at sea level runs about 1 kg per sq cm (15 lb per sq in.). It also exercises resistance so that most meteors hitting the immense jacket of air surrounding the earth are p. 787burned up by the friction created by the atmosphere. Thus the force implied in the Hebrew word ra·qi′aʽ is certainly in harmony with the known facts.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 11:57 AM
So you're suggesting that the original authors used the word "day" (or whatever the original pre-translated word was) twice in two sentences, with two vastly different meanings? Why wouldn't they use a different word and avoid the confusion altogether? Do you think they lacked the vocabulary to express the concept of an extended period of time as opposed to a single day/night cycle?
No I don't. The term dating the creative process giving with the creation of the earth, nit the universe. As is staTed in Genesis 1:1 the beginning (of the universe) had already occurred. Yet the first creative day (epoch) was completed before the first literal day, that is before the atmosphere wad clear enough to distinguish the difference between day and night.It's really not that complicated
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 12:06 PM
The existence of evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god. The bible says certain things but the bible is the worlds longest running game of Chinese whispers, at least in the Christian world.
Its been translated from other languages, modified to fit the political and social requirements of the times, retranslated, ad nauseam.
I don't believe in god the being who thinks, but I believe in science, and I think the mystery of what existed or didn't exist, how the universe came into being from what existed or didn't exist is pretty much akin to a miracle or magic.
We know there are forces and things that we can see (dark energy and dark matter) out there that are unexplained, there are very likely things we can't see as well out there.
Until we put together the theory of everything we're all in the dark. The dead sea scrolls which were written thousands of years ago translate perfectly, except for some grammatical errors, to the texts we have today. No other book can make that claim. Your point had no real life application.
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 12:12 PM
Dr Duane Gish
"All of the complex invertebrates appear fully-formed without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms linking one to the other.... If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found! Even more convincing, if that can be said, is the total absence of intermediates between invertebrates and fishes, and the total absence of ancestors and transitional forms for each major class of fishes... It is physically impossible for millions of years of evolution to take place, producing a great variety of major types of fish, without leaving a trace…The evidence from the fossil record ... has established beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has not taken place on the earth."
yall *****s dumb
Versch
05-23-2014, 12:20 PM
http://picsfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/trolling-level-president.jpg
You've derailed any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Well done, trolls.
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 12:21 PM
6/7 day creation is possible. Physicist Gerald Schroeder has some interesting ideas about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw
It is obvious that most of you have drawn your conclusions about the bible without any serious study or understanding. You laugh about 6 day creation without thinking about things like time dilation. How scientific is it to make conclusions without thoroughly examining the data? All you are doing now is showing how dogmatic you are about materialism.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 12:23 PM
http://picsfarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/trolling-level-president.jpg
You've derailed any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Well done, trolls.
Who are you referring to?
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 12:28 PM
Its also not something that is actually found in the bible. The word Raqia can have several different meanings, this shouldn't be hard to grasp, after all, every language has many words that have more than one meaning. The most common translation is "firmament", but its not.the only accepted translation. "Expanse" is also an accepted translation.
Though the formation of the expanse, or atmosphere, surrounding earth did not involve a ‘beating out’ of something as solid as some metallic substance, yet it should be remembered that the gaseous mixture forming earth’s atmosphere is just as real as land and water and has weight in itself (in addition to carrying water and innumerable particles of solid materials, such as dust). The weight of all the air surrounding earth is estimated at more than 5,200,000,000,000,000 metric tons. (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 1, p. 156) Air pressure at sea level runs about 1 kg per sq cm (15 lb per sq in.). It also exercises resistance so that most meteors hitting the immense jacket of air surrounding the earth are p. 787burned up by the friction created by the atmosphere. Thus the force implied in the Hebrew word ra·qi′aʽ is certainly in harmony with the known facts.
You are seriously grasping at straws here. And of course it isn't found in the bible -- the authors had no fucking idea what they were talking about, which is imminently evident for anyone willing to take a step back and look at the actual evidence. I.E. the text found in the bible as it was written by the original authors.
You and RobotPelvis are doing the exact same thing. You're taking quotes from the bible that are 100% factually incorrect and twisting them to fit your agenda. You seriously think that the Hebrews from thousands of years ago had any concept of an atmosphere surrounding the earth? Or that this atmosphere, composed almost entirely of empty space, could be dense enough to produce the kind of friction necessary to vaporize meteors? Here's another hint: they had no fucking clue about anything of the sort.
Again, there are multitudes of biblical scholars, living and dead, who would disagree with your above interpretation of the word "dome" as presented in Genesis. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 12:37 PM
If evolutionary theory and genetics hold true how come we can not reproduce life? We can put all of the building blocks together in optimal environment and poof nothing. Cloning or changing one gene is not the same as creating life.
Shouldn't this be something very basic and testable? Like the Miller-Urey experiment and that was ages ago. We supposedly have these mountains of evidence indicating evolutionary theory might be true yet when they take these basic building blocks and try to reproduce this they get nada. Then they play a game of moving goal post with the introduction of unprovable time scales =/
We do experiments with fruit flies and none of the mutations witnessed have been favorable. If anything evolution should lead to nothing but dead ends. Mutations are not typically passed on through reproduction. So say I have my mutated pig with wings on his back. When he reproduces his offspring will not have wings nor will it be a new species. No new genetic code is introduced to express new traits. The DNA is self correcting and the parents no matter how badly mutated are still only going to give birth to another pig.
I am being very basic here with these examples but it just illustrates the massive gaps in the theory that have not been hammered out.
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 12:42 PM
no way in hell evolution is true
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 12:43 PM
You have examples like the stomach. How did the stomach evolve to hold acid? You cant have the acid without the stomach.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 12:44 PM
You are seriously grasping at straws here. And of course it isn't found in the bible -- the authors had no fucking idea what they were talking about, which is imminently evident for anyone willing to take a step back and look at the actual evidence. I.E. the text found in the bible as it was written by the original authors.
You and RobotPelvis are doing the exact same thing. You're taking quotes from the bible that are 100% factually incorrect and twisting them to fit your agenda. You seriously think that the Hebrews from thousands of years ago had any concept of an atmosphere surrounding the earth? Or that this atmosphere, composed almost entirely of empty space, could be dense enough to produce the kind of friction necessary to vaporize meteors? Here's another hint: they had no fucking clue about anything of the sort.
Again, there are multitudes of biblical scholars, living and dead, who would disagree with your above interpretation of the word "dome" as presented in Genesis. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?
It is not my opinion or a scholars opinion that counts. It is what harmonizes with the test of the bible. I proved the creative day as an epoch was in harmony with the rest of the bible.
And can you say with absolute certainty that expanse is a mistranslation? No you cannot you assume that based upon a period when people could not have completed of modern scientific theories. But yet the bible also says:
Job26:7. He stretches out the northern sky * over empty space,* +
Suspending the earth upon nothing
Same bible writer as Genesis. Moses knew the earth was suspended in space. At that time that would have been a radical concept. In fact it took thousand of years for man to reach that conclusion. The same reason he knew this was the same reason he knew of the scientific creation of research, he knew how God though and was inspired to write accordingly.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 12:47 PM
You are seriously grasping at straws here. And of course it isn't found in the bible -- the authors had no fucking idea what they were talking about, which is imminently evident for anyone willing to take a step back and look at the actual evidence. I.E. the text found in the bible as it was written by the original authors.
You and RobotPelvis are doing the exact same thing. You're taking quotes from the bible that are 100% factually incorrect and twisting them to fit your agenda. You seriously think that the Hebrews from thousands of years ago had any concept of an atmosphere surrounding the earth? Or that this atmosphere, composed almost entirely of empty space, could be dense enough to produce the kind of friction necessary to vaporize meteors? Here's another hint: they had no fucking clue about anything of the sort.
Again, there are multitudes of biblical scholars, living and dead, who would disagree with your above interpretation of the word "dome" as presented in Genesis. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?
Well lets see. If something that's written has several different possible meanings, then you would have to figure out which of those meanings is most applicable to the subject being discussed. The most applicable meaning would have to fit the known facts of the subject at hand. My response to your assertion gave a more than reasonable.and scientific explanation of the meaning behind the language of.the creation account of Genesis. If you want to reject the meaning of a word that agrees with known science then the fault is yours not anyone elses.
Lojik
05-23-2014, 12:48 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/popcorn_seinfeld.gif
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 12:54 PM
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/popcorn_seinfeld.gif
I know right!
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 12:55 PM
I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".
Orruar
05-23-2014, 01:53 PM
I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".
The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 02:01 PM
I guess I will have to take your word for it huh? Perhaps a link or reference to what you are talking about would help solidify your position.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 02:02 PM
The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.
Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. :(
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 02:02 PM
The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.
Wrong. Those are merely examples of less sophisticated eyes than our own. Observing that something is less sophisticated than something else is not the same as proving that the less sophisticated organism can turn into a more sophisticated organism through gradual means. Try again.
Daldolma
05-23-2014, 02:11 PM
You are seriously grasping at straws here. And of course it isn't found in the bible -- the authors had no fucking idea what they were talking about, which is imminently evident for anyone willing to take a step back and look at the actual evidence. I.E. the text found in the bible as it was written by the original authors.
You and RobotPelvis are doing the exact same thing. You're taking quotes from the bible that are 100% factually incorrect and twisting them to fit your agenda. You seriously think that the Hebrews from thousands of years ago had any concept of an atmosphere surrounding the earth? Or that this atmosphere, composed almost entirely of empty space, could be dense enough to produce the kind of friction necessary to vaporize meteors? Here's another hint: they had no fucking clue about anything of the sort.
Again, there are multitudes of biblical scholars, living and dead, who would disagree with your above interpretation of the word "dome" as presented in Genesis. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?
so let me get this straight
hebrews from thousands of years ago had no understanding of scientific concepts like atmosphere, air density, or meteors. and you're dismissing their scripture because it doesn't discuss in detail scientific concepts that they couldn't have understood or even verbalized with a vocabulary that was incapable of even describing numbers beyond "a lot of a lot" (direct translation)? was there even a word for "atmosphere"? do you think they had a word for "billion"?
stop being ignorant before being dismissive. even if an omniscient deity were dictating the bible directly, he'd be limited to the language and concepts understood by the people of the time. when you explain procreation to a 7-year old, do you discuss mitosis, meiosis, alleles, gametes, zygotes, genetics, sperm, and ova? or do you say that when a man and woman love each other, they make babies? you'd have a better shot at describing alleles to a 7-year old. at least the vocabulary exists.
reading the bible like a scientific textbook is disingenuous at best, fucking retarded at worst. yes, it could've been a 9 trillion page manual to the universe that explains things like the atmosphere, dark matter, and the space-time continuum to a species that was still thousands of years removed from sewage systems. but it's not. acting like it was supposed to be is a straw man.
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 02:15 PM
Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. :(
I am not in the group laying claim to "mountains of evidence and examples" in support of my position then choosing to post none.
You guys still haven't addressed the stomach or tings like the pleiotropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy
From Wiki. - Pleiotropy of genes impacts the evolutionary rate of genes and allele frequencies. Traditionally, it has been expected that evolutionary rate of genes is related negatively with pleiotropy; however, this has not been clearly found in empirical studies.[7][8] Contrary to this traditional expectation, it has been theoretically demonstrated that evolutionary rate should be positively related with pleiotropy by itself as the square root of gene pleiotropy;[9] however, other effects of pleiotropy may explain why a clear relationship between evolutionary rate and gene pleiotropy has not been found at the genomic scale.[9]
I love how the idea is pooed on by saying no emperical studies have "clearly "shown the negative effects but then provide how theoretically evolution demonstrates this being something positive.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 02:16 PM
so let me get this straight
hebrews from thousands of years ago had no understanding of scientific concepts like atmosphere, air density, or meteors. and you're dismissing their scripture because it doesn't discuss in detail scientific concepts that they couldn't have understood or even verbalized with a vocabulary that was incapable of even describing numbers beyond "a lot of a lot" (direct translation)? was there even a word for "atmosphere"? do you think they had a word for "billion"?
stop being ignorant before being dismissive. even if an omniscient deity were dictating the bible directly, he'd be limited to the language and concepts understood by the people of the time. when you explain procreation to a 7-year old, do you discuss mitosis, meiosis, alleles, gametes, zygotes, genetics, sperm, and ova? or do you say that when a man and woman love each other, they make babies? you'd have a better shot at describing alleles to a 7-year old. at least the vocabulary exists.
reading the bible like a scientific textbook is disingenuous at best, fucking retarded at worst. yes, it could've been a 9 trillion page manual to the universe that explains things like the atmosphere, dark matter, and the space-time continuum to a species that was still thousands of years removed from sewage systems. but it's not. acting like it was supposed to be is a straw man. That well summed up his intentions. So the question remains, just where is the bible in direct conflict postmodern science as Sham has claimed? We have yet to so proof, only proof of the opposite
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 02:22 PM
if you're bringing in the fossil evidence claim, and not considering a force of geology like erosion then you're trying to stipulate a specific that won't hold up to basic scrutiny. it's hard to analyze a fossil that has been weathered into dirt particles that are spread hundreds if not thousands of miles by the wind.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 02:26 PM
Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. :(
I'm not sure how providing valid counterpoints to an argument can be considered trolling. If you look at any of my posts I haven't tried to degrade or insult anyone who has disagreed with me. I've merely provided a counterargument. That's not trolling.
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 02:27 PM
You don't go we have a theory of evolution now lets look everywhere for signs to support this. This is just confirmation bias. With the above example of pleiotropy we can see that evidence is deemed not concrete unless it fits the model. They are just sifting or cherry picking data that supports the model. It is like climate change but because we live in a society of learned experts we are not supposed to question their authority.
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 02:27 PM
"Radiometric dating of the rock formation that contained fossils from the early dinosaur genus Eoraptor at 231.4 million years old establishes its presence in the fossil record at this time."
230 million old fossils of dinosaurs but 0 fossils to prove evolution is true
k
dumb *****s
Ikonoclastia
05-23-2014, 02:34 PM
The dead sea scrolls which were written thousands of years ago translate perfectly, except for some grammatical errors, to the texts we have today. No other book can make that claim. Your point had no real life application.
Chinese whispers usually do with the original, yet even the translation from the scrolls is an interpretation not a certainty. Its when it gets repeated retranslated, and copied and you have people like popes, kings and other people in power their own agendas and political aspirations who reinterpret meanings where things get blurred.
Then of course you have the original authors who have their own bias and interpretations.
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 02:37 PM
"Radiometric dating of the rock formation that contained fossils from the early dinosaur genus Eoraptor at 231.4 million years old establishes its presence in the fossil record at this time."
230 million old fossils of dinosaurs but 0 fossils to prove evolution is true
k
dumb *****s
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
https://engineering.purdue.edu/Stratigraphy/charts/Stratigraphic_Chart_GTS2012.jpg
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 02:37 PM
Chinese whispers usually do with the original, yet even the translation from the scrolls is an interpretation not a certainty. Its when it gets repeated retranslated, and copied and you have people like popes, kings and other people in power their own agendas and political aspirations who reinterpret meanings where things get blurred.
Then of course you have the original authors who have their own bias and interpretations.
Except there are over 5,000 early copies of the bible and none of them contain this manipulation you speak of. Not to mention the Torah held by the Jews is also unchanged. When we look at other historical documents considered factual we find far fewer examples yet there is no dispute such as the works of many greek authors of which a mere handful of copies exist.
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 02:39 PM
I'm not sure how providing valid counterpoints to an argument can be considered trolling. If you look at any of my posts I haven't tried to degrade or insult anyone who has disagreed with me. I've merely provided a counterargument. That's not trolling.
Being willfully ignorant is still trolling. :)
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 02:46 PM
Being willfully ignorant is still trolling. :)
Willfully ignorant of what? I have been provided with no reason to believe any of your claims. You certainly haven't provided any substantiating evidence to you argument for evolution. Saying it evolved cause scientists say so is not evidence. You also failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why the bible should be considered unscientific. Pointing to misconceptions about the creation account is not evidence for anything except flawed human reasoning. I'm still wondering what I've posted so far that should be considered as trolling.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 02:52 PM
if you're bringing in the fossil evidence claim, and not considering a force of geology like erosion then you're trying to stipulate a specific that won't hold up to basic scrutiny. it's hard to analyze a fossil that has been weathered into dirt particles that are spread hundreds if not thousands of miles by the wind.
What about soft tissue fossils? Do they stand up to the scrutiny of 450 mn year old claims?
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 02:58 PM
What about soft tissue fossils? Do they stand up to the scrutiny of 450 mn year old claims?
depending on hyper specificity is how one hangs their self in an argument
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 02:59 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/earth-oldest-rock-crystal-study_n_4846410.html
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 03:00 PM
Chinese whispers usually do with the original, yet even the translation from the scrolls is an interpretation not a certainty. Its when it gets repeated retranslated, and copied and you have people like popes, kings and other people in power their own agendas and political aspirations who reinterpret meanings where things get blurred.
Then of course you have the original authors who have their own bias and interpretations.
So the book of Isaiah from the 20th century that is textually accurate to it's counterpart from over 2000 years prior some how proves that the bible is inaccurate?And by the way the scroll of Isaiah found in qumran was not the original scroll,it itself was hundreds of years from the original writing. I think that you are confusing the false doctrine inserted in the dogmas of Christian religions with the actual texts of the bible. Many Christian concepts ate not biblically supported, that does not take away from the honesty of the text.
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 03:03 PM
depending on hyper specificity is how one hangs their self in an argument
You have certainly provided yourself enough rope.
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 03:07 PM
Timothy 2:11-12
11) A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12) I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
http://leviticusbans.tumblr.com/post/23730370413/76-things-banned-in-leviticus
basically, contemporary western culture is an affront to abraham's god
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 03:09 PM
You have certainly provided yourself enough rope.
a fossil is a fossil regardless of the tissue
Shamalam
05-23-2014, 03:13 PM
Willfully ignorant of what? I have been provided with no reason to believe any of your claims. You certainly haven't provided any substantiating evidence to you argument for evolution. Saying it evolved cause scientists say so is not evidence. You also failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why the bible should be considered unscientific. Pointing to misconceptions about the creation account is not evidence for anything except flawed human reasoning. I'm still wondering what I've posted so far that should be considered as trolling.
Willfully ignorant of the fact that there is a nonzero amount of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of one theory, and none in favor of the other. That's all I've been saying the whole time. One of them is clearly the more rational, logical, and plausible explanation behind how we came to be here. In my opinion, at least.
You can try to argue semantics all you want (i.e. the bible is scientific vs. unscientific), but at the end of the day there is no simply no evidence to conclusively prove, for people like you, that things happened one way or the other. We must choose for ourselves which beliefs to hold, and I simply choose to hold those that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You're free to do whatever you want, because you're a human being and you have free will and the agency to exercise it.
Ikonoclastia
05-23-2014, 03:15 PM
Except there are over 5,000 early copies of the bible and none of them contain this manipulation you speak of. Not to mention the Torah held by the Jews is also unchanged. When we look at other historical documents considered factual we find far fewer examples yet there is no dispute such as the works of many greek authors of which a mere handful of copies exist.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm
Just this one version contains numerous errors. Including words that meant something totally different from what they mean today. Are you saying that this translation was some sort of anomaly and that all the other bible translations prior to it were perfect?
The likelihood is that in every translation there were errors, omissions and misunderstandings.
Versch
05-23-2014, 03:16 PM
3 reasonable posts in a row.
Time for more faux-intellectual gobbledy****
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 03:16 PM
a fossil is a fossil regardless of the tissue
But to to rely on the shaky science of radiocarbon dating means one of two things. Either soft tissue fossils can defy the rate of decay in rc14 or they are much younger than thought.
Faron
05-23-2014, 03:18 PM
46 pages of fats trying to sound enlightened.
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 03:18 PM
But to to rely on the shaky science of radiocarbon dating means one of two things. Either soft tissue fossils can defy the rate of decay in rc14 or they are much younger than thought.
radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with a fossil or the process of weathering
Ahldagor
05-23-2014, 03:19 PM
46 pages of fats trying to sound enlightened.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/df/dffbb0d76d2693f852b4973426e245b6f8c38abf7ab52a5970 2c5ba82eea4ead.jpg
Versch
05-23-2014, 03:22 PM
46 pages of fats trying to sound enlightened.
http://images.45cat.com/fats-domino-love-me-imperial-2.jpg
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 03:27 PM
Willfully ignorant of the fact that there is a nonzero amount of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of one theory, and none in favor of the other. That's all I've been saying the whole time. One of them is clearly the more rational, logical, and plausible explanation behind how we came to be here. In my opinion, at least.
You can try to argue semantics all you want (i.e. the bible is scientific vs. unscientific), but at the end of the day there is no simply no evidence to conclusively prove, for people like you, that things happened one way or the other. We must choose for ourselves which beliefs to hold, and I simply choose to hold those that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You're free to do whatever you want, because you're a human being and you have free will and the agency to exercise it.
I agree with you completely on the freedom of choice. Couldn't be more correct.
moklianne
05-23-2014, 03:44 PM
wtf, all of you need jobs...
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 03:48 PM
If evolutionary theory and genetics hold true how come we can not reproduce life? We can put all of the building blocks together in optimal environment and poof nothing. Cloning or changing one gene is not the same as creating life.
Shouldn't this be something very basic and testable? Like the Miller-Urey experiment and that was ages ago. We supposedly have these mountains of evidence indicating evolutionary theory might be true yet when they take these basic building blocks and try to reproduce this they get nada. Then they play a game of moving goal post with the introduction of unprovable time scales =/
We do experiments with fruit flies and none of the mutations witnessed have been favorable. If anything evolution should lead to nothing but dead ends. Mutations are not typically passed on through reproduction. So say I have my mutated pig with wings on his back. When he reproduces his offspring will not have wings nor will it be a new species. No new genetic code is introduced to express new traits. The DNA is self correcting and the parents no matter how badly mutated are still only going to give birth to another pig.
I am being very basic here with these examples but it just illustrates the massive gaps in the theory that have not been hammered out.
Hey look. Another person who keeps shoving abiogenesis into the evolution debate.
You have examples like the stomach. How did the stomach evolve to hold acid? You cant have the acid without the stomach.
Do you know what a lysosome is? I suggest you start there.
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 03:52 PM
I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".
There are also many single celled organisms that have rudimentary photoreceptors.
Do you even science?
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 03:58 PM
radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with a fossil or the process of weathering
Well without rc dating there is no way to establish the age of a fossil, so it is relevant.
Barkingturtle
05-23-2014, 04:00 PM
I misread the title of this thread as "Freedom from Autism Foundation".
Boy was I mistaken.
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 04:09 PM
Well without rc dating there is no way to establish the age of a fossil, so it is relevant.
Radio carbon dating is not the only way to date a fossil or the surrounding rocks.
http://i.imgur.com/IDWjLdhl.jpg
Daldolma
05-23-2014, 04:15 PM
Willfully ignorant of the fact that there is a nonzero amount of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence in favor of one theory, and none in favor of the other. That's all I've been saying the whole time. One of them is clearly the more rational, logical, and plausible explanation behind how we came to be here. In my opinion, at least.
You can try to argue semantics all you want (i.e. the bible is scientific vs. unscientific), but at the end of the day there is no simply no evidence to conclusively prove, for people like you, that things happened one way or the other. We must choose for ourselves which beliefs to hold, and I simply choose to hold those that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You're free to do whatever you want, because you're a human being and you have free will and the agency to exercise it.
what about questions that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny one way or the other?
for instance, do you believe in extraterrestrial life? the exhaustion of all modern science has failed to discover even an extraterrestrial microbe. but a good deal of respected scientific thought concerns the existence of alien life. belief and nonbelief are both perfectly consistent with "science"
the "big bang" is similarly unproven. as a scientific theory, it isn't superior to a prime mover. choosing one over the other isn't scientific, it's a personal belief
the idea that science and religion are inherently opposed to one another just doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. these are questions without answers, scientific or otherwise. religion is faith. faith is not inconsistent with science. it is a hypothesis that we are ill-equipped to test. science doesn't speak on the untestable. some of the most brilliant scientists in history have been devout theists
most of the supposed science touched on in the bible is essentially biblical dicta. the text clearly isn't advanced as a scroll unveiling a divine method for dating the earth. you're seizing on non-essential language that is appropriate to the audience of the time to attack core tenets that are, as of yet, wholly unscientific in nature
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 04:21 PM
I misread the title of this thread as "Freedom from Autism Foundation".
Boy was I mistaken.
Were you? Were you really?
well the atheists we need to be free of are mostly sperglords
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 05:12 PM
Hey look. Another person who keeps shoving abiogenesis into the evolution debate.
Do you know what a lysosome is? I suggest you start there.
1. It is the elephant in the room.
2. Yes I know what a lysosome is how does that affect the logic of my position? They are related to cellular waste not the stomachs acids. You conveniently left out the other information presented. Seems to be the cherry picking never ends.
DNA can poop itself out for no reason, yet scientists can't reproduce any organism from scratch.
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 05:18 PM
1. It is the elephant in the room.
I think you mean red herring.
2. Yes I know what a lysosome is how does that affect the logic of my position? They are related to cellular waste not the stomachs acids. You conveniently left out the other information presented. Seems to be the cherry picking never ends.
Its not cherry picking, it's basic multicellular biology. Educate yourself about a concept before you try to argue against it. Stomachs and eyes are evidence of evolution not contrary to it.
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 05:19 PM
DNA can poop itself out for no reason, yet scientists can't reproduce any organism from scratch.
We can't reproduce fusion either, is that fake too?
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 05:22 PM
Yes because you say so. You see how this is turning out? I make a claim you basically ignore it then you throw out some non related sciency stuff and appeals to authority while backing up nothing. Want me to give you some time to see if Dawkins or Hitchens have anything to say on the subject so you can rush here to appear high minded to all of us luddites?
radditsu
05-23-2014, 05:26 PM
But gambit wasn't Riggins fault. That whole wolverine movie stunk. Will I am was in that movie....awful.
radditsu
05-23-2014, 05:26 PM
Fuk
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 05:27 PM
^ Hey it makes as much sense as anything Deru has said.
radditsu
05-23-2014, 05:28 PM
This thread sucks cunts anyway.
Glenzig
05-23-2014, 05:32 PM
But gambit wasn't Riggins fault. That whole wolverine movie stunk. Will I am was in that movie....awful.
Oh my science!!! Our thread is beginning to merge with other threads. Soon it shall develop a consciousness all its own!!!
radditsu
05-23-2014, 05:38 PM
Militant atheists are worse than fundamental Christians for the simple reason that they should know better.
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 05:40 PM
Yes because you say so. You see how this is turning out? I make a claim you basically ignore it.
No you idiot. You just don't get it. We are talking about evolution, the change and adaptation of species over time via mutation and natural selection. How they got on this planet is 100% irrelevant to the conversation.
I don't need Dawkins or Hitchens to say anything about it, even the bible thumping pope agrees with me. But maybe he's in on it too, he has a masters in chemistry after all.
Nihilist_santa
05-23-2014, 05:47 PM
No you idiot. You just don't get it. We are talking about evolution, the change and adaptation of species over time via mutation and natural selection. How they got on this planet is 100% irrelevant to the conversation.
I don't need Dawkins or Hitchens to say anything about it, even the bible thumping pope agrees with me. But maybe he's in on it too, he has a masters in chemistry after all.
No you dont get it. You keep bringing up abiogenesis tbh. I am aware we are talking about evolution hence why I mentioned the systems of the eye and stomach.
I cant take you seriously. You say you don't cherry pick but now I should listen to the Pope because he agrees with you. STFU.
Bamz4l
05-23-2014, 05:51 PM
I am the one true god. Sent by god to replace god. Now abandon all false gods and bow down to your true god, me.
DeruIsLove
05-23-2014, 05:54 PM
No you dont get it. You keep bringing up abiogenesis tbh. I am aware we are talking about evolution hence why I mentioned the systems of the eye and stomach.
I cant take you seriously. You say you don't cherry pick but now I should listen to the Pope because he agrees with you. STFU.
You're really bad at this.
I suggest you start by looking up what cherry picking even means before you begin to start learning basic biology of which you've demonstrated you clearly have no knowledge of.
paulgiamatti
05-23-2014, 06:03 PM
the idea that science and religion are inherently opposed to one another just doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. these are questions without answers, scientific or otherwise. religion is faith. faith is not inconsistent with science. it is a hypothesis that we are ill-equipped to test. science doesn't speak on the untestable. some of the most brilliant scientists in history have been devout theists
Not inherently opposed, but ultimately irreconcilable. As Stephen Gould put it, science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. Many of the founders of the scientific method were Christian theologians and I'm sure many scientists and doctors today, whose work we'd be much poorer without, are deists or theists. It's not a question of intelligence, but of morality.
Bamz4l
05-23-2014, 07:34 PM
Not trying to stir anything nor really care for sources, but what evidence suggests God doesn't exist? Besides people claiming because evil happens he doesn't exist or because science can "theorize" on something marvelous that God doesn't exist because if he did we wouldn't figure out how he works? More or less, trying to figure out what you mean by that comment.
god is a giant. the universe is the space between his ass cheeks. he's about to shit on us severely.
Strifer
05-23-2014, 07:41 PM
I am the one true god. Sent by god to replace god. Now abandon all false gods and bow down to your true god, me.
http://i.imgur.com/ezUue2O.gif
ok ok omg u atheists have convinced me there is no god
RobotElvis
05-23-2014, 08:44 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ezUue2O.gif
THE NATURE BOY!!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!!!
Rellapse40
05-23-2014, 11:23 PM
We can't reproduce fusion either, is that fake too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
stick to anime moran
DeruIsLove
05-24-2014, 12:04 AM
You realize that's a work in progress right?
DeruIsLove
05-24-2014, 01:37 AM
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9poj25TKm1qig4zxo1_500.jpg
DeruIsLove
05-24-2014, 01:42 AM
good thread deru
Don't you hate the gays cause of god and stuff?
TLDR/Thread
Deru stop acting like a 15yr old girl trying to push your "values and beliefs" on people, I know deep down you wanna be a radical and change the world but gosh darnit heck girl.. it's too big for you
go watch an episode of Lane or somethin
DeruIsLove
05-24-2014, 06:28 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ZwFYNEU.jpg
mgellan
05-24-2014, 09:10 PM
Militant atheists are worse than fundamental Christians for the simple reason that they should know better.
Actually, you can call atheists militant when we fly airplanes into buildings, not before.
Regards,
Mg
Glenzig
05-24-2014, 09:18 PM
Actually, you can call atheists militant when we fly airplanes into buildings, not before.
Regards,
Mg
mil·i·tant/ˈmilətənt/
adjective
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
noun
a militant person.
radditsu
05-24-2014, 09:33 PM
I know what words mean.
paulgiamatti
05-24-2014, 09:56 PM
Damn those atheist militants.
Ahldagor
05-25-2014, 04:38 PM
We can't reproduce fusion either, is that fake too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
stick to anime moran
Hydrogen Bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
http://blog-imgs-62.fc2.com/p/e/r/peretroika/0806s000.jpg
DeruIsLove
05-25-2014, 04:46 PM
Not the same thing considering I was referring to stable fusion energy. That does reinforce my point though. We can't master it yet so does that mean it's fiction?
Ahldagor
05-25-2014, 05:00 PM
that's not what you said though. if you're going to back track to specifics to reinforce a point and make another claim along a general trace of the original then why not make the specific claim in the first place?
it's being worked on, but the funding for it isn't going to be enough for anything to get done anytime soon unfortunately. projects could be (part of me says should be) scrapped though because there are molten salt reactors (fission process) that are stable, safe, and efficient with very little waste byproduct when compared to fission reactors built a few decades ago. nuclear energy is safer than ever now, but the public hears "nuclear energy" and thinks 3-mile island or chernobyl without know anything specific about those incidents.
DeruIsLove
05-25-2014, 05:14 PM
I hate typing from a touch screen, it's too slow and there's so much proofreading needed, not to mention the user interface is garbage (god forbid I need to go back and edit something, and breaking up a quote takes like 5 minutes before I've even started typing up my piece). I type over 80 wpm normally so this phone shit doesn't give me much incentive to be so specific all the time.
Rellapse40
05-25-2014, 05:15 PM
is 80 wpm suppose to be good?
Ahldagor
05-25-2014, 05:16 PM
I hate typing from a touch screen, it's too slow and there's so much proofreading needed, not to mention the user interface is garbage (god forbid I need to go back and edit something, and breaking up a quote takes like 5 minutes before I've even started typing up my piece). I type over 80 wpm normally so this phone shit doesn't give me much incentive to be so specific all the time.
use your comp then. disble your gps, physically disable the camera, and pull the battery out once an hour on the phone?
DeruIsLove
05-25-2014, 05:24 PM
is 80 wpm suppose to be good?
Its ok I guess
use your comp then. disble your gps, physically disable the camera, and pull the battery out once an hour on the phone?
Huh? I'm IP banned and don't have direct access to the internet gateway at my current residence.
DeruIsLove
07-19-2014, 05:32 PM
http://i.imgur.com/6HwpA1Ul.jpg
Bump!
Dragonsblood1987
07-19-2014, 06:21 PM
Exprain.
well a lot of them are like vegans. they cant survive unless they tell fucking everyone that theyre atheists, and then they get into a pseudo-scientist debate about religion and gravity or some shit.
personally, i think atheism is just as audacious and stupid as religion, and the more zealous followers are essentially the same thing, but with different beliefs. lack of evidence evidence (atheists), and what you want to believe isnt evidence (religious people). i think its best to be agnostic and not an asshole about it.
DeruIsLove
07-19-2014, 06:38 PM
well a lot of them are like vegans. they cant survive unless they tell fucking everyone that theyre atheists, and then they get into a pseudo-scientist debate about religion and gravity or some shit.
personally, i think atheism is just as audacious and stupid as religion, and the more zealous followers are essentially the same thing, but with different beliefs. lack of evidence evidence (atheists), and what you want to believe isnt evidence (religious people). i think its best to be agnostic and not an asshole about it.
I don't disagree. I simply can't ignore that the atheist won't try to strip basic rights of a group of citizens because a book tells him/her that the group is sub-human.
Skywarp
07-21-2014, 06:02 AM
Atheist came out in fucking droves in this thread. Never could understand how they could debate on something so fiercely that isn't supposed to exist. Too funny.
Danyelle
07-21-2014, 07:02 AM
Coming from someone who is non-religious myself, Atheists are 100% as bad as any organized religious follower. Just like a hardcore Christian/Catholic/Muslim etc they seek to undermine your beliefs, replace them with their own, and force people to believe what they believe (or in this case, don't believe) and anyone that doesn't is a giant piece of shit.
They are absolutely no better than religious fanatics.
Dragonsblood1987
07-21-2014, 12:19 PM
I don't disagree. I simply can't ignore that the atheist won't try to strip basic rights of a group of citizens because a book tells him/her that the group is sub-human.
That's true. If fact they're far more inclined to push for everyone benefitting from human rights.
However.
Even if a doctor can cure you, if he's a giant douche, you're probably goin to ignore his medical knowledge and just think of him as a douche.
Also, lack of proof isn't proof. We should all be reasonable and say "the universe is kinda big and we really dont know what's out there"
Brynnag
07-21-2014, 12:22 PM
Coming from someone who is non-religious myself, Atheists are 100% as bad as any organized religious follower. Just like a hardcore Christian/Catholic/Muslim etc they seek to undermine your beliefs, replace them with their own, and force people to believe what they believe (or in this case, don't believe) and anyone that doesn't is a giant piece of shit.
They are absolutely no better than religious fanatics.
this
Daldolma
07-21-2014, 12:37 PM
who cares why someone tries to strip basic rights of a group of citizens? why does it matter if it's because of a book or because they're just intolerant? because many atheists are just as likely as many religious people to abridge basic rights.
choosing what you believe about the meaning of life and whether/to what extent you want to partake in religious tradition is as basic a human right as any other, and some atheists are hostile toward that right.
some atheists also try to hide the ball by turning things like homosexuality and contraception into human rights issues while painting contrary religious principles as some kind of superstitious voodoo blocking progress. the fact is that religious freedom is a basic right just like homosexuality, and in fact, there is a far greater tradition of religious freedom than of sexual freedom. does this mean one right should always trump the other? no. but some atheists, just like some religious people, are far too quick to dismiss the right they don't like and defend the one they do.
fact is that these are usually hard questions that don't have easy answers. sometimes religious freedom needs to yield to individual rights. but sometimes religious freedom needs to be defended, even if you don't like the way that freedom is being used
Alarti0001
07-21-2014, 01:54 PM
Atheists postulate there isn't a god. Theists postulate there is.
What's the difference?
Nah atheists say there isn't a reason to assume there is a god.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 04:03 PM
Atheist came out in fucking droves in this thread. Never could understand how they could debate on something so fiercely that isn't supposed to exist. Too funny.
Some people just want to watch the world learn.
Bruno
07-21-2014, 04:17 PM
Wow trade chat pretty much sums up this thread.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 04:31 PM
WTF is "trade chat"?
Champion_Standing
07-21-2014, 04:54 PM
Some people just want to watch the world learn.
Actually most people just want everyone to be how we think they should be. When we see people who are content in beliefs that conflict with ours we get defensive and upset and start acting like zealots because our belief system is threatened. Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, people who believe the moon landing was real/fake, everyone does it. We are all pretty much exactly the same, but when the things that make us "different' get questioned we flip the fuck out.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 05:08 PM
Actually most people just want everyone to be how we think they should be. When we see people who are content in beliefs that conflict with ours we get defensive and upset and start acting like zealots because our belief system is threatened. Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, people who believe the moon landing was real/fake, everyone does it. We are all pretty much exactly the same, but when the things that make us "different' get questioned we flip the fuck out.
I get what you are saying and I know where you are coming from, however what I view as the greatest flaw in that argument is implying that Atheists/skeptics are going on a belief system like the other groups that you've mentioned. No matter how strong someone feels about their belief system, no matter how much they claim to know the "truth", when you deny the facts, you lose that thing known as credibility.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 05:11 PM
I firmly believe that people should be allowed to worship whatever/however they please with one condition: their faith should end at the tip of their nose and shouldn't affect anyone else in any way.
Champion_Standing
07-21-2014, 05:47 PM
I get what you are saying and I know where you are coming from, however what I view as the greatest flaw in that argument is implying that Atheists/skeptics are going on a belief system like the other groups that you've mentioned. No matter how strong someone feels about their belief system, no matter how much they claim to know the "truth", when you deny the facts, you lose that thing known as credibility.
tl;dr my ism is better than your ism
Dragonsblood1987
07-21-2014, 05:55 PM
tl;dr my ism is better than your ism
im going to call you both terrorists and kill you on TV because clearly MY ism is the superior one.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 05:59 PM
tl;dr my ism is better than your ism
"Better" is too subjective a term. I much prefer educated, backed up by hard evidence, logical, flexible, and with limited bias. :)
Not that I'm a fan of any izms anyway.
Champion_Standing
07-21-2014, 06:00 PM
im going to call you both terrorists and kill you on TV because clearly MY ism is the superior one.
Public beheading is ultimately the only way to solve the argument.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 06:08 PM
Public beheading is ultimately the only way to solve the argument.
I'm pro public execution or rather, trying it and seeing if it helps deter certain crimes.
Imagine if convicted rapists got their dicks cut off during halftime at the superbowl!
iruinedyourday
07-21-2014, 07:03 PM
Atheists postulate there isn't a god. Theists postulate there is.
What's the difference?
Well, science rests on evidence. Nonexistent entities have none. God has none, so therefor its safe to say that there probably is no god.
That said, I am a coward and therefore say I am an agnostic. There are far more intelligent people than me that could talk about the subject tho haha.
DeruIsLove
07-21-2014, 07:34 PM
Well, science rests on evidence. Nonexistent entities have none. God has none, so therefor its safe to say that there probably is no god.
That said, I am honest and therefore say I am an agnostic. There are far more intelligent people than me that could talk about the subject tho haha.
Fixed. Don't put yourself down because you don't have all of the answers. Being able to acknowledge and admit such is the first step to enlightenment. :D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.