religion

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bwahahha! Did you seriously just...hahahahahah...omfg. Ok, time for me to drive home. I will be giggling all the way there. Thanks for the laugh.

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did. To kagatobs extent, that is completely 100% false. You do not have any statistics for prayer, let alone, if you did, you can't group all religions together as 1 religion.

You can think whatever you want and giggle all you want. I provided the examples like you asked. I think the joke more is you can't take a discussion serious when someone provides you the facts and it pisses you off.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did. To kagatobs extent, that is completely 100% false. You do not have any statistics for prayer, let alone, if you did, you can't group all religions together as 1 religion.

You can think whatever you want and giggle all you want. I provided the examples like you asked. I think the joke more is you can't take a discussion serious when someone provides you the facts and it pisses you off.

Stop using words like ignorant. Those words are not for you to use.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Apparently you don't know what an assumption is, and it's even more how ignorant you are with your response. You asked me to provide something and I did. To kagatobs extent, that is completely 100% false. You do not have any statistics for prayer, let alone, if you did, you can't group all religions together as 1 religion.

You can think whatever you want and giggle all you want. I provided the examples like you asked. I think the joke more is you can't take a discussion serious when someone provides you the facts and it pisses you off.

It was simply a bad example and is not scientific. Are there similarities I suppose, but nothing testable or predictable as a result therefore it's not a scientific experiment.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Non Quixote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you believe in Zeus, Athena, Mars, Loki, Thor, Wankan Tanka, Vishna, Brahman, et al.? Heaven has suburbs?

If you read the mythology of all cultures you will see a common thread, that the gods were in chaos and order had to come from chaos.

The bible provides insight into the reason for this commonality. When the sons of God rebelled and became wicked demonic creatures.
Mythology is just a retelling of this tale from the demonic perspective.
Do I believe in Zeus? In a way.

The spirit who presented himself as Zeus in Greek culture would present himself as Odin in Viking culture and Osiris in Egyptian culture, et cetera.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Really, not everything in text books is real? How exactly is the theory of evolution wrong there fella? Please provide some data to back up your claims. Not a single creationist has been able to do it yet but dont let that stop you from trying.

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man.

If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah.

The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

I will await your response as to how ignorant I am.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

any views against religion is ridiculous because that view in of itself is a religious view.

I can't just let this go unattacked. Is anyone else reading this nonsense? Is this thing on?

I simply can't understand how someone can so easily conflate religiosity with literally, in his words, any view. I will say it again, this is the most egregious line of non-thought I've ever encountered. It is so patently obvious what a sad and underthought attempt this is at debunking rationally drawn, clear, articulate, undisputed boundaries between religionist and secular, scientific worldviews.

As long as he begins an argument with this, you can right away disregard everything he's about to say. He is immediately disqualified. This is not how you profess ideas in a society which for very good reasons holds itself to higher standards. This is absurdity. White. Noise.

This should not pass as either an argument or a segue into anything worth listening to.

[Glenzig]

Very well stated RobotElvis.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man.

If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah.

The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.

I will await your response as to how ignorant I am.

Where do Neanderthals fit into this line of thought?

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can't just let this go unattacked. Is anyone else reading this nonsense? Is this thing on?

I simply can't understand how someone can so easily conflate religiosity with literally, in his words, any view. I will say it again, this is the most egregious line of non-thought I've ever encountered. It is so patently obvious what a sad and underthought attempt this is at debunking rationally drawn, clear, articulate, undisputed boundaries between religionist and secular, scientific worldviews.

As long as he begins an argument with this, you can right away disregard everything he's about to say. He is immediately disqualified. This is not how you profess ideas in a society which for very good reasons holds itself to higher standards. This is absurdity. White. Noise.

This should not pass as either an argument or a segue into anything worth listening to.

Lol this reminds me of the recent black people riot. "You guys seeing this? That white guy shot a black guy, racist! ALL WHITES SHOULD DIE! LETS GET FREE TVS!" Just because a mass mount of idiots agree on something, doesn't make it right either. This thread has been apparent of it.

Again, I gave an example because he asked for one, just because he likes it or doesn't like the example is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it was 1% 2% or 100% is irrelevant. It still works for the criteria he gave. If you argue it was 100%, that doesn't matter either, because scientific theories among scientists that agree is 100% either.

[Eliseus]

isn't 100%***