|
|
|
|
#1
09-22-2014, 06:21 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Kaga has never had any respected opinion. And all the other people haven't even been in this thread long enough to even argue anything more than a couple posts because in reality, this thread is a piece of shit and has been a huge circle jerk for over 100 pages now. I'm really still here because I have nothing else to do and find your outposts in the above quote pretty hilarious. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
09-22-2014, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
Nope, you never answered or rebutted anything from his post.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#5
09-22-2014, 05:55 PM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The evolutionary theory was achieved using the exact same method. Every claim within it is easily falsifiable, and was not predicated on wishful thinking or a desire for it to be true. Scientists are completely neutral in this. They're not out conducting experiments for their ego, they simply want to figure out how the world works and how it came into existence. When one paleontologist finds a set of fossils in a geographic area that doesn't line up with a current scientific hypothesis, then they scrap that hypothesis and start over. They're not making claims and then working endlessly toward those claims to prove that they're true. Instead, they're working endlessly and using the scientific method to develop theory. Theory is not the starting point. There's a whole world of hypothesis and inference and study and research and observation and crosschecking and peer review that goes on before theory. | ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#6
09-22-2014, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
"Peter Mandaville and Paul James define religion as "a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing".[24] This definition has the virtue of taking into account the emphasis in the literature on the relationship between the immanent and transcendent without treating it in the modern way as a dualism of two separate worlds. There is no mention of 'God' or 'gods', allowing Buddhism, for example, to be considered a religion."
"The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."[26] Alluding perhaps to Tylor's "deeper motive", Geertz remarked that "we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished. We just know that it is done, annually, weekly, daily, for some people almost hourly; and we have an enormous ethnographic literature to demonstrate it".[27] The theologian Antoine Vergote also emphasized the "cultural reality" of religion, which he defined as "the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings"; he took the term "supernatural" simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency." "The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[29] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.[note 2] On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred".[30] Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.[31]" "In his book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".[32] By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not"[33] to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.[34]" | ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
09-22-2014, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
Based on how you creationists behave in this thread you better hope the atheists are right, otherwise your foul souls are going to burn for eternity cause you are a nasty bunch of posters.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#8
09-22-2014, 06:13 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#9
09-22-2014, 06:30 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
You know who I think created life on earth? Mother fuckn veeshan. Veeshan for prez! | |||
|
|
||||
|
#10
09-22-2014, 06:38 PM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Even your analogy is bad. If you are the kid, you can't catch because even though I've shown you a dozen times, you can't even put on the glove. Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
