# Proving "God" is real..



## BongTokinAlcoholic420 (Mar 30, 2012)

Almost impossible, except through the testimony of "Who"?


----------



## polyarcturus (Mar 30, 2012)

polyarcturus likes this.

how do you define "god" and which god is god should be the first question?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Mar 30, 2012)

the god who should be god is the one who shows itself to us all, and lets us examine and experiment on its chemical/biological makeup in order to prove the existence of it.


----------



## Farfenugen (Mar 30, 2012)

I am my own god, as is everyone else


----------



## RollMeOne420 (Mar 30, 2012)

pics or gtfo


----------



## j.GrEeN.<,{'^'},> (Mar 30, 2012)

IMHO:_A*nything*_ and _E*verything*_ *is* possible......_*All*_ that _C*an exist*_, _D*oes exist*_......


----------



## eye exaggerate (Mar 31, 2012)

^ fair, very fair.


----------



## polyarcturus (Mar 31, 2012)

j.GrEeN.< said:


> IMHO:_A*nything*_ and _E*verything*_ *is* possible......_*All*_ that _C*an exist*_, _D*oes exist*_......


agreed.......................


----------



## ChronicObsession (Mar 31, 2012)

BongTokinAlcoholic420 said:


> Almost impossible, except through the testimony of "Who"?


Did you make this thread because you crave attention? you are so silly bro, how about looking for help instead of making jokes like that. Your momma didn't create the universe, and neither did magical gasses. You should thank the Lord you have another minute to figure this mess out. I prayed for you now, you will need all the prayers you can get, asking for information about the one true God on a satanic RIU..... LOL


----------



## Zootime (Mar 31, 2012)

BongTokinAlcoholic420 said:


> Almost impossible, except through the testimony of "Who"?


The Fact that your alive is testimony to God's existence.

I think that is all the proof you need.


----------



## ChronicObsession (Mar 31, 2012)

I think people should put their penises away for a minute and stop looking at women as bitches or just "meatfat with orifices". Then a lot will change my friend.... lots


----------



## BongTokinAlcoholic420 (Apr 2, 2012)

ChronicObsession said:


> Did you make this thread because you crave attention? you are so silly bro, how about looking for help instead of making jokes like that. Your momma didn't create the universe, and neither did magical gasses. You should thank the Lord you have another minute to figure this mess out. I prayed for you now, you will need all the prayers you can get, asking for information about the one true God on a satanic RIU..... LOL


I was hoping to be the Testimony, to those who don't belivee. Because I didn't.... AND HE Came To me.


----------



## Jakebake420 (Apr 5, 2012)

God is in your head . . . 

YOU have your own God right inside of your head dude! Strive for the ultimate in your own human capabilities.

Keep your head up and YOU are looking at God . . . keep your head pointed down to the ground and you will walk towards the Devil. People take these as metaphors for Good and Bad/Right and Wrong, but in reality, only YOU can judge your actions/thoughts/ideas as good or bad. It's up to you to put the pieces together and realize how the Universe works. The writing is on the wall though. Just look at the Statue of David or Da Vinci's self portrait, he even smiles at you wryly . . .


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 5, 2012)

hopefully the time will come when everyone accepts the plain fact... that nobody knows, and its fucking retarded to waste your life away believing in fantasies that hold no burden of proof.


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 5, 2012)

ChronicObsession said:


> I think people should put their penises away for a minute and stop looking at women as bitches or just "meatfat with orifices". Then a lot will change my friend.... lots


True. We must realize that the ho can also make you a a sandwich. I am waiting for the day when the burka becomes law in the US so I won't have to be tempted by these hot bitches...

P.S. Zaehet, you got old, dude! That must be some amazing shit you've been smoking lately


----------



## kpmarine (Apr 7, 2012)

Zootime said:


> The Fact that your alive is testimony to God's existence.
> 
> I think that is all the proof you need.


Thank goodness that science and modern medicine didn't leave it at that! :

Doctor: "Your kidneys are failing, you'll be dead in a matter of months."
Patient: "What's wrong with me?!?!"
Doctor: "Don't know how it happened, must be God."

God gave us disease, science gave us treatment. If God exists there are only two choices, as many have said before me. He doesn't care about us very much, which makes sense, given the state of the world. Or he's just a cruel higher power. Either way he has done nothing to show me he's particularly interested in me. As a wise man once told me, "If God is real, don't you think he could do better than a book written by a couple people who are the only ones that can hear him? A "wise and all knowing God" would know that anyone with half a brain is going to call bullshit on that one."


----------



## Nunchukawaria (Apr 7, 2012)

I think god is a misinterpretation. Look around, your one with all meaning your part of gods mind. Just another hampster in a cage running your wheel. Maybe she's to busy concentrating on holding it all together.


----------



## 1Shot1Kill (Apr 8, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> God gave us disease, science gave us treatment. If God exists there are only two choices, as many have said before me. He doesn't care about us very much, which makes sense, given the state of the world. Or he's just a cruel higher power. Either way he has done nothing to show me he's particularly interested in me. As a wise man once told me, "If God is real, don't you think he could do better than a book written by a couple people who are the only ones that can hear him? A "wise and all knowing God" would know that anyone with half a brain is going to call bullshit on that one."


Or He does care and he's not going to prevent disease lol. This is a common idea that turn people away from Christianity. It's not his job to keep people alive, thats your job. How is he supposed to prevent you from eating carcinogens and fattening foods with pesticides sprayed on them? He can only give you guidance and wisdom with the hope of you making the right decisions


----------



## NiigataOp (Apr 10, 2012)

the argument can and will always go both ways. As there is a higher power and what is meant to be is meant to be. Science and God go hand in hand. How many chances do you take a day and survive. Are you just rolling the dice everyday or is someone or something watching over you. 

I also can buy into the whole big bang theory but how does a massive amount of energy develop from nothing and if it was already there. then where did it originally come from. hence the reason of God and science is trying to figure it out.


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 10, 2012)

1Shot1Kill said:


> Or He does care and he's not going to prevent disease lol. This is a common idea that turn people away from Christianity. It's not his job to keep people alive, thats your job.


So God took it upon himself to create life, but feels no responsibility to preserve it? Didn't Jesus heal the sick? If it's not his job, then why give him credit for cancer remissions, not to mention pestilence. 




> How is he supposed to prevent you from eating carcinogens and fattening foods with pesticides sprayed on them? He can only give you guidance and wisdom with the hope of you making the right decisions


Isn't god omnipotent? This means, if he wanted us not to eat certain things, he'd find a way to make it so. In fact, God seems to have no problem commanding which foods we can not eat, and it doesn't seem to be based on modern concerns of health. Curious that God chose to include things like pesticide and carcinogens in his world. Do decisions like that represent the wisdom and guidance you referenced?


Maybe you should spend less time laughing and more time thinking.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Apr 10, 2012)

...it's God's other half (better half?) that is 'in charge' of preservation. There might even be a law about that, I think


----------



## jbsoriginality (Apr 10, 2012)

I believe that there is an intelligent being somewhere in the Universe who designed us,and this Earth,and all its creatures. But then I ask myself "or did we just evolve, because if there was an intelligent being who designed us ,then who designed the intelligent being?" Also why didnt Jesus or God himself write for the Bible? Several other people did but why not Jesus or God?


----------



## jbsoriginality (Apr 10, 2012)

There will be a cleansing of the world given time, everything that was created by satan shall be destroyed! Including pesticides and carcinogens! Either way you look at it Jesus will be back for real or metaphorically and then the war between good and evil will be on in full swing! It might have already started! We don't know when it will happen but God does!


----------



## jbsoriginality (Apr 10, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> So God took it upon himself to create life, but feels no responsibility to preserve it? Didn't Jesus heal the sick? If it's not his job, then why give him credit for cancer remissions, not to mention pestilence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There will be a cleansing of the world given time, everything that was created by satan shall be destroyed! Including pesticides and carcinogens! Either way you look at it Jesus will be back for real or metaphorically and then the war between good and evil will be on in full swing! It might have already started! We don't know when it will happen but God does!


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 10, 2012)

jbsoriginality said:


> I believe that there is an intelligent being somewhere in the Universe who designed us,and this Earth,and all its creatures. But then I ask myself "or did we just evolve, because if there was an intelligent being who designed us ,then *who designed the intelligent being*?" Also why didnt Jesus or God himself write for the Bible? Several other people did but why not Jesus or God?


This is a great question to ask yourself. Good job. The more you think about it, the more you will realize that using God as a terminator for creation offers no real answers, and in fact only compounds the problem. There may or may not be other evidences of God, but creation, the fact that life is here, can not logically be one of them.

Does the problem of infinite regress disprove God? Not necessarily. What it does do is allow us to reject any line of argument which follows the idea that, since we can't explain some aspect of life, God must be behind it. In this context, God explains nothing and it is illogical to pretend he does.

Also, while you are pondering the absence of Jesus's authoring abilities, you may want to ask yourself another question. What evidence, what reasoning, is there behind the idea that the bible is a book of divinity? The bible bears no objective signs that it was inspired by god, and possesses all the earmarks we'd expect to see if it were written by ignorant mortals who knew nothing about the fundamentals of reality.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 10, 2012)

yet again, all need be done is to read my sig... and laugh


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Apr 11, 2012)

GOD is the essence of that which was, which is, which will be. He that which exist


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 11, 2012)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> GOD is the essence of that which was, which is, which will be. He that which exist


Well, that clears things up


----------



## RawBudzski (Apr 11, 2012)

Now I get it.. .


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Apr 11, 2012)

The only one you have to prove god to is yourself,and I believe!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 11, 2012)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> The only one you have to prove god to is yourself,and I believe!


You are absolutely correct, but i dont believe... because i refuse to lie to myself. until god comes and says yo, Zaehet, im god... check it out im fuckin flying around you, here, have some of my DNA so you can prove to everyone else including yourself that i am god, until that happens, im not going to lie to myself and tell myself i know something that i really dont know.

I think honesty with oneself, is the most important aspect of life.


----------



## RawBudzski (Apr 11, 2012)

*"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astounding universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."
- Carl Sagan


 you could have just said this.
*


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 11, 2012)

RawBudzski said:


> Now I get it.. .


Peda Bear! Where you been?


----------



## Cannikid (Apr 11, 2012)

Having blind faith in anything defies human nature. We are wired to question everything why can't I question the idea of God? There are so many conflicting religions that have been fighting for hundreds of years because there God is the only true God. Why can a Christian believe in his God as the only god and a Muslim believe that his God is the only God at the same time. I believe in a higher power but I do not believe that there is only one right "God". Our universe is infinite, there is no known limit to it; that being the case it is 100% likely that there is other life out there. Did "God" create them too? I believe that there are other things going on in this universe that our minds will never be able to comprehend. Everyday we are finding new theories in physics to define the world around us. They are still theories because we really don't know what is going on. IE dual slit test. If I can't prove there is a God then there might not be one but it is still possible. I was a Christian youth pastor for years and I asked my pastor two questions that ruined the religion for me. What happens to people that have good intentions and do good but were never indoctrinated with the Christian faith? What happens to people without the capacity to understand religion?


----------



## RawBudzski (Apr 11, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Peda Bear! Where you been?


Hello friend. I have been lurking in the shadows. Recently I have been getting more and more annoyed w/ nonsense & have been lashing out w/ rants.


----------



## Cannikid (Apr 11, 2012)

Why did the Christian religion basically throw away the Old Testament? It clearly states that any who claims to be God or speak on God's behalf that they are to be considered a false profit. Then came along Jesus and we don't believe in the Old Testament and are able to pick and choose what we want to follow.


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 11, 2012)

RawBudzski said:


> Hello friend. I have been lurking in the shadows. Recently I have been getting more and more annoyed w/ nonsense & have been lashing out w/ rants.


Cool. I'm gonna visit your page and check out the rants  My tolerance for bullshit waxes and wanes. Come over to my thread and express your anger in haiku form...


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Apr 13, 2012)

I have proof of 2 gods; the bible, and the quran these books are their gods, you shall have no other gods before...ME


----------



## jessy koons (Apr 13, 2012)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> I have proof of 2 gods; the bible, and the quran these books are their gods, you shall have no other gods before...ME


I want god to buy me an ice cream cone 'cause I love ice cream alot.


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Apr 13, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> You are absolutely correct, but i dont believe... because i refuse to lie to myself. until god comes and says yo, Zaehet, im god... check it out im fuckin flying around you, here, have some of my DNA so you can prove to everyone else including yourself that i am god, until that happens, im not going to lie to myself and tell myself i know something that i really dont know.
> 
> I think honesty with oneself, is the most important aspect of life.


AMEN, can I hear AMEN..


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 13, 2012)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> I have proof of 2 gods; the bible, and the quran these books are their gods, you shall have no other gods before...ME


And I have proof of a magic school in Scotland that teaches the arts to young wizards and witches. I read it in a book too.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 13, 2012)

My take on spirituality is

Region: stupid and separates the people on this earth. it is a menace and should be thrown out. Many countless wars & death associated with religion 

Faith: one of the most important and powerful things that humans need to keep expanding their knowledge. I like to think that faith is the only reason we keep expanding our knowledge to find the true answer.


----------



## medikal (Apr 14, 2012)

you will never prove that i exist


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 15, 2012)

God is consciousness, everything is consciousness *smokes a bowl while sitting cross legged on a cloud*


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> the god who should be god is the one who shows itself to us all, and lets us examine and experiment on its chemical/biological makeup in order to prove the existence of it.


LOL Gimme a fuckn break xD. I know how you think now


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 17, 2012)

I just think as rationally as i can, being honest with myself about what i know, what i don't know, and the difference between the two.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

there is definitely some sort of design to it all and meaning

otherwise how can you explain all the muscles in our face that are needed to work together to make us smile or frown and then to have those expression understood by man and animal alike

religions are for sheeple who need direction . . .. . . . but the design must be resepcted . . . . .


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> there is definitely some sort of design to it all and meaning
> 
> otherwise how can you explain all the muscles in our face that are needed to work together to make us smile or frown and then to have those expression understood by man and animal alike
> 
> religions are for sheeple who need direction . . .. . . . but the design must be resepcted . . . . .


evolution as a social species. its very hard to get on in society if you dont know what the others thinking/ trying to say(facial expressions big part of communication)


----------



## MISSPHOEBE (Apr 17, 2012)

GOD is simply the *energy of All Things Combined................


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 17, 2012)

MISSPHOEBE said:


> GOD is simply the *energy of All Things Combined................


No

[thread=388385]correct use of term "energy"[/thread]


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> otherwise how can you explain all the muscles in our face that are needed to work together to make us smile or frown and then to have those expression understood by man and animal alike


An unimaginable period of trial and error with survival as the selector.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

Atheists idea of God is still a magical man in the sky dictating the world to his plan, thinking that is just as primitive as christians... So of course you wont be able to convince them of anything spiritual because when they think God they think fairy tale


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 17, 2012)

I think people would be able to understand what you are trying to say if you used the intended word in the right way. Instead of useing the word "god" maybe you should use the right word/word combination, for example; some say collective consciousness, or magic, or mysterious unexplainable energy, or voo doo, or (mysterious something that has no tangable evidence) or... bullshit? Either of those words/word combinations would be just fine i think!


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

"Ignorant calculating robots of rationality" xD I cracked myself up when I posted that in the other post.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

And theres evidence, you just discredit it because the evidence isnt some magical being doing a dance in front of you. silly boy.


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> And theres evidence, you just discredit it because the evidence isnt some magical being doing a dance in front of you. silly boy.


The standards of evidence are quite clear in our society. You wouldn't take a drug or give a drug to your children without some sort of credible testing. You wouldn't invest your money in something simply because a bunch of people believed it would work. You wouldn't convict a family member of crimes based solely on faith. Suddenly, when the subject turns to god, people who are careful about evidence are silly.

You speak as if God is there for all to see, obvious to anyone who looks, yet you can not point to him.


----------



## RawBudzski (Apr 17, 2012)

God has a placebo effect on sheltered minds. A Free Anti-Depressant for DayDreamers.

Oh How I Missed Reading Heisenbergs posts. Enlighten me.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> The standards of evidence are quite clear in our society. You wouldn't take a drug or give a drug to your children without some sort of credible testing. You wouldn't invest your money in something simply because a bunch of people believed it would work. You wouldn't convict a family member of crimes based solely on faith. Suddenly, when the subject turns to god, people who are careful about evidence are silly.
> 
> You speak as if God is there for all to see, obvious to anyone who looks, yet you can not point to him.


Him eh? lol Im done here


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Him eh? lol Im done here


Obviously the pronoun was used for the sake of expression. I am prepared to accept that God could be either gender or completely without. Curious that my choice of grammar causes you to drop the whole issue, and convenient that this allows you to avoid the challenge of my words.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Obviously the pronoun was used for the sake of expression. I am prepared to accept that God could be either gender or completely without. Curious that my choice of grammar causes you to drop the whole issue, and convenient that this allows you to avoid the challenge of my words.


Well said Heisen, i am also curious... but i assume (and i could be completely wrong here) that Eagle is attempting to sidestep your statement... either disregarding it completely by mentally blocking what was he/she read, or by not reading it at all.

Eagle, im sure Heisen woulnd't mind if you replaced the pronoun He, with It, Sir, Ma'm, Magic, Bullshit... or whatever you please. Didn't you know, arguing with Heisenberg is like boxing a glacier... ive had my hands bloodied a time or two.


----------



## crazyhazey (Apr 17, 2012)

if there was a god, why would people be suffering all around the world. hes a figment of your imagination, this "faith" you call is just a sign that you've lost hope or cannot operate without the feeling of some sort of company, a sort of co-dependence with an imaginary friend. religions find ways to make this part of your mind more susceptible to their lies, they'll try to traumatize into their beliefs by telling you that by not acknowledging your imaginary friend(god, jesus, allah, who gives a fuck) you may be sentenced to eternity in a fire pit.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Obviously the pronoun was used for the sake of expression. I am prepared to accept that God could be either gender or completely without. Curious that my choice of grammar causes you to drop the whole issue, and convenient that this allows you to avoid the challenge of my words.


OOO the challenge of your words xD give it up man, God will never be proven to you because you will discredit any fact as spiritual mumbo jumbo, Im sorry my friend, if you want God to be proven to you, you're gunna have to read what you consider to be spiritual mumbo jumbo. If you want to start somewhere that you think is rational, try looking up Graham Hancock and his evidence of a super advanced race that existed in ancient times but was wiped out from the face of the earth, probably the same race that built the amazing architectural wonder that is the Great Pyramids. And the advanced civilization that he speaks of believed there was a life after death, a 100000 year old civilization that had knowledge of the metric system and the speed of light, the speed of light is encoded int eh pyramids, the layout of the pyramids and the sphinx matches exactly with the Fibonacci Spiral... But SURELY that race that had advance knowledge of the universe were foolish because they believed in fantasy ... You act like for something to exist it has to be rationally explained by our primitive minds... There was a time where we didnt question these obvious things, but we are a species with amnesia and forgotten everything.

Not saying the Pyramids are 100000 years old, they were built in 10500 BC. Theres just evidence saying that the civilization could be as old as 100000 years.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Atheists idea of God is still a magical man in the sky dictating the world to his plan, thinking that is just as primitive as christians... So of course you wont be able to convince them of anything spiritual because when they think God they think fairy tale


An atheist is one that does not accept the claim that a god exists. Of course it is left up to the person making the claim to define "god." It is certainly possible that you can define god in such a way that an atheist can accept it, the problem then is merely semantics. Much of the discussion in forums about religion rely on the description of god given to us by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Those 'gods' are easy to deny as they are full of logical contradictions. If you personally believe there is a god that is not usually discussed, it is up to you to present your case and give a definition of what god is. To merely hand wave at atheists because they are often arguing against Christians is being unfair. 


Generally, any god is usually considered a transcendent being that was the prime force behind the creation of the universe. Even though this can be far removed from the traditional Judeo-Christian deity, I would still be asking you to provide evidence. Rational thought and empirical evidence has shown me that organization and complexity can arise from very simple forms naturally. All I need are some fundamental forces and something to work with. Intelligent agency is not required. You are free to believe otherwise but without actual evidence, it is all speculation.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> OOO the challenge of your words xD give it up man, God will never be proven to you because you will discredit any fact as spiritual mumbo jumbo, Im sorry my friend, if you want God to be proven to you, you're gunna have to read what you consider to be spiritual mumbo jumbo. If you want to start somewhere that you think is rational, try looking up Graham Hancock and his evidence of a super advanced race that existed in ancient times but was wiped out from the face of the earth, probably the same race that built the amazing architectural wonder that is the Great Pyramids. And the advanced civilization that he speaks of believed there was a life after death, a 100000 year old civilization that had knowledge of the metric system and the speed of light, the speed of light is encoded int eh pyramids, the layout of the pyramids and the sphinx matches exactly with the Fibonacci Spiral... But SURELY that race that had advance knowledge of the universe were foolish because they believed in fantasy ... You act like for something to exist it has to be rationally explained by our primitive minds... There was a time where we didnt question these obvious things, but we are a species with amnesia and forgotten everything.
> 
> Not saying the Pyramids are 100000 years old,* they were built in 10500 BC.* Theres just evidence saying that the civilization could be as old as 100000 years.


Link to the bolded please? cn


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> An unimaginable period of trial and error with survival as the selector.


the theories of Darwinian evolution have all but been disproved . . . .i thought . . .. that random chance mutations have been proven to have been respsonsible fot eh evolution of a species as well as the de evolution and extinction of species . .. as environment and climate change . . i do not believe in God . . but i do belive in the design , there are constant reoccurring fractals in nature . . . . .life is more and more being describe with mathematics . .. . . . . .and belive in its inherent design within the system that is life an evolution . . . . . .evidence of symmetry throughout the universe is not proof of a architect

but it does make you wonder is life just as self perpetuating as we are told or is it like a elaborate dominoes set up with some lines growing and others ending but all within the design . . . 

idk

i spent a lot of time om mushrooms thinking about lifes design . . and trying to disprove god, with logic vs ideologies . . . . . .i couldn't do it . .. .all philosophical thoughts i ended on were the result of a mind set that there is no god,, any logic should have the same ending no matter where you start . . . .. as long as reason vs passion is your guide


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 17, 2012)

Still waiting on your explanation of how any of the pyramids 'encode' the speed of light.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> *the theories of Darwinian evolution have all but been disproved* . . . .i thought . . .. that random chance mutations have been proven to have been respsonsible fot eh evolution of a species as well as the de evolution and extinction of species . .. as environment and climate change . . i do not believe in God . . but i do belive in the design , there are constant reoccurring fractals in nature . . . . .life is more and more being describe with mathematics . .. . . . . .and belive in its inherent design within the system that is life an evolution . . . . . .evidence of symmetry throughout the universe is not proof of a architect
> 
> but it does make you wonder is life just as self perpetuating as we are told or is it like a elaborate dominoes set up with some lines growing and others ending but all within the design . . .
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that Darwin's theory has withstood every challenge tossed at it. If you have info otherwise, I'd appreciate a link. cn


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

the most recent work on evolution suggest that chance mutation in our genetics is what progressed the "winning" species onto the top spot in the food chain

and it throws all the elitest mentality out the window, about survival of the fitest . . .. . bunch of BS

its just plain survival and probability . . . . . . . .with enough open genetics floating around in our genes the possibilities are endless when of comes to genetics variance and how it effects our evolution

also society and environment can dictate what genes sought after and passed on . . .. nothing to do with survival of the fittest if you look like a famous person and have many chances of passing your genetic material on . . . .just a example

in the end the people breeding the most are not the world most gifted or intelligent or strong or evolved . . . .they are what is popular or available. .. . .and through the mixing of genetics 

genetic expression of mutations/variance will be expressed . . . .. . . its science or math . . .or probability maybe all of em


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> the theories of Darwinian evolution have all but been disproved . . . .i thought . . ..


You thought wrong. You have been duped by the religious fundies that discontinued "scientific creationism" for intelligent design due to legal reasons. Life always appeared to be designed, Darwin was the first person that gave us a testable mechanism of how life can evolve with the "appearance" of design. 



> that random chance mutations have been proven to have been respsonsible fot eh evolution of a species as well as the de evolution and extinction of species . .. as environment and climate change . . i do not believe in God . . but i do belive in the design , there are constant reoccurring fractals in nature . . . . .life is more and more being describe with mathematics . .. . . . . .and belive in its inherent design within the system that is life an evolution . . . . . .evidence of symmetry throughout the universe is not proof of a architect


Darwin gave us descent with modification. Random mutation is a small part of evolutionary change. Too many people focus of this random process and ignore the power of cumulative selection and deep time. Its sort of like if you had 10 dice and wanted to get all sixes. If you rolled all ten each time, it will take a long time for you to roll 10 sixes. However, if after each roll, you can keep the ones that landed six and rolled only the remaining ones, you will reach 10 sixes much quicker, by a factor of more than a million! Life keeps the things that work and build upon those. We didn't even get differentiated multicellular life for billions of years after life began but once that template became successful, many new 'designs' could be tried and then selection could build on those, and so on.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory

thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent reasrch into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout tiime. . you willl find what im referign too\

and genetics are not a dice to be kept and never changed . . . .we are all connected and its ever changing . . . . . . .. can you lamen that up for me im a little foggy right now

how do the dice connect with the exchange of genes over time with in a large global population


genetic variation made us better equipped and survival of the fittest is just a symptom of that . . .but now that most peoples life gets to a old age, survival of the fittest doesnt describe the reason one genes expression is more desirable or attractive then another, its the possible genetics expression that is new and unknown or beneficial . . .and are mutations within our genes vs breed traits . . . .. we have evolved away from what makes animals evolve . . . .and in my opinion a long time ago too


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory
> 
> thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up *the most recent [research] into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout time*. . you willl find what im referign too\
> 
> ...


Link please! cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory
> 
> thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent reasrch into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout tiime. . you willl find what im referign too\
> 
> ...


Dude, you realize you're arguing with a guy who's avatar is young Charles Darwin, right? Is what you're saying your opinion or facts? If they are facts, please provide some links...


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

is that the logic you use to reason why he is right? come on

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/272/5269/1802.short
http://130.225.75.199/staff/dave/genomics_course/ElenaLenski2003.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=htJHI1UrL7IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=evolution+caused+by+genetic+mutations&ots=fyo_2JUAjV&sig=qCh3EnsqPcSE-0ipMROr6UXks1k#v=onepage&q=evolution caused by genetic mutations&f=false
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2409017?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698892693237

genetic algorithms are interesting

ok bone up follks . .. . im not saying its true but iam saying that a thoery is just that

somthing that is true can be repeated and should work to an end with any variables plugged into it . . . . modern peoples genetics are not surviving from being the fittest

example the laws governing quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity should be able to be linked together as one change have a equal or opposite reaction within each respective enviroment

it is a popularity game and has nothing to do with darwin theory . . . . idk maybe i havent read enough of darwins theory


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> please read the rest and actually look up what im talking about . . . i dont believe in creation theory


I never said you did. You did say you believe in intelligent design and that's all I was discussing


> thats the thing is its not a small part . . . .. . look up the most recent reasrch into the study of the changes of bones in our bodies throughout tiime. . you willl find what im referign too\
> 
> and genetics are not a dice to be kept and never changed . . . .we are all connected and its ever changing . . . . . . .. can you lamen that up for me im a little foggy right now
> 
> ...


Why do you keep referring to "survival of the fittest" as being wrong then give examples of gene survival? My comment to you was about biological evolution and countering your claim that Darwin has been disproven. If you want to discuss only the evolution of modern man, I would probably agree that to a great extent, biological evolution has taken a back seat to technological evolution. Humans can live comfortably in the northern regions without a higher genetic tolerance for cold because of clothing, shelter and powered heating. We are demonstrating we can even survive in space, although not without complications. None of that disproves what Darwin's insight revealed. Just because biological evolution doesn't progress rapidly in one species because of their ability to override innate desires with conscious thought, does nothing to show that Darwin was wrong.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

you can describe the path of a river as flowing or eroding its way though the land . . .one is vague and easy to think about the other is complex and has many factors involved survival of the fittest is a vague generalization of what is actually happening . . of course what genes that get spread or surviving but it has nothing to do with the fittest . . . . .id go as far to say that fittest is about as wrong a word to decribe it as possible more like dominate genes . . . . .until a better genetic mutation happens and then thats the dominate genes . . .. but its the genetic variation and mutations that drive the trends not the fact that one gene is dominate vs recessive

the change that will always happens is random

the factors of enviroemnt are no longer the leading cuase of death and imo have zero effects on what genes are passed onthrough generations now

as far as darwin being disproved . . .. .i guess not but it is still a theory and hasnt been proven either and with almost 200 years of people tryingto prove it

genetic mutation and variation . . . . .. makes more sense, when using a theory to describe evolution, in the past and in the future and present

as it can make sense of all genetics variations in people animals plants . . . . and so forth . . .that yes "the winning" genes with be passed on but that they happen though genetic variation and probability vs who produced the most copies of there genes to spread . . . .. .have you read any of the articles i sited?

read this one first genetic algorithms http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=htJHI1UrL7IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=evolution+caused+by+genetic+mutations&ots=fyo_2JUAjV&sig=qCh3EnsqPcSE-0ipMROr6UXks1k#v=onepage&q=evolution caused by genetic mutations&f=false

remember life is math very complex math, its all math the universial language . . and it should all work out from equation to proof to answer

man i need to work on my spelling and proof reading, which i never do, it must be hard to take me at face value when i cant spell a thing


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> OOO the challenge of your words xD give it up man, God will never be proven to you because you will discredit any fact as spiritual mumbo jumbo, Im sorry my friend, if you want God to be proven to you, you're gunna have to read what you consider to be spiritual mumbo jumbo.


I've said nothing about proving god to me. You asserted that the evidence for god is there to see if we look past our idea of mythical magical beings. I challenged this assertion by pointing out that the standards of evidence skeptical atheists apply to god is the same any reasonable person applies to any other area of knowledge. You answered this challenge with "im done".




> If you want to start somewhere that you think is rational, try looking up Graham Hancock and his evidence of a super advanced race that existed in ancient times but was wiped out from the face of the earth, probably the same race that built the amazing architectural wonder that is the Great Pyramids. And the advanced civilization that he speaks of believed there was a life after death, a 100000 year old civilization that had knowledge of the metric system and the speed of light, the speed of light is encoded int eh pyramids, the layout of the pyramids and the sphinx matches exactly with the Fibonacci Spiral... But SURELY that race that had advance knowledge of the universe were foolish because they believed in fantasy ...


I'll leave it to others to vet these statements, as they have already begun to do. None of this has any bearing on the standards of evidence I was appealing to.



> You act like for something to exist it has to be rationally explained by our primitive minds... There was a time where we didnt question these obvious things, but we are a species with amnesia and forgotten everything.


I believe dark matter exists despite it having a clear rational explanation, because the argument and it's evidence is sufficient to be convincing.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 17, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> you can describe the path of a river as flowing or eroding its way though the land . . .one is vague and easy to think about the other is complex and has many factors involved survival of the fittest is a vague generalization of what is actually happening . . of course what genes that get spread or surviving but it has nothing to do with the fittest . . . . .id go as far to say that fittest is about as wrong a word to decribe it as possible more like dominate genes . . . . .until a better genetic mutation happens and then thats the dominate genes . . .. but its the genetic variation and mutations that drive the trends not the fact that one gene is dominate vs recessive
> 
> the change that will always happens is random
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Darwin didn't even coin the term "survival of the fittest." That was done by someone that read Darwin. Darwin used the term natural selection. Fitness is a relative term and applies to being able to be successful in the particular situation a gene finds itself. Alleles that get passed down more often than it's counterpart is considered fit, no matter why it is more successful. Many genes are successful because they are closely linked with other successful genes, e.g the genes that can help an animal digest raw meat is going to be more successful in the body of a carnivorous predator than that of an herbivore. No one is disputing randomness plays a role. Genes are shuffled randomly in meiosis producing haploid cells, germ cells can be changed by mutation caused by outside forces like cosmic rays and other radiation. 

Genetic variation is a fundamental part of modern evolutionary synthesis but remember, Darwin came up with the idea that organisms have to have some method of heredity in order for his theory to be true. He said this in spite of not having access to Mendel's work. Genetics confirmed Darwin's hypothesis. 150 years of science have continually confirmed Darwin with not a single case has falsified his major ideas. Saying that it has never been proven and is still a theory tells me you don't understand how science works. Theories can only be disproven and being that they are merely models of reality, they will never be proven either. That's like saying atomic theory has never been proven even though we have witnessed atomic bombs and microchips. Not being proven is inconsequential to whether or not Darwin gave us a good model. 

If you don't believe the force behind evolution has to do with the environment a gene pool finds itself means you haven't done enough research. Mutation, variation and randomness are necessary components but they provide no force or direction. Without the environment to weed out bad combinations and promote good ones, we wouldn't have any progress, just a bunch of genes randomly rearranging never gaining any direction. You might consider to expand your definition of environment because in evolutionary theory, means much more than just living condition. As I alluded to before, the environment for an individual gene includes other genes and the entire organism it shares with them.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

im not gonna paraphrase this one as i do not feel like correting all the words id mis spell. im not a crook!

"
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. 
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory." 
In layman&#8217;s terms, if something is said to be &#8220;just a theory,&#8221; it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that is generally accepted as being true because it is based on large amounts of empirical evidence. 

 

 Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist: 
*Scientific Law:* This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don&#8217;t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. 
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. 
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook&#8217;s law of elasticity. 
*Hypothesis:* This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. 
*Theory:* A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public. 
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. 
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. 
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. 
A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. 
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. 
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. 
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. 
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories have been tested and verified and are general accepted by scientists beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. 
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory: "

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Darwin didn't even coin the term "survival of the fittest." That was done by someone that read Darwin. Darwin used the term natural selection. Fitness is a relative term and applies to being able to be successful in the particular situation a gene finds itself. Alleles that get passed down more often than it's counterpart is considered fit, no matter why it is more successful. Many genes are successful because they are closely linked with other successful genes, e.g the genes that can help an animal digest raw meat is going to be more successful in the body of a carnivorous predator than that of an herbivore. No one is disputing randomness plays a role. Genes are shuffled randomly in meiosis producing haploid cells, germ cells can be changed by mutation caused by outside forces like cosmic rays and other radiation.
> 
> Genetic variation is a fundamental part of modern evolutionary synthesis but remember, Darwin came up with the idea that organisms have to have some method of heredity in order for his theory to be true. He said this in spite of not having access to Mendel's work. Genetics confirmed Darwin's hypothesis. 150 years of science have continually confirmed Darwin with not a single case has falsified his major ideas. Saying that it has never been proven and is still a theory tells me you don't understand how science works. Theories can only be disproven and being that they are merely models of reality, they will never be proven either. That's like saying atomic theory has never been proven even though we have witnessed atomic bombs and microchips. Not being proven is inconsequential to whether or not Darwin gave us a good model.
> 
> If you don't believe the force behind evolution has to do with the environment a gene pool finds itself means you haven't done enough research. Mutation, variation and randomness are necessary components but they provide no force or direction. Without the environment to weed out bad combinations and promote good ones, we wouldn't have any progress, just a bunch of genes randomly rearranging never gaining any direction. You might consider to expand your definition of environment because in evolutionary theory, means much more than just living condition. As I alluded to before, the environment for an individual gene includes other genes and the entire organism it shares with them.


well ill just have to dis agree with ya on that . .. . . darwins theory of evolutoin has evolved my friend and has become more comprehensive to the factors that dictate change . . . and those factors imo have een shown to be random beneficial changes that survive, genetic mutations are hereditary but it is not inherent that the mutation will happen just because the same set of genes is passed on . . . . . . . . . . .how do you explain the guy in india that can effectively channel enough voltage through his body to power a 220v hot plat and cook a egg

or the incredible feats of people who can trigger all there muscle fibers to fire at one moment and have incredible strength for a breif time . .. . . its is random that these things can happen and not hereditary

or the guy who doesnt get cold in the arctic . . . . i forget what they figured what was going on but some genetic variation made it possible not a hereditary dominate or recessive gene passed on as that is a random mix from genetic pools of parents/ancestors idk

good talk though

i like your style




. .have you read any of the articles that i sited . . . .. .


----------



## InfidelUniversity (Apr 17, 2012)

I heard we have a genetic fuck up in our DNA. It makes our jaw muscles smaller which allowed our brains to get bigger.......Freaky eh?

Man, you all can debate, much props!!!!.......


----------



## InfidelUniversity (Apr 17, 2012)

Maybe aliens GMO'd us with all that anal probing...... I heard the only thing they found out was 1 in 10 humans didn't mind


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Link to the bolded please? cn


Gladly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsofKUDXds4


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Gladly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsofKUDXds4


I'll allow others to present my dissenting opinion. cn
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIvGvQx0NBIW_c1-NVOT6khB_lyvwfsMVNbsl-R8afXWKIO7k0tw


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Still waiting on your explanation of how any of the pyramids 'encode' the speed of light.


Its a documentary... Know theres not spiritual stuff in here, just mathematical facts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yUqb0wrxRw


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'll allow others to present my dissenting opinion. cn
> https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIvGvQx0NBIW_c1-NVOT6khB_lyvwfsMVNbsl-R8afXWKIO7k0tw


Yes, because the evidence just doesnt add up, right? xD


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 17, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> ... ive had my hands bloodied a time or two.


Haha, I don't remember that. Hope I wasn't too hard on you. You've certainly taught me a thing or two.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Yes, because the evidence just doesnt add up, right? xD


Because there is very good evidence that says otherwise. The author (AG Hancock) who promoted the 10500 years theory is doing so on a cherrypicked data set. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Because there is very good evidence that says otherwise. The author (AG Hancock) who promoted the 10500 years theory is doing so on a cherrypicked data set. cn


I'd like to see this evidence you speak of


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Apr 17, 2012)

word play is fun


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

Know that most of the worlds Egyptologists are Muslim and for them to say that the sphinx and the pyramids are older than 8000 years old would go against their religion.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I'd like to see this evidence you speak of


Here is a sample using radiocarbon.
http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html
Here is a sample using a clever astronomical supposition. Graham uses another clever astronomical supposition, but if you compare texts, Graham had to presume a stack of interdependent what-ifs to be fact. Spence _et a_l. only used one. cn
http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Here is a sample using radiocarbon.
> http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html
> Here is a sample using a clever astronomical supposition. Graham uses another clever astronomical supposition, but if you compare texts, Graham had to presume a stack of interdependent what-ifs to be fact. Spence _et a_l. only used one. cn
> http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html


Ah yes, a piece of technology proving Hancock wrong... Hancocks "what if's" is just his way of teaching, his book "Fingerprints of the Gods" is full of him asking questions while hinting at the answer at the same time, so the what ifs prove nothing... I view this as your word against mine


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Its a documentary... Know theres not spiritual stuff in here, just mathematical facts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yUqb0wrxRw


I'm not about to slog through a 1 hour 40 minute movie to find where they mention that single point, one that you should be able to summarize in one or two sentences. 

Unless you give me a timecode of where the information that I'm requesting it's a very inappropriate and rude way to answer such a request. 

Even before I hear your 'evidence' I will begin to destroy it. The speed of light in a vacuum is a ratio of a distance over time. Let's say it's kilometers per second. In order to claim it is encoded must mean that the units must also be encoded. IOW, some way to demonstrate that the builders measured distances like meters. If, for example, one of the main measurements was a specific multiples of meters, that would be helpful. But then we have to have evidence that the builders also measured time using seconds. If neither of these can be demonstrated, then any resemblance of a number like 300,000,000 (or more accurately 299,792,45 should be considered coincidental. Likewise if we get a number like 186,000 (mph) 0.307 (parsecs/year) or any other combination of distance and time. If you look hard enough at something with multiple dimensions and ways of measuring, you are bound to get some sort of measurement that seems to have some significance to some other significant number. Just think of how many different constants we have in astronomy and physics. 

Now constants that are special ratios, dimensionless physical constants, are a totally different subject. Now if we found ratios that were the same as proton-electron mass ratio or strong force coupling constant, I might stand up and take notice.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Know that most of the worlds Egyptologists are Muslim and for them to say that the sphinx and the pyramids are older than 8000 years old would go against their religion.


Nothing like a good poisoning of the well now is there?


Evaluation of any evidence, whether it supports what you (want to) believe or not should always be looked at with a critical eye. In fact if something seems to support what you are looking for you should be even more skeptical, especially if it counters the vast majority of experts in a field. You display all of the characteristics of a conspiracy theorist. You give greater weight to anything that supports your view, including listening to only certain authorities that support your view while dismissing all of the other authorities, usually in an overwhelming consensus on the broad strokes at least. If you can't even pretend to be impartial when examining evidence, why should anyone discuss this with you? You have your mind made up.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm not about to slog through a 1 hour 40 minute movie to find where they mention that single point, one that you should be able to summarize in one or two sentences.
> 
> Unless you give me a timecode of where the information that I'm requesting it's a very inappropriate and rude way to answer such a request.
> 
> ...


Start watching at 1 hour and 18 minutes... Im not gunna slog through the rest of the paragraph you typed =p

It also explains throughout the video how many times Pi and the Golden Number is found throughout the video


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Nothing like a good poisoning of the well now is there?
> 
> 
> Evaluation of any evidence, whether it supports what you (want to) believe or not should always be looked at with a critical eye. In fact if something seems to support what you are looking for you should be even more skeptical, especially if it counters the vast majority of experts in a field. You display all of the characteristics of a conspiracy theorist. You give greater weight to anything that supports your view, including listening to only certain authorities that support your view while dismissing all of the other authorities, usually in an overwhelming consensus on the broad strokes at least. If you can't even pretend to be impartial when examining evidence, why should anyone discuss this with you? You have your mind made up.


rriiiggghhtt....


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm not about to slog through a 1 hour 40 minute movie to find where they mention that single point, one that you should be able to summarize in one or two sentences.
> 
> Unless you give me a timecode of where the information that I'm requesting it's a very inappropriate and rude way to answer such a request.
> 
> ...


LOL I just read the rest of what you said, ALL you speak of is mentioned multiple times in that documentary... Nice attempt at "destroying" the evidence though... But Im sure if I convinced you to watch the whole thing you'll still come up with some kinda of explanation saying its false because your such a smartypants =)


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> rriiiggghhtt....


This is how you have responded to every well though out reply you have received, side stepping and blatant dismissal. The best you can manage is to point to other people's fallacious information. You demonstrate no interest in distinguishing truth from fantasy and rudely discount other's efforts at being careful. This is not the way in which meaningful discussion is conducted. This is not the manner in which reliable information is ascertained. The only things you have demonstrated is that you have a very relaxed understanding of physics and history and a fairly loose grip on reality. This comes from approaching learning and knowledge with an arrogant and presumptuous attitude instead of that of humble discovery. If truth is indeed important to you, you will find this path leads to empty pretense rather than intellectual fulfillment.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> This is how you have responded to every well though out reply you have received, side stepping and blatant dismissal. The best you can manage is to point to other people's fallacious information. You demonstrate no interest in confirming truth over fantasy and rudely discount other's efforts at being careful. This is not the way in which meaningful discussion is conducted. This is not the manner in which reliable information is ascertained. The only things you have demonstrated is that you have a very relaxed understanding of physics and history and a fairly loose grip on reality. This comes from approaching knowledge and learning with an arrogant and presumptuous attitude instead of that of humble discovery. If truth is indeed important to you, you will find this path leads to empty pretense rather than intellectual fulfillment.


Boobookittyfuck


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Boobookittyfuck


thats "*Enlightened**&#8482;*" to us laymen


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> thats "*Enlightened**&#8482;*" to us laymen


xD I see I've got myself a fan club, Im flattered, wanna follow me on twitter too?... If I used twitter lol


----------



## trichome fiend (Apr 18, 2012)

[youtube]DAuFJKQh83Y[/youtube]


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Boobookittyfuck


So, IOW you are unable to suggest any reason you should be taken seriously. I suppose your pretense allows you to feel righteous when laughing at others, unfortunately it doesn't provide you with the intellectual capacity to defend your ridicule. I guess the nice thing about pretense is that it doesn't have to be real, especially if your goal is the enjoyment of arrogance. It allows you to deflect when other's find your words absurdly childish; creates an impervious self-reinforcing bubble. 

Try not to make too much noise from the kids table, the adults are trying to talk.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

I think its agreed here that heaven and hell are not real


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> So, IOW you are unable to suggest any reason you should be taken seriously. I suppose your pretense allows you to feel righteous when laughing at others, unfortunately it doesn't provide you with the intellectual capacity to defend your ridicule. I guess the nice thing about pretense is that it doesn't have to be real, especially if your goal is the enjoyment of arrogance. It allows you to deflect when other's find your words absurdly childish; creates an impervious self-reinforcing bubble.
> 
> Try not to make too much noise from the kids table, the adults are trying to talk.


I gave you some logical things to speculate but you passed it off as mumbo jumbo because it reminded you of the logic of indigo children... I KNOW, you dont agree that I sent you anything that holds meaning, I KNOW that you think my way of thinking is nonsensical, no need to repeat yourself... I think its fair to say that we dont take each other seriously, can we end it there?


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I gave you some logical things to speculate but you passed it off as mumbo jumbo because it reminded you of the logic of indigo children... I KNOW, you dont agree that I sent you anything that holds meaning, I KNOW that you think my way of thinking is nonsensical, no need to repeat yourself... I think its fair to say that we dont take each other seriously, can we end it there?


Got me confused with someone else. I am not even sure what indigo children is a reference to. I don't believe I have criticized any evidence directly, but your basic understand of the elemental foundations of physics and logic. These things are not a matter of opinion. If you make a claim or take an ideological position, and are unwilling or unable to back it up, then you really have no business expressing it to others in the first place, and shouldn't be surprised when they stop taking you seriously. If you are unwilling to hear your ideas criticized by your peers, why bring them to the table at all? Do you suppose you are capable of identifying all possible errors yourself without any help?

As for ending it, I don't intend to harass, or exclude anyone from participation. However, around here, disingenuousness tends to get put in it's place. Expect it.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Got me confused with someone else. I am not even sure what indigo children is a reference to. I don't believe I have criticized any evidence directly, but your basic understand of the elemental foundations of physics and logic. These things are not a matter of opinion.
> 
> As for ending it, I don't intend to harass, or exclude anyone from participation. However, around here, disingenuousness tends to get put in it's place. Expect it.


Changed your message I see.... Anyways, I dont know who the fuck Im talking to either, everything I've been posting lately all has to do with the subject of spirituality... Would you like to see the video that I was referring too? Perhaps you can find some logic in it, but I dont count on it.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Apr 18, 2012)

...Chief, I thoroughly enjoyed the video and have watched others in the series. Nifty stuff.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Start watching at 1 hour and 18 minutes... Im not gunna slog through the rest of the paragraph you typed =p
> 
> It also explains throughout the video how many times Pi and the Golden Number is found throughout the video





Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> LOL I just read the rest of what you said, ALL you speak of is mentioned multiple times in that documentary... Nice attempt at "destroying" the evidence though... But Im sure if I convinced you to watch the whole thing you'll still come up with some kinda of explanation saying its false because your such a smartypants =)


Okay, I watched the relevant part and more. I really don't think you understand what I said because it was not addressed. Using the calculations in the video of taking the circumference of the outer circle and subtracting that of the inner circle gives me a value of 299.687 when I use 230.3 meters (average) for the length of the sides. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s. Not only is the number off by a factor of a million, it doesn't mean anything since the meter hadn't even been invented yet and although the Egyptians divided a day in to two twelve hour periods, there is no evidence that they had anything like our standard 'second.' You realize that if I did the measurements using feet or cubits I would get a completely different number. As I said, if you look hard enough and do enough calculations and use different units you can approximate almost any number you are looking for. The speed of light is not encoded in the pyramid. You are merely searching for patterns that mean something and leaving the answers open-ended, you are bound to find some odd coincidences. This is no different than the bible-code, numerology and other synchronicities that seem to be more common than non-mathematicians would think. 

As for your obnoxious tone and continued personal insults, I will not bother responding to you if you wish to continue. I have been straightforward and respectful from my very first post. I have also spent some valuable time actually responding to you in a thorough manner and researching your claims. Just because I disagree with you does not give you the right to be rude to me. If you cannot act like a civilized adult, I will no longer participate.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Okay, I watched the relevant part and more. I really don't think you understand what I said because it was not addressed. Using the calculations in the video of taking the circumference of the outer circle and subtracting that of the inner circle gives me a value of 299.687 when I use 230.3 meters (average) for the length of the sides. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s. Not only is the number off by a factor of a million, it doesn't mean anything since the meter hadn't even been invented yet and although the Egyptians divided a day in to two twelve hour periods, there is no evidence that they had anything like our standard 'second.' You realize that if I did the measurements using feet or cubits I would get a completely different number. As I said, if you look hard enough and do enough calculations and use different units you can approximate almost any number you are looking for. The speed of light is not encoded in the pyramid. You are merely searching for patterns that mean something and leaving the answers open-ended, you are bound to find some odd coincidences. This is no different than the bible-code, numerology and other synchronicities that seem to be more common than non-mathematicians would think.
> 
> As for your obnoxious tone and continued personal insults, I will not bother responding to you if you wish to continue. I have been straightforward and respectful from my very first post. I have also spent some valuable time actually responding to you in a thorough manner and researching your claims. Just because I disagree with you does not give you the right to be rude to me. If you cannot act like a civilized adult, I will no longer participate.


Sorry if my immaturity offends you, I think immaturity is essential to living, because really, who gives a fuck? I just added the smartypants comment because you sounded like you think very highly of yourself when you said the destroy comment. If you're offended, oh fucking well, you dont have to take me seriously or even pay attention to me just like you said, it really should go without saying. And I dont know what to say about your calculations, perhaps that anonymous physicist in the video estimated what he thought to be the true size of the pyramid before hand, or he could just be making stuff up and looking for attention but that wouldnt make sense because hes anonymous... And I strongly suggest you watch the full video because it does explain that they had knowledge of the metric system. This is not the deciding factor but what they believe to be the very top of the pyramid is exactly 1 meter high and the sides are 1.15 meters in length (it is also found to be an exact scale model of the pyramid). Watch a little more and it will further prove that they had knowledge of the metric system... And the architects and physicists that support and are featured in this video are of much higher stature career and education wise, surely they would have seen the flaws you were talking about... And Im aware that if you mathematically dissect and analyse something your bound to get numbers that match up, but pi and the golden number come up way too many times in the pyramid for it to be a mere coincidence, and if you were to take a picture from the air of the pyramids and the sphinx and put a fibonacci spiral over it you would find that they fit together like a puzzle... If your going to try and disprove this video, I suggest you watch the entire video so you dont leave stuff out again.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Ah yes, a piece of technology proving Hancock wrong... Hancocks "what if's" is just his way of teaching, his book "Fingerprints of the Gods" is full of him asking questions while hinting at the answer at the same time, so the what ifs prove nothing... I view this as your word against mine


You could only view it thus if I'd "laid the word down". I am maintaining a posture that is light on my figurative toes, not committing to uncertain facts while still pulling at the more obvious frays in the fabric you present. 

And it's never "a piece of technology" doing the proving. (Am I detecting a technophobic bias?) It's the humans who employ the technology and interpret its yield of data. Knowledge begins and ends with people. The machine is blameless, and by symmetry without the central credit. 
I am not certain that Hancock is wrong. Almost, but not quite. A key virtue in scholarly research of any sort, be it physics or anthropology, is _consistency_. Since Hancock's claim is quite inconsistent with several independent lines of inquiry that yield an age surrounding the time around 2500 BCE, the burden is on him to provide extraordinarily strong evidence to back up his strongly extraordinary claim. He has not done so, since almost any critical thinker will recognize the astrochronological argument he mounts as suggestive but not at all conclusive. For this argument to advance, Hancock or another researcher would have to present a solid case why the available archeological and historical evidence is so far off point.

As for your claim that Hancock is teaching, a teacher's very first obligation to his students is to _be right_. Failure to hew to this basic tenet is a breach of faith with the students. In this instance, his correctness is neither established nor readily credible. So "teaching" is not an appropriate term for what I recognize as pure speculation costumed as scholarship. As a former professional in a mind-intensive field, I despise arrogation of unearned status as a teacher. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Chief, I thoroughly enjoyed the video and have watched others in the series. Nifty stuff.


Nifty stuff indeed, I watched every episode of the series, at the end when he talks about Atlantis it does get a bit far-fetched but it was definitely entertaining.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 18, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You could only view it thus if I'd "laid the word down". I am maintaining a posture that is light on my figurative toes, not committing to uncertain facts while still pulling at the more obvious frays in the fabric you present.
> 
> And it's never "a piece of technology" doing the proving. (Am I detecting a technophobic bias?) It's the humans who employ the technology and interpret its yield of data. Knowledge begins and ends with people. The machine is blameless, and by symmetry without the central credit.
> I am not certain that Hancock is wrong. Almost, but not quite. A key virtue in scholarly research of any sort, be it physics or anthropology, is _consistency_. Since Hancock's claim is quite inconsistent with several independent lines of inquiry that yield an age surrounding the time around 2500 BCE, the burden is on him to provide extraordinarily strong evidence to back up his strongly extraordinary claim. He has not done so, since almost any critical thinker will recognize the astrochronological argument he mounts as suggestive but not at all conclusive. For this argument to advance, Hancock or another researcher would have to present a solid case why the available archeological and historical evidence is so far off point.
> ...


Very well said Cannabineer


----------



## Heisenberg (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Sorry if my immaturity offends you, I think immaturity is essential to living, because really, who gives a fuck? I just added the smartypants comment because you sounded like you think very highly of yourself when you said the destroy comment. If you're offended, oh fucking well, you dont have to take me seriously or even pay attention to me just like you said, it really should go without saying. And I dont know what to say about your calculations, perhaps that anonymous physicist in the video estimated what he thought to be the true size of the pyramid before hand, or he could just be making stuff up and looking for attention but that wouldnt make sense because hes anonymous... And I strongly suggest you watch the full video because it does explain that they had knowledge of the metric system. This is not the deciding factor but what they believe to be the very top of the pyramid is exactly 1 meter high and the sides are 1.15 meters in length (it is also found to be an exact scale model of the pyramid). Watch a little more and it will further prove that they had knowledge of the metric system... And the architects and physicists that support and are featured in this video are of much higher stature career and education wise, surely they would have seen the flaws you were talking about... And Im aware that if you mathematically dissect and analyse something your bound to get numbers that match up, but pi and the golden number come up way too many times in the pyramid for it to be a mere coincidence, and if you were to take a picture from the air of the pyramids and the sphinx and put a fibonacci spiral over it you would find that they fit together like a puzzle... If your going to try and disprove this video, I suggest you watch the entire video so you dont leave stuff out again.


You obviously want to be taken seriously or you wouldn't take the time to defend the video. You guard against being thought of as a joke by pretending you do not care. A better way might be to identify your errors and correct them. You are in a place mentally where your mind is impressed by petty patterns and half-baked logic. You perceive this as showing wisdom but when others easily see your mistakes, your only recourse is to double down. It's hard to rise above this, so rather than put the effort into it, you simply belittle others when they disagree. You are already showing signs of the bitterness and resentment this attitude will deliver to you. Thinking for yourself means nothing if it's riddled with mistakes. You end up unwittingly following someone else's fallacious reasoning and spending all your time trying to convince yourself and others that you're perfect.

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin​


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You obviously want to be taken seriously or you wouldn't take the time to defend the video. You guard against being thought of as a joke by pretending you do not care. A better way might be to identify your errors and correct them. You are in a place mentally where your mind is impressed by petty patterns and half-baked logic. You perceive this as showing wisdom but when others easily see your mistakes, your only recourse is to double down. It's hard to rise above this, so rather than put the effort into it, you simply belittle others when they disagree. You are already showing signs of the bitterness and resentment this attitude will deliver to you. Thinking for yourself means nothing if it's riddled with mistakes. You end up unwittingly following someone else's fallacious reasoning and spending all your time trying to convince yourself and others that you're perfect.



I completely agree 100%. I think it takes someone with true courage, strength and wisdom to see past their mistakes, to admit they are wrong, or that their thought process has glitched in some way... correct themselves, and be happy to have acquired a new understanding of reason, logic, and most importantly... learning more about your self.

"Religion and Spirituality- Because no one wants to think that they are going to cease to exist when they die." -Zaehet Strife

"Fallacies are fallacies. Faith is just a beautiful word for ignoring evidence and logic to maintain peace of mind." - Nick Smeltzer

(Sorry bout the double post, deleted... i'm pretty baked)


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

hahaha oh my.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Sorry if my immaturity offends you, I think immaturity is essential to living, because really, who gives a fuck? I just added the smartypants comment because you sounded like you think very highly of yourself when you said the destroy comment. If you're offended, oh fucking well, you dont have to take me seriously or even pay attention to me just like you said, it really should go without saying. And I dont know what to say about your calculations, perhaps that anonymous physicist in the video estimated what he thought to be the true size of the pyramid before hand, or he could just be making stuff up and looking for attention but that wouldnt make sense because hes anonymous... And I strongly suggest you watch the full video because it does explain that they had knowledge of the metric system. This is not the deciding factor but what they believe to be the very top of the pyramid is exactly 1 meter high and the sides are 1.15 meters in length (it is also found to be an exact scale model of the pyramid). Watch a little more and it will further prove that they had knowledge of the metric system... And the architects and physicists that support and are featured in this video are of much higher stature career and education wise, surely they would have seen the flaws you were talking about... And Im aware that if you mathematically dissect and analyse something your bound to get numbers that match up, but pi and the golden number come up way too many times in the pyramid for it to be a mere coincidence, and if you were to take a picture from the air of the pyramids and the sphinx and put a fibonacci spiral over it you would find that they fit together like a puzzle... If your going to try and disprove this video, I suggest you watch the entire video so you dont leave stuff out again.


Look, if we cannot even agree on one claim that you made about the speed of light then why the fuck should I bother picking apart the whole video? Let's get one fact out of the way and then if you disagree on that, then we have nothing more to discuss because I believe I'm being reasonable. If you can use a little critical thinking and listen to what I am explaining rather than looking for reasons I'm wrong, I think you might at least understand why some of us aren't taking you or the video seriously. 

First, you claim "they" had knowledge of the metric system. Who is "they"? Egyptians or the advanced beings that knew more than our human ancestors? Considering that our metric system is not something that is discovered but was invented in the 1600s and a meter could have been different, I find your claim hard to believe regardless of who they are. 
As for my calculations, you can do them too. However, since the sides of the pyramids are not equal, and considering they vary by more than 10cm, any answer derived from using the measurements in meters would only be correct up to 3 significant digits. 
However, Let's use 230.3 meters like I did above and pretend we have 4 significant digits. A circle on the inside of the square has a diameter of 230.3 so multiply by pi and we get a circumference of 723.49. A circle around the outside of the square has a diameter the hypotenuse of the right triangle with each leg 230.3m or 325.69, multiplied by pi and that circle has a circumference of 1023.1. Subtract our earlier 723.49 and we are left with 299.61, we have to drop the 1 and left with 299.6. Like I said, you are off by a factor of a million and even then you can only have 299,600,000. I don't know what number was shown to the physicist because they didn't show us but the physicist only remarked about how it is similar to the speed of light, he didn't calculate the number himself. 

Even if the builders had our metric system, it is unlikely they also had our timekeeping system so how would a speed in meters per second actually mean anything to the builders? 
As for pi and fibonacci sequence, pi could easily have made it's way into the structure of the pyramid by using rolling logs for measuring long lengths. The phi ratio was well known to ancient Greeks and having it in the Pyramid only suggests that Egyptians recognized it too. As you say it is everywhere in nature. They were the cradle of civilization, they had philosophy and math. It's not evidence of anything otherwordly, just evidence that mankind may have known things earlier than we give them credit for. Anthropology is full of rethinking dates about modern man. Neolithic humans were quite intelligent and creative and they predate the pyramid builders by thousands of years. We actually haven't gained intelligence as a species, only knowledge. People that attribute ancient feats of construction to aliens or gods don't give our ancestors enough credit. 


Your appeal to authority is worthless considering you haven't actually vetted these people or know exactly what they said in a possibly highly edited video. Watch a Micheal Moore film or Ben Stein's movie and you can how even experts can say something that apparently supports something they actually do not.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Look, if we cannot even agree on one claim that you made about the speed of light then why the fuck should I bother picking apart the whole video? Let's get one fact out of the way and then if you disagree on that, then we have nothing more to discuss because I believe I'm being reasonable. If you can use a little critical thinking and listen to what I am explaining rather than looking for reasons I'm wrong, I think you might at least understand why some of us aren't taking you or the video seriously.
> 
> First, you claim "they" had knowledge of the metric system. Who is "they"? Egyptians or the advanced beings that knew more than our human ancestors? Considering that our metric system is not something that is discovered but was invented in the 1600s and a meter could have been different, I find your claim hard to believe regardless of who they are.
> As for my calculations, you can do them too. However, since the sides of the pyramids are not equal, and considering they vary by more than 10cm, any answer derived from using the measurements in meters would only be correct up to 3 significant digits.
> ...


Why should I bother reading your thoroughly thought out paragraph when you wont even pay attention to the video? Im just sharing the ignorance here


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Why should I bother reading your thoroughly thought out paragraph when you wont even pay attention to the video? Im just sharing the ignorance here


You made a claim in this thread. I asked you for evidence of this claim and you link to an almost 2 hour video. I watch the pertinent section and demonstrate how it is flawed, and demonstrating that you are wrong when you say I won't pay attention to your video. You now ignore my post because I won't watch the whole thing when you won't even acknowledge my criticism of the one thing that I asked you to support to begin with. So am I to deduce from this that you are unable to create your own defense of your statements?

You heard something in a movie that claimed that the speed of light is encoded in the Giza pyramid and you accept this assertion with full credulity without first verifying for yourself this was in fact true. Now when someone else comes along to take issue with this claim, you still defend it, in spite of recognizing you only believe it because you want to, not because there was any real compelling facts to back up this claim. You are a fucking moron. I'm done with your nonsense. I had some glimmer of hope that you could see reason and maybe learn how to apply critical thinking to extraordinary claims. I see that I'm wasting my time.


----------



## crazyhazey (Apr 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I see that I'm wasting my time.


i started noticing that you were wasting your time when that guy responds with one sentence answers to like 3 paragraph arguments. some people on riu just arent worth typing, most are thick headed as fuck.


----------



## jessy koons (Apr 19, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> rriiiggghhtt....


A real zinger, Mr. Eagle


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 19, 2012)

Who created God?


----------



## jessy koons (Apr 19, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Boobookittyfuck


How do you come up with these? F-ing brilliant I say.


----------



## jessy koons (Apr 19, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Who created God?


Uh, that was me, sorry.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 19, 2012)

jessy koons said:


> Uh, that was me, sorry.


not far from the truth actually


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 19, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Who created God?


Humans created god.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Humans created god.


Then humans are divine.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 19, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Then humans are divine.


Humans are intelligent apes scared of ceasing to exist. We are no more special than a collection of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Humans are intelligent apes scared of ceasing to exist. We are no more special than a collection of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.


That is your choice. I choose to pursue discovery and happily, I am relieved that I do not know.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 19, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> That is your choice. I choose to pursue discovery and happily, I am relieved that I do not know.


Science fills me with knowledge, life fills me with happiness, honesty fills me with freedom. Life- just trying to find different cool ways to occupy our time before it runs out, as soon as you're born you start dying, so you might as well have a good time and do your best to help others enjoy it just as much! 

I want to know, but i don't pretend to know things that i don't, not anymore at least. Good post Conflict.


----------



## jessy koons (Apr 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Humans are intelligent apes scared of ceasing to exist. We are no more special than a collection of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.


I also have a bit of Magnesium and a tiny amount of Copper in me as well. O, and some Zinc too, I almost forgot.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 19, 2012)

jessy koons said:


> I also have a bit of Magnesium and a tiny amount of Copper in me as well. O, and some Zinc too, I almost forgot.


I merely listed the 6 most abundant elements that make up the human body.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Humans are intelligent apes scared of ceasing to exist. We are no more special than a collection of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.


Oh the simple minds of atheism.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 19, 2012)

jessy koons said:


> A real zinger, Mr. Eagle


Where did his bird come from? lol


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 19, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i started noticing that you were wasting your time when that guy responds with one sentence answers to like 3 paragraph arguments. some people on riu just arent worth typing, most are thick headed as fuck.


OH HE IRONY xD


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 19, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> i started noticing that you were wasting your time when that guy responds with one sentence answers to like 3 paragraph arguments. some people on riu just arent worth typing, most are thick headed as fuck.


Dude, I love your avatar. I'm currently using using its motto on my personal emails, people find it hilarious and a little more classy than Fuck Bitches, Get Money 

P.S. Spaghetti...


----------



## crazyhazey (Apr 19, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Dude, I love your avatar. I'm currently using using its motto on my personal emails, people find it hilarious and a little more classy than Fuck Bitches, Get Money
> 
> P.S. Spaghetti...


hahah i expect it was benjamin franklins motto back in those days. +rep, spaghetti clan for life! hahaha


----------



## crazyhazey (Apr 19, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> OH HE IRONY xD


he irony? is there something wrong with that post, or have you known about your dyslexia?


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 19, 2012)

crazyhazey said:


> he irony? is there something wrong with that post, or have you known about your dyslexia?


That's how the chickie in Full Metal Jacket described Tony Stark. He make her rustful long time. cn


----------



## crazyhazey (Apr 19, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> That's how the chickie in Full Metal Jacket described Tony Stark. He make her rustful long time. cn


hahahaha cannabineer you always know how to make me laugh.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 19, 2012)

If science leads to God, I will believe. Faith is a fallacy.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 19, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> If science leads to God, I will believe. Faith is a fallacy.


I admire your continued search for the closest approximation to truth. As Bill Nye used to say, SCIENCE RULES!


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 19, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> I admire your continued search for the closest approximation to truth. As Bill Nye used to say, SCIENCE RULES!


I was trying to bait someone to defend the concept of faith so that I could point out that Christ did not expect people to have faith, he (allegedly) performed miracles, thus completely validating his (alleged) divinity. Emulating Christ is what makes one a Christian. Therefore Faith is not a Christian tenet. 

That argument only works on Christians though.


----------



## olylifter420 (Apr 19, 2012)

pics or it didnt happen


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 20, 2012)

Do not treat skeptics like heretics.



Enter the realm of discovery. In order to do so, you must free yourself from preconceived notions and foregone conclusions. 

Do not say, "Here are the conclusions. Find facts to support them."

But say, "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"

Now I will reference the poetry of a beautifully written epic from centuries ago. It was written to guide people and in it's time, I believe that it was a good thing, and the text still has much value.

Romans, chapter 12, verse 2, King James Bible: 

"And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

Go discover, arrive at conclusions, do not make them.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 20, 2012)

I can't prove it

So it must be __________!


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 21, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> I was trying to bait someone to defend the concept of faith so that I could point out that Christ did not expect people to have faith, he (allegedly) performed miracles, thus completely validating his (alleged) divinity. Emulating Christ is what makes one a Christian. Therefore Faith is not a Christian tenet.
> 
> That argument only works on Christians though.


Yep. Even one of his own disciple wasn't required to have faith (Thomas), jesus had to show him the wounds to convince him. Why would jesus expect more from us than from his own disciple? That's rhetorical, by the way...


----------



## trichome fiend (Apr 21, 2012)

[youtube]qCqTH5MtUu4[/youtube]


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Apr 21, 2012)

I believe its Buddhism that says their faith is the science of the mind.


----------



## 48martin (Apr 21, 2012)

It was proven years ago when he re appeared on a Pringles potato chip. 

I believe it was the Sea Salt flavor.


----------



## Doer (Apr 21, 2012)

My take is simple. There has been a mix up. Religion is not the answer. It's the question. Religion is what is left after a God-man got folks interested, by revealing a higher, more better, knowledge of Self. What is the limit of Self? Any? Can you imagine Self with nothing, not even Identity? Sure you can. Religion is not the answer, but a way to help us ask the question. The concepts of Heaven, Hell, Maya, Illusion, Karma, Re-birth, Saviors, Saints, Punishments and Rewards, even Deity are just made up human concepts to ASK these deep questions about Self.

The answer is un-known and un-knowable. It's a personal experience only.

I propose this definition of God. It's unassailable, even to my atheist Dad, of 84.

ALL. All that exist. All that does not. All we know. All that we will never know.
Neither inside us, or outside. Not subject the matter energy space and time. Not an
entity, not a thing. Not existent as we would define that.

Omni-present, Omni-potent, All knowing and Un-knowable. Without even the limit of Concept

What Religions are worshiping IMO, is Super-consciousness. Knows All, Sees All, Tells All.

That's the question.


----------

