# I Have A ? For You Religious People.



## fairyweed (Aug 28, 2009)

does the bible say if there were dinosaurs?? are religious people allowed to believe in dinosaurs???? because if you think about it we have ALOT of proof that they existed but if they did and we can prove that over time they evolved and went from the diff time periods (trassic, jarassic,etc.) then wouldnt it be safe to say that the theory of elvelotion of humans from monkey or apes or chimps would be logical?? i mean we have proof that we were cave men and back then we were diff and we elvolved.... i dont understand how the bible can just say there was adam already elvolved and then eve CAME from him already elvolved... and if that was true then reliogion is a big hoax cause my prest used to say that interbreeding and insest is bad yet if it started from adam an eve then there kids either had to get together or a kid and the parent but then there kids would have had to get together.... then saying that somehow they split up and some went to asia and africa and america and we (get this) elvolved into how we are today... the african had to get used to the sun so there bodys elvolved and gained more melenoma(i cant spel sorry) and pigment in there skin and the asains had to get accumstomed to there region and so forth.... so how would the bible explain that?? and why is it okay for you to "pray" to god and its ok but if you get an answer your crazy?? but if you think about it your crazy either way because they say if you talk and get no response your talking to yourself... i dont get it... can anyone help with any of these questions i have?? and im very sorry if i have offeneded anyone.


----------



## jamesrock (Aug 28, 2009)

Damn Dude..... My head hurts after reading that! LOL,,,,,, um i dont know,,,, dont think too much! LOL at least when im high! Blaze on Mofo!

Peace


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 28, 2009)

You wanna know what I've heard?

Cuz I've been asking the same questions up and down the internet...

...get this...

DRAGONS! They're dragons! lmfao

All those skeletons and bones we have sitting in museums... yep, dragons... the Bible talks about dragons, they found bones of big lizards... Believers say that's more proof of the bible's authenticity...

Christian logic man...


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 28, 2009)

the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs so most christians defer to fred flinstone as a subject matter expert


----------



## g00sEgg (Aug 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> You wanna know what I've heard?
> 
> Cuz I've been asking the same questions up and down the internet...
> 
> ...


HAHAHAHA...yeah man!! Dragons for the win!....it all makes sense now! haha


----------



## fairyweed (Aug 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> You wanna know what I've heard?
> 
> Cuz I've been asking the same questions up and down the internet...
> 
> ...


i see the taradactols fitting in as dragons but for the trex and lil raptors..where are the wing bones??? unless were counting them as dragons like the comoto dragon(a lizard)... so then if crocks are dinosaurs then there dragons??? interesting....

any other thoerys??? lol


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 28, 2009)

fairyweed said:


> i see the taradactols fitting in as dragons but for the trex and lil raptors..where are the wing bones??? unless were counting them as dragons like the comoto dragon(a lizard)... so then if crocks are dinosaurs then there dragons??? interesting....
> 
> any other thoerys??? lol


 
lmfao, if we went by that standard, all the birdies flying around would be dragons.. Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs... though I'm not so sure a creationist... or your average American for that matter... would know that..


----------



## fairyweed (Aug 28, 2009)

dude... um a bird is a winged animal... a dragon has wings and taradactol had wings so there both really birds...... tho all that would be saying is that dragons existed..... yet we dont have anything to support that.. sooo..


----------



## DontDoDrugs (Aug 28, 2009)

no no no.. how it works is "Hexolizamus" aka dinosaurs were from the 2nd dimension and were sucked into a black hole which dropped them off here on earth. they tried to adapt but they died. adam and eve came from a different dimension, but they were already adapted to earth somehow. and they didnt have sex.. they cloned eachother lol. and THEN they had sex.. so it doesent count! lol. oh ya, god is the black hole.. he is almighty! mmm.. yup thats what happened.


----------



## IndicaFatnHeavy (Aug 28, 2009)

soooo many holes in religion.. and if u ask a question like that... they get all flustered and go on a rant about something that sounds smart and that you have no idea what they are saying... so ur just sitting there like.... uuuhh....riiiight...
then you go smoke a bowl cuz it like... who cares.. if they wanna waste their sundays.. they can do it. im sleeping in till noon!

im pro-evolution


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

fairyweed said:


> does the bible say if there were dinosaurs?? are religious people allowed to believe in dinosaurs???? because if you think about it we have ALOT of proof that they existed but if they did and we can prove that over time they evolved and went from the diff time periods (trassic, jarassic,etc.) then wouldnt it be safe to say that the theory of elvelotion of humans from monkey or apes or chimps would be logical?? i mean we have proof that we were cave men and back then we were diff and we elvolved.... i dont understand how the bible can just say there was adam already elvolved and then eve CAME from him already elvolved... and if that was true then reliogion is a big hoax cause my prest used to say that interbreeding and insest is bad yet if it started from adam an eve then there kids either had to get together or a kid and the parent but then there kids would have had to get together.... then saying that somehow they split up and some went to asia and africa and america and we (get this) elvolved into how we are today... the african had to get used to the sun so there bodys elvolved and gained more melenoma(i cant spel sorry) and pigment in there skin and the asains had to get accumstomed to there region and so forth.... so how would the bible explain that?? and why is it okay for you to "pray" to god and its ok but if you get an answer your crazy?? but if you think about it your crazy either way because they say if you talk and get no response your talking to yourself... i dont get it... can anyone help with any of these questions i have?? and im very sorry if i have offeneded anyone.


Nice post. The religious people will probably be able to "disprove" your idea _somehow_. Oh well. It was good for the people with common sense.


----------



## turkish420 (Aug 28, 2009)

There has to be some sort of higher power, maybe not what we consider to be "God" but something. Im a man of science and I believe in a person having faith in something, but organized religion is a joke. However. . . there has to be something that started it all, I cant buy into the big bang theory, "there was nothing then out of nowhere there was something"? There is a higher power out there somewhere but we'll never know who or what it is. . . maybe when we die, but not while we are alive because if there IS a higher power after all, no one alive on earth has the mental capabilities to even begin to imagine what that is. There is so much we don't know about our own world, how can we even begin to theorize on who or what created it.


----------



## DontDoDrugs (Aug 28, 2009)

turkish420 said:


> There has to be some sort of higher power, maybe not what we consider to be "God" but something. Im a man of science and I believe in a person having faith in something, but organized religion is a joke. However. . . there has to be something that started it all, I cant buy into the big bang theory, "there was nothing then out of nowhere there was something"? There is a higher power out there somewhere but we'll never know who or what it is. . . maybe when we die, but not while we are alive because if there IS a higher power after all, no one alive on earth has the mental capabilities to even begin to imagine what that is. There is so much we don't know about our own world, how can we even begin to theorize on who or what created it.


nice post. i asked my earth science teacher one time "how did the big bang happen" and he said mineral dust and all kinds of dust just floated for billions of years until it clustered so tight that it exploded with all the gases and everything.. but then i asked "so where did all those gases and mineral dusts come from" and he tried to change the subject.. idk i never looked it up after that class.. but very true, i do believe there is a higher power.. our world is just a test run.. or a dream.. or.. ah idk. maybe our dreams think they are real.. all will be revealed when we die.. until then imma be medicated.


----------



## turkish420 (Aug 28, 2009)

DontDoDrugs said:


> nice post. i asked my earth science teacher one time "how did the big bang happen" and he said mineral dust and all kinds of dust just floated for billions of years until it clustered so tight that it exploded with all the gases and everything.. but then i asked "so where did all those gases and mineral dusts come from" and he tried to change the subject.. idk i never looked it up after that class.. but very true, i do believe there is a higher power.. our world is just a test run.. or a dream.. or.. ah idk. maybe our dreams think they are real.. all will be revealed when we die.. until then imma be medicated.


thanks man! its like the tootsie roll pop commercial from back in the day. . .
". . .the world may never know."


----------



## turkish420 (Aug 28, 2009)

DontDoDrugs. . . you +rep me?


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

turkish420 said:


> There has to be some sort of higher power, maybe not what we consider to be "God" but something. Im a man of science and I believe in a person having faith in something, but organized religion is a joke. However. . . there has to be something that started it all, I cant buy into the big bang theory, "there was nothing then out of nowhere there was something"? There is a higher power out there somewhere but we'll never know who or what it is. . . maybe when we die, but not while we are alive because if there IS a higher power after all, no one alive on earth has the mental capabilities to even begin to imagine what that is. There is so much we don't know about our own world, how can we even begin to theorize on who or what created it.


The theory of the Big Bang isn't even close to being "there was nothing and then there was something". The idea is that all matter was originally a super dense and super hot piece of matter that exploded, causing gases to be, more or less, ejected out from that point. They then formed planets, galaxies, suns, etc. Its hard to say that time "began", because that implies that before that, there was nothing.


----------



## turkish420 (Aug 28, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> The theory of the Big Bang isn't even close to being "there was nothing and then there was something". The idea is that all matter was originally a super dense and super hot piece of matter that exploded, causing gases to be, more or less, ejected out from that point. They then formed planets, galaxies, suns, etc. Its hard to say that time "began", because that implies that before that, there was nothing.


I've heard it stated that way because no one knows where that piece of matter came from.


----------



## IndicaFatnHeavy (Aug 28, 2009)

its fun to blaze and talk about this stuff.. dont get me wrong, it interests me alot.. but its like... people are dying of starvation and shit.. so much better things we could be putting money into instead of just building million dollar space ships and stuff... but unno.. i contradict my self alot... everything we've found out from spending so much money is really interesting.. and space/religion has created a lot of jobs for people... unno

im high

peace


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 28, 2009)

turkish420 said:


> I've heard it stated that way because no one knows where that piece of matter came from.


But no one can know where a higher power came from either... It kinda sucks investigating these things because when you get answers you will end up with more questions. If they were to prove that we started from the big bang, our next investigation would be what came before the big bang (it is theorized that it came from membranes that collided and caused the big bang~M Theory). If they proved it started with a god, our next investigation would be where god came from. Tiresome business.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> But no one can know where a higher power came from either... It kinda sucks investigating these things because when you get answers you will end up with more questions. If they were to prove that we started from the big bang, our next investigation would be what came before the big bang (it is theorized that it came from membranes that collided and caused the big bang~M Theory). If they proved it started with a god, our next investigation would be where god came from. Tiresome business.


Honestly, I find that to be one of the most appealing things about science, the picture gets bigger with every stroke of knowledge we gain.


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 29, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> But no one can know where a higher power came from either... It kinda sucks investigating these things because when you get answers you will end up with more questions. If they were to prove that we started from the big bang, our next investigation would be what came before the big bang (it is theorized that it came from membranes that collided and caused the big bang~M Theory). If they proved it started with a god, our next investigation would be where god came from. Tiresome business.


The thing with all of this is that when you start dealing with small time scales like 10^-44 s, say 10^-44s after the big bang, space-time gets really fuzzy. Particles no longer have locality in space. Time starts to lose meaning. So it starts to become a stupid question to ask anything about 'before' and 'after'. So we can't really ask what came 'before' the universe. 
As for branes (not to be confused with loop quantum gravity), they still exist in space-time, or 'the bulk' (at least mathematically. Who knows if they _really_ 'exist'?). In other words they are subject to the flow of time. For example, D-branes can't exceed the speed of light. This shows that these branes are subject to laws of physics that break down at small time scales. It also needs to be pointed out that these are two different models of the univerese.
All this talk is really bullshit until we solve this whole quantum gravity thing. That is what I am trying to say. There are so many models out there for the 'beginning' of the universe. And big bang cosmology differs dramatically from oscillating brane cosmology in their formulations.


My point is that you can't really ask what came 'before' God or the big bang, at least not yet. Like I said, we need to figure out quantum gravity. And even then it may not make sense to ask that question, but at least we'd have a better understanding of why we can't ask that question.


Padawan,
This is starting to get into why it would kick so much ass if we had a theory that was independent of space-time. 

Here is a technical paper on what I am talking about:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0404/0404122v1.pdf
It has some good stuff that isn't too technical in the first 2 pages. If you have questions, I may be able to help.


----------



## turkish420 (Aug 29, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> But no one can know where a higher power came from either... It kinda sucks investigating these things because when you get answers you will end up with more questions. If they were to prove that we started from the big bang, our next investigation would be what came before the big bang (it is theorized that it came from membranes that collided and caused the big bang~M Theory). If they proved it started with a god, our next investigation would be where god came from. Tiresome business.



You hit the nail on the head Anonymiss!  thats exactly what i was trying to 
say! its a perpetuating cycle. even if say scientists figured out where THAT specific particle(s) came from, say, another universe or demension or what have you, then we have to figure out how that universe or demension was created. Chasin our tails. Humans dont have the mental capabilities to figure all this out, hell, religion and God could have very well been a product of early mans (and womans) way of coping with death and the loss of a loved one. Its easier when you believe that theyre going to a place thats better than here and that theres someone there thats all powerful that will take care of them. pretty grim to think that this is it and there's nothing that happens when you die, but, thats my point, we dont know. . . until its our time to go.


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 29, 2009)

DontDoDrugs said:


> no no no.. how it works is "Hexolizamus" aka dinosaurs were from the 2nd dimension and were sucked into a black hole which dropped them off here on earth. they tried to adapt but they died. adam and eve came from a different dimension, but they were already adapted to earth somehow. and they didnt have sex.. they cloned eachother lol. and THEN they had sex.. so it doesent count! lol. oh ya, god is the black hole.. he is almighty! mmm.. yup thats what happened.


i could perhaps participate in that religion r u starting a church?


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 29, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> .........
> Here is a technical paper on what I am talking about:
> http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0404/0404122v1.pdf
> It has some good stuff that isn't too technical in the first 2 pages. If you have questions, I may be able to help.


hey shroomer - isn't it true that when you break-down an atom into it's smallest parts, then those particles start to exhibit properties of energy, either exclusively or perhaps exhibiting both matter and energy properties?

so like the eastern philosophies hold true their belief that matter is just energy.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 29, 2009)

a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15). Some scholars have tried to identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the brachiosaurus and the diplodocus, on the other hand, had huge tails which could easily be compared to a cedar tree.

Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts, and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of triceratops-like, pterodactyl-like, and tyrannosaurus rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to mans trans-cultural, geographically unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polos Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man, there are physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.


----------



## BradyBoe (Aug 29, 2009)

Dude, you're just a talker and you like to create contriversy and problem's. that's the only reason you were so negative with my thread. What a dickhead!!!! Live your life and stop caring about other people's lives!!! jerk!!


----------



## cbtwohundread (Aug 29, 2009)

iim friends with a unicorn,named unity.,.,it told i it slayed all the dragons with its uni-horn beam.,.,


----------



## FrontaLobotomy (Aug 29, 2009)

I think religion makes it very difficult for people who are religious to be taken seriously, regardless of what they believe in. There are many religious scholars out there that accept evolutionary theory, but look to God as a mean's of 'why' as opposed to 'how' if you get what I mean. I recently read about some kooky neo-christian guy that has a mock garden of eden with dinosaurs roaming around it, by all accounts the modern christian has to accept science as a means of being able to explain many things that were previously unexplained. The bible, Torah/Old Testement, qu'ran or whatever don't exist as an indisiputable truth for how we came to be, or our destiny. They exist as a collection of narratives that are supposed to teach us lessons on morality. It's only the extremists in the modern era that claim it to be an undeniable truth, and anyone that spends time indulging in debate with these people are just as deluded and foolish as the people they claim to be better than. 
The single greatest problem in the ongoing debate in religion vs. science/enlightenment is that everyone thinks they are right, and until there is a uniform truth that no one can dispute, it will continue in the same way that it has been for the last 1000 or so years. 
Were Dinosaurs around? Of course they were. Do Christians believe in dinosaurs? They would be pretty stupid not to, and most aren't.

It riles me a little that the only religion that people bash is christianity. You are aware that Judaism and Hinduism alone pre-date christianity by at least 1000 years. I find it insulting on some levels that many in the western world claim to be so profoundly enlightened, yet know so very little about the rest of this world. Given Europe and America barely account for one third of the global populous, it's looking to be a case of many not being able to look beyond the end of their own noses. And the most amusing part of this is, the last Pope (John Paul II) actually acknowledged evolution as a valid explanation for our origins. When the many posters here talk about christians, are you sure you're not just talking about those fruitcake sects that have spawned in America; Mormons, fucking around with snakes and speaking in tongues? Yes, those people are in general full of shit. I've still come across theological scholars that picked up first class honours in top universities, so they can't be morons. 

Religion will take a lifetime to argue, regardless of your point of view.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 29, 2009)

> It riles me a little that the only religion that people bash is christianity. You are aware that Judaism and Hinduism alone pre-date christianity by at least 1000 years. I find it insulting on some levels that many in the western world claim to be so profoundly enlightened, yet know so very little about the rest of this world. Given Europe and America barely account for one third of the global populous, it's looking to be a case of many not being able to look beyond the end of their own noses. And the most amusing part of this is, the last Pope (John Paul II) actually acknowledged evolution as a valid explanation for our origins. When the many posters here talk about christians, are you sure you're not just *talking about those fruitcake sects that have spawned in America*; Mormons, fucking around with snakes and speaking in tongues? Yes, those people are in general full of shit. I've still come across theological scholars that picked up first class honours in top universities, so they can't be morons.


Yes, those are exactly the people I'm talking about. The reason I mainly criticize Christianity is because those fruitcakes are the ones claiming to be Christians. Also because I live in America, where Christianity the majority belief. If I lived in the middle east, you can bet your ass I'd be talking just as much trash about Islam and sharia law. I also touched on that in another thread.. could of been this one, I'm not sure.. but the actual Christians, the ones that accept evolution, accept science, don't force their beliefs on other people, etc. they need to come out of the woodworks and tell the retards that are giving their belief a bad name to stop spitting all the disinformation propaganda crap that's designed to prey on weak minds. Robertson, Hovind, Hamm..etc.. and other people like those idiots are the problem with organized religion.


----------



## fairyweed (Aug 29, 2009)

BradyBoe said:


> Dude, you're just a talker and you like to create contriversy and problem's. that's the only reason you were so negative with my thread. What a dickhead!!!! Live your life and stop caring about other people's lives!!! jerk!!


Awww does it make u feel better that ur in my thread?? Now did u even read my first post in this thread?? Or u in here to pout? Would u like comment on my questions?? Now see this is why I this site cause I can get answers or thought on this subject... When I even memtion this to my family(cathliocs) they change the subject ... See wat y'all saying ... I ain't never heard that... But it in a way can be made sense of... U know there is a religon where they worship a speggitti monster ... Dude that's awesome ...I guess you could say im the type that has to see it to believe it...


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Yes, those are exactly the people I'm talking about. The reason I mainly criticize Christianity is because those fruitcakes are the ones claiming to be Christians. Also because I live in America, where Christianity the majority belief. If I lived in the middle east, you can bet your ass I'd be talking just as much trash about Islam and sharia law. I also touched on that in another thread.. could of been this one, I'm not sure.. but the actual Christians, the ones that accept evolution, accept science, don't force their beliefs on other people, etc. they need to come out of the woodworks and tell the retards that are giving their belief a bad name to stop spitting all the disinformation propaganda crap that's designed to prey on weak minds. Robertson, Hovind, Hamm..etc.. and other people like those idiots are the problem with organized religion.


ahmen to that brother


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 29, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Yes, those are exactly the people I'm talking about. The reason I mainly criticize Christianity is because those fruitcakes are the ones claiming to be Christians. Also because I live in America, where Christianity the majority belief. If I lived in the middle east, you can bet your ass I'd be talking just as much trash about Islam and sharia law. I also touched on that in another thread.. could of been this one, I'm not sure.. but the actual Christians, the ones that accept evolution, accept science, don't force their beliefs on other people, etc. they need to come out of the woodworks and tell the retards that are giving their belief a bad name to stop spitting all the disinformation propaganda crap that's designed to prey on weak minds. Robertson, Hovind, Hamm..etc.. and other people like those idiots are the problem with organized religion.


That's funny cause I tried telling one of these guys, one who said that new stars aren't being formed, that we have seen new stars being formed. It was like talking to a wall.
Lame....


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 30, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> That's funny cause I tried telling one of these guys, one who said that new stars aren't being formed, that we have seen new stars being formed. It was like talking to a wall.
> Lame....


lol, where do they come up with that shit man...


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 30, 2009)

jeffchr said:


> hey shroomer - isn't it true that when you break-down an atom into it's smallest parts, then those particles start to exhibit properties of energy, either exclusively or perhaps exhibiting both matter and energy properties?
> 
> so like the eastern philosophies hold true their belief that matter is just energy.


Are we talking standard model physics? That is, quarks, gluons, and electrons, or do we want to go beyond the standard model and talk about strings?
Standard model stuff is mostly proven. String stuff isn't.

But yes, everything at that small of a length scale gets described in terms of energy. Mass is energy and energy is mass. There really is no difference.
All this comes from E=mc^2.

I don't really know what you mean by properties of energy though. Particles certainly become wavelike, which is what you may mean by 'properties of energy'. 

You are also right in saying that subatomic particles have two different properties, sometimes behaving completely wavelike(energy?) and other times they act like a particle (matter?). In some cases, the particle interpretation is used. In other cases, wave interpretation is used. It all depends on what is being asked. That is one of the many trippy things about quantum mechanics. The ramifications of this wave nature of single particles are really really trippy. For example, say you have two electrons. They are completely identical. There is no way to say 'this' electron and 'that' electron. One line from one of my undergrad texts on quantum mechanics that has always stuck in my head is that God doesn't know the difference between two electrons because there is no such thing as 'this' and 'that' electron...anyway...it's all awesome.


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 30, 2009)

fish601 said:


> a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15). Some scholars have tried to identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the brachiosaurus and the diplodocus, on the other hand, had huge tails which could easily be compared to a cedar tree.
> 
> Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts, and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of triceratops-like, pterodactyl-like, and tyrannosaurus rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to man&#8217;s trans-cultural, geographically unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo&#8217;s Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man, there are physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.


The whole dragon thing in the bible is just a translation from the hebrew word tanniyn.
I wonder what the old Jews thought of when they heard 'tanniyn'. It was probably nothing like what we think of when we hear 'dragon'.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

Why did you guys shit all over fish? You asked a question and he gave you the biblical answer.

The behemoth. 

*15* Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.
*16* Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.
*17* His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his tendons are knit together.
*18* His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron.
*19* His is the first of God's ways; [only] his Maker can draw His sword [against him].
*20* For the mountains bear food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
*21* Does he lie under the shadows, in the covert of the reeds and the swamp?
*22* Do the shadows cover him as his shadow? Do the willows of the brook surround him?
*23* Behold, he plunders the river, and [he] does not harden; he trusts that he will draw the Jordan into his mouth.
*24* With His eyes He will take him; with snares He will puncture his nostrils.

So if Job's behemoth is believed to be a dinosaur, then they believe in dinosaurs... but that we walked the earth with them... and THEN they became extinct... and all radiometric dating is flawed. This is basically the belief of the Young Earth Creationists. It is as utterly ridiculous as the rest, but it is the answer to your question.


----------



## PadawanBater (Aug 30, 2009)

> and *all radiometric dating is flawed*. This is basically the belief of the Young Earth Creationists. It is as utterly ridiculous as the rest, but it is the answer to your question.


Show me why. Quite the statement there wh.


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 30, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> .......... There is no way to say 'this' electron and 'that' electron. One line from one of my undergrad texts on quantum mechanics that has always stuck in my head is that God doesn't know the difference between two electrons because there is no such thing as 'this' and 'that' electron...anyway...it's all awesome.


Thx man, that is exactly what I was talking about. The string theory I don't understand at all. Frankly, I think it is too complicated and bazaar to be real, but then again to astronomers and physicists I suppose its all just math so it doesn't matter how it reflects conceptually to us common folk. 

Anyway, it is a wonder how all matter can be described as wave theory at the most fundmental levels. 

I am not religous, but I think some religions believe that in the "beginning" there was only the word of God - OM, wave energy.


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 30, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Why did you guys shit all over fish? You asked a question and he gave you the biblical answer.


it is pretty well accepted by science that people and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at different times. the evidence for this comes from many different disciplines and has been analyzed by the finest minds. whoever wrote the misleading bs in the bible is pretty low on my credibility list - just say'n.

you know ultimately, we are all just people. anybody can write anything. you need to use your mind to determine who is credible.


----------



## poopmaster (Aug 30, 2009)




----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Show me why. Quite the statement there wh.


It isn't MY statement... I was just parroting the argument THEY make. I will take it for sport though.


Ever get breathalized by a cop? Unless you blow over on your first attempt, they make you blow again, and again trying to get the reading they are looking for.


Take a fossilized bone and create 20 samples. Send them to 20 labs. Receive your 20 results. See how many match. It is not exactly an exact science. The same lab typically (from my understanding) runs several analysis of a given material to find a mean, which is their result. It is statistically very improbable that another lab will come up with the exact same result. It is also highly subject to manipulation by people with a history of deceit to achieve an anti-God agenda (eg Piltdown man).


----------



## CHR0N1C K1NG (Aug 30, 2009)

wt religeon is the bible from?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

jeffchr said:


> it is pretty well accepted by science that people and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at different times. the evidence for this comes from many different disciplines and has been analyzed by the finest minds. whoever wrote the misleading bs in the bible is pretty low on my credibility list - just say'n.
> 
> you know ultimately, we are all just people. anybody can write anything. you need to use your mind to determine who is credible.


 
pretty well accpeted doesnt make it true

Why is there cave drawing with dinosaurs on them, they drew what they seen.

When Alexander the Great (c. 330 BC) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur _Tanystropheus_. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

Show me.


Show me cave drawings with dinosaurs. I need a real source... not a church. Substantiate the source before you post it.


----------



## FrontaLobotomy (Aug 30, 2009)

Cave drawings with dinosaurs? Sounds dubious. There's a good 62 million year gap between the earliest stages of human development and the end of the Cretaceous period. Look at it this way, even at our current level of intellect and ingenuity, we would still struggle to deal with fighting off dinosaurs. Given the time of the dinosaurs contained many more carnivorous animals than is on display today, and were not seperated by large bodies of water like we are today, it would have been very difficult to thrive in such an environment. Not to mention the mass planetary exitnction that pretty much wiped everything out.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 30, 2009)

You have to wonder why a faithless person, would care about the religious beliefs of others. Get a life


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> You have to wonder why a faithless person, would care about the religious beliefs of others. Get a life


Coming from the side that comes on my property to talk about my beliefs. 
Because the religion interferes in authority. Because your beliefs are, by design, intrusive and generally oppressive.


Not to mention, it is silly to us. Your life being governed by something you see as a fairytale which feels compelled to force itself on you begets some ill will.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 30, 2009)

The bible does not say there were no dinosaurs, by the way. 

In fact in Genesis the bible says "Now the earth was empty and without form", but the original hebrew meaning of the word "now", is more accurately translated "became". The earth wasn't created in genesis, it is just an account of this earth age, after the first earth age was destroyed, and the account of the man "adam", and his spiritual relationship with god, and satan begins. Genesis doesn't say Adam was the only man, or the first man. It's all very simple if you know how to study.


----------



## Green Cross (Aug 30, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Coming from the side that comes on my property to talk about my beliefs.
> Because the religion interferes in authority. Because your beliefs are, by design, intrusive and generally oppressive.
> 
> 
> Not to mention, it is silly to us. Your life being governed by something you see as a fairytale which feels compelled to force itself on you begets some ill will.


The US has always been and always will be a Christian nation - regardless of what you were taught in some liberal collage, or what you or Obama says - you're in the minority. 

The writers of the declaration of independence, makes perfectly clear that our rights come from God, not government, so it's fruitless to try to change the USA into a socialist state


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> The bible does not say there were no dinosaurs, by the way.
> 
> In fact in Genesis the bible says "Now the earth was empty and without form", but the original hebrew meaning of the word "now", is more accurately translated "became". The earth wasn't created in genesis, it is just an account of this earth age, after the first earth age was destroyed, and the account of the man "adam", and his spiritual relationship with god, and satan begins. Genesis doesn't say Adam was the only man, or the first man. It's all very simple if you know how to study.


It is the first line ffs.

Genesis 1:1 

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.



Green Cross said:


> The US has always been and always will be a Christian nation - regardless of what you were taught in some liberal collage, or what you or Obama says - you're in the minority.
> 
> The writers of the declaration of independence, makes perfectly clear that our rights come from God, not government, so it's fruitless to try to change the USA into a socialist state


The majority of people believe a lot of things I do not believe. That is not intimidating to me. I am as anti-socialist as they come. 

LOL @ me being a liberal. That's cute. You get a star for being cute.


----------



## dontexist21 (Aug 30, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> The US has always been and always will be a Christian nation - regardless of what you were taught in some liberal collage, or what you or Obama says - you're in the minority.
> 
> The writers of the declaration of independence, makes perfectly clear that our rights come from God, not government, so it's fruitless to try to change the USA into a socialist state


That still does not give any one the right to force their beliefs on me NO ONE. I don't care what the framers say my rights are MY rights. They were not given to me by some God they were given to me by no one. The fact that I am a living breathing person gives me the same rights as you or anyone else. I have just as much right in this country as you. Religion should stay personal and have nothing to do in the government. Taking away religion from government will not turn the US into a socialist state it will actually take it into a more democratic state. If Religion was part of the government you have Theocracy which is NOT democratic. Just because a majority of people are religious does not mean you have a right to take away the rights from the minorities. Religion should stay at home, should be something personal which you choose to share with people around you who also by their own will accept the beliefs. Not something you jam down peoples throats just because you view that your God gave people their rights so they must listen to him.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

For the record I went to private Catholic schools. Unlike most Catholics, however, I am well versed in the bible.

My college was pretty well balanced... considering the average. (DNF)

You might also note that I came into this argument defending "your side" with the bible... because "my side" was incorrect, IMO, on an issue... not THE issue. I have NOT, however, seen anything that resembles a dino on cave walls.


I need to just sit down for a couple of hours and make my Paul thread.


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 30, 2009)

1st google hit:
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 30, 2009)

poopmaster said:


>


yes, true, and these dictums troubled me as a child but no more.


----------



## jeffchr (Aug 30, 2009)

fish601 said:


> pretty well accpeted doesnt make it true - NOPE BUT IT MAKES THE ALTERNATIVE SOMEWHAT MORE UNLIKELY
> 
> Why is there cave drawing with dinosaurs on them, they drew what they seen. CAUSE SOMEBODY DREW THEM?
> 
> ...


it's going to take a lot more than that to dislodge Darwin


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> The US has always been and always will be a Christian nation - regardless of what you were taught in some liberal collage, or what you or Obama says - you're in the minority.
> 
> The writers of the declaration of independence, makes perfectly clear that our rights come from God, not government, so it's fruitless to try to change the USA into a socialist state



The US IS NOT a Christian nation, and the framers were very clear in making the distinction. While they were theists... they were NOT all Christian. The "God" or more usually "Creator" title belongs not only to the Christ.

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."

Profess AND BY ARGUMENT maintain their opinions.

Jefferson himself rejected all of the superstition of Christianity... going so far as to write his OWN bible, removing all of the mysticism. Despite the revisionism by the Christians to claim him, he never believed Christ was the son of God. He had a creator he referred to a lot, but no immaculate ChristGod.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787



"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" 
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


Yes brother... listen to your framers.


"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills" 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


"My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there." 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816


I could do this all day with Jefferson. It is almost unfair. Madison?

"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of impas for such business..." 
-James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
- Pres. James Madison, _A Memorial and Remonstrance_, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785

"
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect."
- James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774


By all means... come at me with the framers.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

jeffchr said:


> it's going to take a lot more than that to dislodge Darwin


how much more?

Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496

The description of the "Thunder bird" of American Indians matches the descriptions of pterosaurs.[

Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs

Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese calendar. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature

An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting

The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." [20]. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.[21] World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth

Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel , the Wollemi Pine and the Coelacanth


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

fish601 said:


> how much more?
> 
> Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496
> 
> ...



Are you kidding me? Seriously? You think that dinosaurs were running around in the 15th century? I mean... I don't know what to even say about that.

If I draw a dragon now, does that mean I saw one? What if I make up a new creature?

What about mermaids? Are they real too? They span many unrelated cultures. 

Flying horses? 

9 headed snake people?

Minotaurs? (FEEL THE BEAST... DRINK MINOTAUR!!!)



Reading this again it comes across as remarkably condescending. That wasn't the intent. I respect your RIGHT to opinion, whether or not I respect that opinion. I also appreciate, at least, your willingness to engage the subject. That is a great thing. I wasn't trying to bully you, and you should ignore those who do.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Are you kidding me? Seriously? You think that dinosaurs were running around in the 15th century? I mean... I don't know what to even say about that.
> 
> If I draw a dragon now, does that mean I saw one? What if I make up a new creature?
> 
> ...


 
I didnt sit down and make all this up, people alot smarter than me did lol

You dont think its odd that the pics they have on the floor of Carlisle Cathedral look just like dinosaurs? how did they know what dinosaurs looked like?


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

They had pictures of griffins too in the 1400s.

Looks like the Geico lizard to me. Why do you presume it is huge? Even if it were styled as huge... why would you assume it was any different than any other huge legendary person/animal/tree drawn throughout myths everywhere?

Are you aware of the incredible amount of literature and art we have from the 15th century? Ever hear about D'avinci drawing dinosaurs? The notion is utterly ludicrous. We have history from all over the world... for MUCH longer than that. No mention of dino's. 

Plenty of literature about whales, elephants, hippos... and other huge animals... no dinosaurs. You would think they would get a mention.


----------



## what... huh? (Aug 30, 2009)

It is just that when I picture the Renaissance period... the notion of a fucking T-rex running around eating dignitaries just makes me laugh hard enough to spot myself.






















OH NOES!!! luk out 
Monaaaaas T Rex thinks 
u is cheezburgerz!!!


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> They had pictures of griffins too in the 1400s.
> 
> Looks like the Geico lizard to me. Why do you presume it is huge? Even if it were styled as huge... why would you assume it was any different than any other huge legendary person/animal/tree drawn throughout myths everywhere?
> 
> ...


theres lots about dinos

what do you see in that pic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_mosaic_of_Palestrina


----------



## fish601 (Aug 30, 2009)

pic below.
In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizonas department of geosciences laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an _Allosaurus_ and an _Acrocanthosaurus_ were among those sent to the universitys testing facilities to undergo a blind dating procedure Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented evolutionary bias, and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). We have in our possessionon the official stationery of the University of Arizonaa copy of the test results for the _Allosaurus_ bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the _Acrocanthosaurus_ fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils. 



http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

http://s8int.com/dino1.html

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 30, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> "Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
> - James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774


I present to you the idea that I can rewrite the above quote (not that I disagree with it) with 'government' instead of 'Ecclesiastical', and the quote will still ring true.
My belief is that it is this world system that creates great ignorance and corruption and tons of BEYOND mischevious projects. Both religion and government have been intertwined for MILLENIA. This is one of the things that made America different: there would be a separation of Church and State. People would be free to believe whatever the hell they wanted.
But that's just, like, my opinion man.
You're Mr. Lebowski, I'm the dude.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizonas department of geosciences laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an _Allosaurus_ and an _Acrocanthosaurus_ were among those sent to the universitys testing facilities to undergo a blind dating procedure Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented evolutionary bias, and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). We have in our possessionon the official stationery of the University of Arizonaa copy of the test results for the _Allosaurus_ bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the _Acrocanthosaurus_ fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils.


Haha, I can't believe creationists are still trying to use this one, which has been discredited over and over again.

This is about as far from a standard scientific dating method as it is possible to get, and was deliberately set up that way by unscrupulous people, trying to push a religious agenda by discrediting science.

The only test requested on this sample was the C14 test, which is only accurate up to 60k years. This was deliberately done so as to provide a single, flawed number.

Scientists know the limits of each of the testing methods, so when dating any unknown sample, they use a barrage of tests with different isotopes. The accuracy range of these tests overlap. When a sample is tested, numbers at either end of the test scale are usually wildly inaccurate, and this is obvious in the data. However, there is always a range where the numbers match up over several concurrent tests. It is this range that gives the accurate results.

By deliberately requesting a single testing method rather than the full range, the proponents of this hoax were trying to deliberately skew the test results for their own ends.


You really should learn about what you are trying to discredit, before you try to discredit it.


----------



## doobnVA (Aug 31, 2009)

Burn ^^


I always like the nuts who tell you that dinosaur fossils were planted by "Satan", so we would question our origins and our faith would waver (which supposedly gives him more satanic power, or something).

The one about people living with dinosaurs is laughable, too.


----------



## "SICC" (Aug 31, 2009)

isnt this a weed forum?


----------



## Brazko (Aug 31, 2009)

Hey Sicc, I just left your Kush Grow Link, and it seems that some of your fans have assumed you have been banned for some reason, wussup wit dat?

Anyhow, I didn't come to RIU because I heard of the Great sub-forums they have (ie Politics, Spirituality,Philosophy, etc..) but kinda just stumbled across them like I'm sure many others have and only post because I feel, if their is anyone I can discuss other general life topics with, I would rather discuss it with others alike, thinking many will have some normalcy about themselves, but that's a phuckin' Joke ..... I still would rather spend my time tho' around my MJ brothers, we argue, debate, then agree to smoke a spliff together , it's all Good 

Anyhow, hope your grow is going well, I just dropped using my AG nutes, always successful with them on each of my grows, but I wanted to up the ante and Grow bigger and better, So I'm dealing with PH probs, got it under control, but took a 2week set back, Update us on your Grow if not finished...HOlla


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)

[QUOTE="SICC";3002119]isnt this a weed forum?[/QUOTE]

nope ......


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Haha, I can't believe creationists are still trying to use this one, which has been discredited over and over again.
> 
> This is about as far from a standard scientific dating method as it is possible to get, and was deliberately set up that way by unscrupulous people, trying to push a religious agenda by discrediting science.
> 
> ...


why does that one have to be wrong? why not the one that would of said 50million years? but i really dont care how long ago god created earth


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> why does that one have to be wrong? why not the one that would of said 50million years? but i really dont care how long ago god created earth


If only *one* of the results said 50 million years, that would also be wrong. Didn't you read the part about accuracy ranges overlapping over several testing methods? Only when _many_ different dating methods give the same numbers can it be considered accurate.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

lol funny


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> The one about people living with dinosaurs is laughable, too.


Another discovery of a calcified human's footprint has been made in Turkmenia. Its age leads us all the way back to 150 million years, to the Mesozoic period, and ultimately to the time of dinosaurs. Can it be possible that humans inhabited this planet along with such monstrous creatures? Yes

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11253_.html

In 1961, two Russian scientists Okladnikov and Rogozhin discovered a large variety of tools in Siberia not far away from a town named Gorno-Altaisk located by the river Utalinka. They concluded that their finds date back to 1,5-2 million years. Another Russian scientist Molchanov discovered absolutely identical tools on the river Lena near a village Urlak. Radiocarbon dating analyses of these finds has clearly identified a precise date: almost 2 million years.

But what about an entire chain of footprints found near Carson, Nevada (USA)? Those are incredibly precise and clear prints doubtlessly left by a human. Their size is gigantic. Their age is 213-248 million years. It is not hard to conclude therefore that such discovery cannot possibly go hand in hand with today's preconceived notions

check pic http://www.omniology.com/ARTIFACTS-2.html


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Another discovery of a calcified human's footprint has been made in Turkmenia. Its age leads us all the way back to 150 million years, to the Mesozoic period, and ultimately to the time of dinosaurs. Can it be possible that humans inhabited this planet along with such monstrous creatures? Yes


Umm, no, not really.



> Alleged human or human-like prints alongside dinosaur tracks in Turkmenistan have not been rigorously described or documented. In view of this, and the extensive evidence that millions of years separate non-avian dinosaurs from humans, the tracks in question cannot be regarded as reliable or even probable human prints.


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/russ.htm

You're really grasping at straws with this dinosaur thing.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Another discovery of a calcified human's footprint has been made in Turkmenia. Its age leads us all the way back to 150 million years, to the Mesozoic period, and ultimately to the time of dinosaurs. Can it be possible that humans inhabited this planet along with such monstrous creatures? Yes
> 
> http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11253_.html
> 
> ...


That pic says that macro-evolutionists wouldn't allow that evidence to be released publicly... How did they keep the information from being released? I don't think just any scientist, or any group of scientists, have the ability to stop the release of information, especially when we have the internet.

If it was possible to stop this transfer of info, we wouldn't have naked pics of celebs.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Umm, no, not really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
thanks for showing me that.
what about the other thousands of reports?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> If it was possible to stop this transfer of info, we wouldn't have naked pics of celebs.


send them to me lol


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> send them to me lol


Send you naked pics of celebs?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=naked+pics+of+celebs

Not that hard...


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

neither is find out the truth about dinos lol


----------



## shroomer33 (Aug 31, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Send you naked pics of celebs?
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=naked+pics+of+celebs
> 
> Not that hard...


That's NOT what she said.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Aug 31, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> That's NOT what she said.


What was it that he was saying?


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

LOL of course athiest dont understand much anyways


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

ok sry about that kiss-ass


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> thanks for showing me that.
> what about the other thousands of reports?


See the main page on that same site. It's all bullshit, fraud, or leaps of faith combined with lack of evidence. The whole "man with dinosaurs" thing is a huge sham. You may as well show me stuff on fairies, the loch ness monster or bigfoot.

Nothing disproves evolution so far, and trawling pseudoscience sites will not advance your argument. If real evidence existed to counter evolutionary theory, creationists would be using it in every argument, and scientists themselves would adjust happily their theories. Evidence is not ignored in real science, it is absorbed, and used to give a clearer and more accurate picture of reality.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Nothing disproves evolution so far, and trawling pseudoscience sites will not advance your argument. If real evidence existed to counter evolutionary theory, creationists would be using it in every argument, and scientists themselves would adjust happily their theories. Evidence is not ignored in real science, it is absorbed, and used to give a clearer and more accurate picture of reality.


 
Nothing proves evolution so far, creationist do use it in every argument and most scientist do not accept those theories. Evidence is ignored in real science. I do believe there is a middle ground.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Nothing proves evolution so far, creationist do use it in every argument and most scientist do not accept those theories. Evidence is ignored in real science. I do believe there is a middle ground.


Okay. Do me a favour, and read these wiki pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

I doubt you will read them, but if you did you'd find plenty of evidence listed there to back up evolution. It's as much a theory as gravity is.

Unfortunately, there can be no middle ground between fact and fiction. Things are either true, or not.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Okay. Do me a favour, and read these wiki pages:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
> ...


i cant say i understand all that but i do know there are non christian scientist that do not believe there is evidence for evolution. there is no 100% proven evidence for evolution if there was all scientist would agree with it, on the other hand there is no 100% proof against it.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i cant say i understand all that but i do know there are non christian scientist that do not believe there is evidence for evolution. there is no 100% proven evidence for evolution if there was all scientist would agree with it, on the other hand there is no 100% proof against it.


Wow, you read all those pages in the last couple of minutes. Of course you won't understand it if you don't read it. 

Any "scientist" who doesn't accept that there is evidence for evolution either isn't really a scientist, has an extreme bias, or works in a field where none of the evolutionary evidence gets presented to them, making them no more informed that the average moron on the street.

The scientists who don't accept the evidence are VERY few and far between.


----------



## fish601 (Aug 31, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Wow, you read all those pages in the last couple of minutes. Of course you won't understand it if you don't read it.
> 
> Any "scientist" who doesn't accept that there is evidence for evolution either isn't really a scientist, has an extreme bias, or works in a field where none of the evolutionary evidence gets presented to them, making them no more informed that the average moron on the street.
> 
> The scientists who don't accept the evidence are VERY few and far between.


 
a scientist that doesnt accept creation isnt a real scientist, has extreme bias.
http://nobelists.net/ u read mine?
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_08.html


----------



## FrontaLobotomy (Aug 31, 2009)

See, fish you're kinda making christians look bad. The last pope even had the humility to accept that evolution was a valid explanation for how we came to be. Religion isn't really about worshipping supposed higher powers anymore, people are not that afraid anymore. It's more about the lessons each faith can teach us, in making us better people, respecting others and that sort of thing. The days of fire and brimstone are behind us, it's only extremist nuts in America and the Middle East that use faith to line their own pockets. Clearly business is still booming..


----------



## Nocturn3 (Aug 31, 2009)

fish601 said:


> a scientist that doesnt accept creation isnt a real scientist, has extreme bias.
> http://nobelists.net/ u read mine?
> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_08.html


Scientists work off evidence. There is no evidence for creationism.

It is possible to be a real scientist, and be religious, but to claim to be a scientist whilst ignoring evidence makes you biased, or a fraud.

For your first link, there is a HUGE difference between scientists believing in a higher power, and scientists blindly accepting that the christian bible is the inerrant word of god. How many scientists on that list held the latter view? Not many, i'd bet.

Your second link is huge in scope, and i'm too tired to pick it all apart tonight, but i'll look it over and post my views at some point. I suspect it will be more of the same, but i'll try to be open-minded about it. Some of the sources seem old, so I suspect if there was any weight to their claims it would be widely known, but we'll see....


----------



## jfgordon1 (Aug 31, 2009)




----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

FrontaLobotomy said:


> See, fish you're kinda making christians look bad. The last pope even had the humility to accept that evolution was a valid explanation for how we came to be. Religion isn't really about worshipping supposed higher powers anymore, people are not that afraid anymore. It's more about the lessons each faith can teach us, in making us better people, respecting others and that sort of thing. The days of fire and brimstone are behind us, it's only extremist nuts in America and the Middle East that use faith to line their own pockets. Clearly business is still booming..


the pope doesnt speak for god


----------



## FrontaLobotomy (Sep 1, 2009)

Lol, he's the head of the church. That means anything he says in the christian world actually counts for something. He was a great man, and represented 'God' admirably. You're so stuck on being right you can't see what's wrong with what you're doing. That's the single greatest problem in the secular debate.
In 50 years, the houses of worship will be empty. So either way it's incidental. Maybe then we can start moving forward, as that is what the human condition is about.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

FrontaLobotomy said:


> Lol, he's the head of the church. That means anything he says in the christian world actually counts for something. He was a great man, and represented 'God' admirably. You're so stuck on being right you can't see what's wrong with what you're doing. That's the single greatest problem in the secular debate.
> In 50 years, the houses of worship will be empty. So either way it's incidental. Maybe then we can start moving forward, as that is what the human condition is about.


lol pope is head of a chruch BUT If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then *he is not a Christian* since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 1, 2009)

FrontaLobotomy said:


> Lol, he's the head of the church.


Christ is the head of the church.



> That means anything he says in the christian world actually counts for something.


Not really. Most Christians, who are Protestants, don't care what the Pope says.



> He was a great man, and represented 'God' admirably.


Not the 'God' of the Bible, IMHO.



> You're so stuck on being right you can't see what's wrong with what you're doing.


This applies to at least 50% of the people on this board.


> That's the single greatest problem in the secular debate.
> In 50 years, the houses of worship will be empty.


In your dreams, even though you may not be the only one to imagine it.



> So either way it's incidental. Maybe then we can start moving forward, as that is what the human condition is about.


The *current* human condition is about being enslaved by the authorites and powers in the spirit realms, and what lies in the human heart. These powers and authorities have been in power for thousands of years. They have kept Temples and such filled for that amount of time. They aren't going to stop anytime soon.
That is how I see it.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

FrontaLobotomy said:


> In 50 years, the houses of worship will be empty.


 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74563,00.html 
most experts agree Christianity does have the most believers. And recent reports estimate that by 2025, that gap will widen even further, making Christianity by far the world's largest religion


----------



## FrontaLobotomy (Sep 1, 2009)

God will not save us, knowledge of self will. Once all all are able to acknowledge one, we can move on to the next level. These scriptures and other such things only serve to create boundaries, which leads to conflict. If people have been killing each other for thousands of years based on sharing different beliefs, then the belief systems need to go. You might be happy with people dying for such causes, I on the other hand am not. Once again, religion is reserved for extremist nuts in America and the middle east that are still able to line their pockets from other people's sufferings. 
For the record, the church of England/protestant faith was only created to serve a decedent man's wish to divorce at will. The last pope did a lot, considering the previous ones hid behind the vatican during and after the holocaust. Also, Jesus was jewish, not christian. The Romans founded christianity, making them the heads of the church.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 1, 2009)

FrontaLobotomy said:


> God will not save us, knowledge of self will. Once all all are able to acknowledge one, we can move on to the next level. These scriptures and other such things only serve to create boundaries, which leads to conflict. If people have been killing each other for thousands of years based on sharing different beliefs, then the belief systems need to go. You might be happy with people dying for such causes, I on the other hand am not. Once again, religion is reserved for extremist nuts in America and the middle east that are still able to line their pockets from other people's sufferings.
> For the record, the church of England/protestant faith was only created to serve a decedent man's wish to divorce at will. The last pope did a lot, considering the previous ones hid behind the vatican during and after the holocaust. Also, Jesus was jewish, not christian. The Romans founded christianity, making them the heads of the church.


alot wrong with that statement i am not even gona attempt to fix it


----------



## antoinetterys (Sep 1, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> lmfao, though I'm not so sure a creationist... or your average American for that matter... would know that..


ahaha im American and that is common knowledge lol .. i like this thread

but the bible isnt suppose to be tookin literal and many do not know it but the original story was adam and lilith or sum name like that

they were made separate and i guess she talked too much and had her own opinions .. adam didnt like it .. complained to god and he got rid of her then from adam's rib created eve as his second wife

**crazy** learned that in philosophy class one year


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 1, 2009)

antoinetterys said:


> ahaha im American and that is common knowledge lol .. i like this thread
> 
> but the bible isnt suppose to be tookin literal and many do not know it but the original story was adam and lilith or sum name like that
> 
> ...


 
lol same here, American. I wasn't bashing Americans, just that it's no secret the majority of us really are not as educated as our European or Asian counterparts, specifically in the shit that actually matters, history, science, math.. 

I also heard about the Lillith story, and thought the same thing... none of that makes any fuckin' sense either...


----------



## zorkan (Sep 1, 2009)

americans is dumer


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 3, 2009)

Dude.The whole reason Christianity flourished was because they got in good with the Romans. The Roman Catholics are the closest thing to original as Christianity gets.


fish601 said:


> lol pope is head of a chruch BUT If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then *he is not a Christian* since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 3, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Dude.The whole reason Christianity flourished was because they got in good with the Romans. The Roman Catholics are the closest thing to original as Christianity gets.


Catholicism quickly evolved into pure Babylonian Mystery Religion, with just a very small touch of real Christianity.

The Catholic Church outlawed reading of the Bible. How Christian is that?

Once the state gets involved in 'religion', Babylon dominates.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 3, 2009)

They kept the Bible in Latin for the longest time to keep the uneducated flock from reading, and thereby providing their own interpretation of, the words therein.Keeping them ignorant,and controllable.


shroomer33 said:


> Catholicism quickly evolved into pure Babylonian Mystery Religion, with just a very small touch of real Christianity.
> 
> The Catholic Church outlawed reading of the Bible. How Christian is that?
> 
> Once the state gets involved in 'religion', Babylon dominates.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 3, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> They kept the Bible in Latin for the longest time to keep the uneducated flock from reading, and thereby providing their own interpretation of, the words therein.Keeping them ignorant,and controllable.


Yep. And they killed people who tried to translate the Bible into languages that people could read.

In all cases, it isn't very Christian to do such things.

The state is always about raw power, which is why the US Constitution limits the powers the Federal government and military have. (but the Constitution doesn't mean shit anymore)
When religion mixes with the state, there is even more power involved. If people were allowed to read the Bible, and they understood it, the state would lose power.
In Europe though, Catholicism became even more powerful than the state, which was its spiritual downfall.
Christ's power isn't worldly.
But a ton of Christians would argue with this.

The point I was trying to make about Babylon is that the idea of making a tower (religion) and a city (government) goes way back to the foundations of the tower of Babel.
This idea of uniting religion and government is one of the foundations of Babylonian Mystery Religion.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 3, 2009)

I'm just waiting for religion to finally die.


shroomer33 said:


> Yep. And they killed people who tried to translate the Bible into languages that people could read.
> 
> In all cases, it isn't very Christian to do such things.
> 
> ...


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 3, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> I'm just waiting for religion to finally die.


 
I want all things false to die. Give me the truth, no matter what!


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 3, 2009)

Amen.


shroomer33 said:


> I want all things false to die. Give me the truth, no matter what!


----------



## fish601 (Sep 5, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> I want all things false to die. Give me the truth, no matter what!





Stoney McFried said:


> Amen.


 
something we all can agree on


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

Fish if you would just put yourself in our shoes for a second. It will be hard to do, but if you are serious about learning the truth and open minded like you have said then it may be worthwhile.

When we talk about evolution we can point to many different pieces of evidence like bones, dna, pictures of animals, brainscans, traits, emotional responces, speech, thought processes, on and on. Everything that has been found has worked in evolution.

I know that people that are pushing say that it has not, but it is untrue. Every piece of evidence has worked into the evolutionary theory (remember in science theory is a fact until proven wrong). The things that creationists point to when they say it has holes is what Darwin wrote, but Darwin was a couple hundred years ago and we have much better and more complete information now. Darwin is obsolete. He is like the first bicycle, it had most of the parts, but was nowhere near as well put together as todays.

Now we look at what we are arguing against. The only real reason that they fight so hard to dismiss the information is to protect a book that was written about 1500 years ago. And the Jewish Bible that was written about 3000 years ago (that is regarded as heathenism for praying to false gods (although it is what the new one is based on)). That is the only thing that is causing this argument.

Is there some neat point that they make, of course! I really like those pics that where on the links that you have put up about dinosaurs. But that doesn't mean that there is not other reasons that have better and more actual information supporting it. 

See in science (which you almost look at as a religion which it is not. It would be like calling english language a religion) if something comes up that disproves the accepted theory careers are made! People would hurry to get it published, write books and go on world tours. But only after it held up to the questioning of peer revues where the other scientists get to poke their holes.

And only after it holds up to those poking do they get the credit. But that is the problem with intelligent design. It cannot hold up to the poking.

So to most scientist and people that have taken the time to learn about it, it is like they are trying to say that 1+1 = 5. And instead of trying to get the mathematical community behind it, they are going after the uneducated and teaching them this is the way. And then backdooring it to get it taught wrong to the children to get them converted into the 1+1 = 5 crowd to help build up their base of followers.

That may sound stupid, but that is exactly how we feel when people dismiss all this evidence.

And also you should know that all math equations like the Pythagorean Theorem




which can be proven time and time. Is still a theory, not a 'fact' by the definition of the creationists.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 6, 2009)

Good post Hannimal, couldn't have said it better myself, my sentiments exactly.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 6, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Fish if you would just put yourself in our shoes for a second. It will be hard to do, but if you are serious about learning the truth and open minded like you have said then it may be worthwhile.
> 
> When we talk about evolution we can point to many different pieces of evidence like bones, dna, pictures of animals, brainscans, traits, emotional responces, speech, thought processes, on and on. Everything that has been found has worked in evolution.
> 
> ...


 

you do realise that there is no evidence for evolution as far as monkey to man?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 6, 2009)

> you do realise that there is no evidence for evolution as far as monkey to man?


So I take it you would not put yourself in our shoes.

Oh well.

There is lots of evidence. If there was not, then the people that study this would not waste their time doing so, they could make more and better money doing something else.

There are bone fragments, dna samples, brain mapping, traits of understanding and thought, muscle specialists, body hair patterns, family groupings, so much it is the most logical conclusion, which is why it is made. There is a reason they don't say that we have evolved from gorillas. They got it very specific because of all the evidence.


----------



## Charfizcool (Sep 7, 2009)

yea dinosaurs were in the bible


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> There is lots of evidence. If there was not, then the people that study this would not waste their time doing so, they could make more and better money doing something else.
> 
> There are bone fragments, dna samples, brain mapping, traits of understanding and thought, muscle specialists, body hair patterns, family groupings, so much it is the most logical conclusion, which is why it is made. There is a reason they don't say that we have evolved from gorillas. They got it very specific because of all the evidence.


you are choosing to believe that, which is why some people say its a religion
if it were a fact 100% no if ands or buts about it there would be no debate.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 7, 2009)

> you are choosing to believe that, which is why some people say its a religion
> if it were a fact 100% no if ands or buts about it there would be no debate.


I guess you do not understand, that this is putting all the evidence in one basket, I also choose to believe that 1+1=2. There is nothing that says that it is true, heck what is '1' besides a representation of something?

All the evidence that adds up to '1' makes it the best thing to follow.

Same with this. If something comes along that makes that evidence no longer hold up, then guess what that theory has to hold all the old evidence plus the new evidence.

Evolution is a collection of all the information and evidence that has been collected. 

But the bible has no real evidence that they can point to that does not fit within the theory of evolution. All that it offers is faith, which is fine. But it is outdated. Figure you have two buckets one large and one small inside of it. The small one got filled with evidence and is overflowing into the larger bucket. The bible is the small bucket and the evidence that does not fit is being dumped out. The large bucket can hold everything that is in the small bucket and the information that is overflowing.

There could be more larger buckets, but to this point the current bucket just has not started to overflow.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> I guess you do not understand, that this is putting all the evidence in one basket,
> 
> Same with this. *If something comes along that makes that evidence no longer hold up, then guess what that theory has to hold all the old evidence plus the new evidence.*
> 
> ...


I understand what you believe and you really have good reason to believe it its pretty convensing.. 
jehovah witness are dead wrong about what they believe but when you listen to them they are very convensing and have good answers for questions that you ask them.

I do believe that scientist truley believe in evolution and when they find that little out of place fossil they come up with a reason for it and hold onto the evolution theory. 

people can convence themselves to believe just about anything


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Sep 7, 2009)

Fish, I've had just about enough of your ignorance. Since pointing out fact to you won't work hopefully this will:

Please chop your off fingers so we don't have to suffer through anymore of your posts. You don't want to learn, you just want to continue to act like the evidence that proves that the bible is a fictional piece of writing. You argue like a 12 year old kid and it is apparent that you have no business discussing anything more than the new hot wheel designs or how fast you can go on your big wheel.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

i dont know anything about hot wheels 

have you given it any thought or just take what the majority of scientist tell you?

did you know for years scientist told people you kill brain cells when smoking weed?
they knew it wasnt true!!! but did that stop them from telling people that? NO, its one of the reasons marijuana is illegal
can we agree that a few scientist lie and those lies have fooled people for years?
is it possible say in 200 years that evolution can be proven not true? would you accept it?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

It was the vatican which put together the Bible which you now use against them Fish...... see the hypocrisy there? They aren't the authority on the Bible? It's THEIR Bible...... The only part of the Bible which is Christian is the NEW testament. The OLD testament is the JEWISH faith....period. 
If it's good enough for the RCC who amassed edited and decided what WAS TO BE the Bible.....it MUST be good enough for all Christians, else you are the one out of step.


----------



## kms420 (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i dont know anything about hot wheels
> 
> have you given it any thought or just take what the majority of scientist tell you?
> 
> ...


fish i have a simple question just woundering if you could answer for me. ok stay with me lol if god is jesus's father simply speakin who is the creater of god the lord almighty not making fun just always wounderd about that?


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It was the vatican which put together the Bible which you now use against them Fish...... see the hypocrisy there? They aren't the authority on the Bible? It's THEIR Bible...... The only part of the Bible which is Christian is the NEW testament. The OLD testament is the JEWISH faith....period.
> If it's good enough for the RCC who amassed edited and decided what WAS TO BE the Bible.....it MUST be good enough for all Christians, else you are the one out of step.


 
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. 

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?

Did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? No, it did not. 


The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 7, 2009)

kms420 said:


> fish i have a simple question just woundering if you could answer for me. ok stay with me lol if god is jesus's father simply speakin who is the creater of god the lord almighty not making fun just always wounderd about that?


God was not created

this page doesnt do the best job of explaining it but its a good start
http://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 7, 2009)

fish601 said:


> First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.
> 
> Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.
> 
> ...


You need to do a bit more research into the origins of the book you worship so blindly......


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 7, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> I want all things false to die. Give me the truth, no matter what!


That's cool man. You're open enough to be willing to accept what is the truth rather than just shove aside one position versus another. You are waiting for the answer. Fair enough.

I'm a struggling Catholic. I thank my mother everyday for sending me to Catholic School. It's really my only education. I went to a public high school. It was like 7th and 8th grade all over again. Probably the very reason I never attended 

Being Catholic is Christianity. 

I believe one of the twelve apostles established it. Forgive my vagueness. It's been a while. 

Catholosism is the only form of Christianity where you actually see Jesus on the cross while at service. Crown of thorns, nails, blood...the while sha'bang. Not dissing protestants but they show just a cross at their churches. A symbol...my Baptist friends say Catholics idolize symbols too much yet they pray to a cross than many men died on. You see my point. Don't hate cause we use a rosary yet you pray to two pieces of wood that many of men died on. 

Yes we pray to Mary. Is it not ok to ask Jesus' mother for help? She birthed Jesus. Cut us some slack on this one. 

Thee Bible...the Tora, is what Jews primarily read. It's pre Jesus that's why it's not the "official" study material of Christians. Christians generally read the New Testament. But believe me. There are plenty Old Testaments floating around my Catholic Church where I went to school.

I don't believe in the parting of the Seas and all those stories. They are like stories of the Indians. The tribe leader killed a single buffalo by after many generations it became a dozen buffalo by hand. Exaggerations in an effort to prove a point. The moral of the story. 

Healings??? It's possible.

Regarding evolution. I go back to the old debate of "who provided the space for the big bang?" You can't create something from nothing. This is a fact. All this started somewhere and someone had to have provided the space for it.

So...either God exists or we really do live in an ant farm.


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i dont know anything about hot wheels
> 
> have you given it any thought or just take what the majority of scientist tell you?
> 
> ...


I take the evidence they present into consideration and decide if its plausible. Don't you realize that people have been fooled for thousands of years now by a group of guys who wrote a book?

And the reason scientists told people it killed brain cells was because of the tests they did. You need to start educating yourself before you open your mouth, but since you can't I'll tell you why "Marijuana used to kill brain cells".

The way they tested this was to put a mask over a monkey's mouth and nose. For 5 minutes, they would pump weed through the mask and make the monkey inhale it. After 4 minutes without oxygen in monkey's and human's, brain damage occurs. So from their tests, "Marijuana caused brain damage". Fortunately, that his disproven *and the theory has been discarded.*


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

If you ask ANY doctor.....ANY doctor about what life was like back then medically for these ppl. That area was known for having vitamin deficiencies....it was a rough tough place and food was not varied nor abundant enough for a well balanced diet. The Romans considered that area to be the ARMPIT of the Empire! Vitamin deficiencies bring about hallucinations, and all sorts of odd behavior. Couple that to a total lack of foundational science (real explanations), and VOILA..... religion. This has happened EVERYWHERE at some point in time. Throw in some real honest to goodness mental illness.....there must have been tons of it and with no science to diagnose nor treat.... guess what? Religion pops up!!! And People believe it too. Times were desperate, life was tough. Religion offered a comfort. A drowning man will clutch at any straw, no matter how ineffective it truly is.


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 8, 2009)

So the question is "how did something come from nothing?" Big Bang...where did the space for the big bang come from? Something cannot come from nothing.

I like your theory but I can't get myself past the "something from nothing."


----------



## Anonymiss1969 (Sep 8, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> So the question is "how did something come from nothing?" Big Bang...where did the space for the big bang come from? Something cannot come from nothing.
> 
> I like your theory but I can't get myself past the "something from nothing."


Space is emptiness. Therefore, it didn't need to be created. The "Big Bang" started with a singularity (extremely dense matter with extreme temperatures). I'm not a believer, nor am I a disbeliever of this theory. I'm just regurgitating information.


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 8, 2009)

Anonymiss1969 said:


> Space is emptiness. Therefore, it didn't need to be created. The "Big Bang" started with a singularity (extremely dense matter with extreme temperatures). I'm not a believer, nor am I a disbeliever of this theory. I'm just regurgitating information.


I understand your position.

I am a reluctant believer if that makes sense. 

So my question would then be who provided this emptiness and the dense matter and the extreme heat?

2+2 still equals four even on the sun. But how does something come from nothing. I just don't get it.

We must live in an ant farm or there is a higher power.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

How about..... at this juncture the question cannot be answered with a degree of certainty.....stay tuned....

That's what science is all about. Peeling the onion... we have a ways to go. It's okay not to know......for now.


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 8, 2009)

Yeah the big bang is something that is very difficult to get our mind around. But basically the easiest way that I have been able to figure it (for myself) is that time is a man made invention. 

There is no real 'time' everything just is. The why is something that I have not a clue about. Call it god if you want. But even if it is 'god' how is it that he? was always here? And if he? can always be here, then why can't a huge insanely dense amount of material that the big bang came from always be there?



> I understand what you believe and you really have good reason to believe it its pretty convensing..
> jehovah witness are dead wrong about what they believe but when you listen to them they are very convensing and have good answers for questions that you ask them.
> 
> I do believe that scientist truley believe in evolution and when they find that little out of place fossil they come up with a reason for it and hold onto the evolution theory.
> ...


You are right that that 'out of place' fossil needs to fit into evolution, so maybe we do 'find' a place for it. This is where things get debated is why they fit there, not that it doesn't fit, but why they fit where that is debated. This is where the religious like to say that scientists can't agree and it is wrong. Same like the church and if they believe that gay people are sinners or not. 

But if it is something that doesn't fit, and fundementally alters the theory of evolution, then a new theory that fits everything needs to be developed. Infact it won't just be one thing, it will be several new ideas that work everything in.

And then out of all the debate one will rise above with all the data best fitted in. And that will hold until it doesn't.

Like CJ said. It can and may one day be disproved as an outdated theory. But what you refuse to see is that the senerio I had listed above has taken place several times already, and everytime the theories that don't hold up lose credibility and fall aside.

And religion was one of them that this happened to. For many thousand years religion was the dominate 'science'. It is hard to dispute eating this berry that kills you did so because you angered the bush god. Then they decided that the gods needed to be trimmed down and came up with a mono god, and that one held more credibility.

So on until about 500 years ago when it started to be realized that it was too full of holes to be used as the one source of learning. 


But guess what! Remember how you like to point out living fossils to 'disprove' (although they do not even come close to disproving it) evolution, this works with religion and several other 'scientific' beliefs. Just because one theory doesn't hold water, does not mean that the people that chose to believe it to be the case drop it and don't continue to try to make it work. Religion falls into this category. Here is a link that can help explain this: http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html And think about what we are saying, and try to imagine religion in that.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

There is no other theory in Biology which has been tested and retested more than Evolution. A flaw has never been found. It has stood the test of time, and has been found worthy.


----------



## fraiserblaze (Sep 8, 2009)

sounds alot like you got too much time on your hands and not enough bud take 2 tabs of the highest quality acid you can find and become your own god


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Yeah the big bang is something that is very difficult to get our mind around..


 
big bang..  and you think bible stories are fairytales


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 8, 2009)

Science is on the right track. The methodology is sound, the fine tuning continues. 

Science is the answer, not myths. Flail at science all you want, it will just make you seem more incorrect as time goes on. 

As long as Christians (Muslims too) insist that the stories in the bible (Qaran) are true and historical events, they will be a drag on mans progress towards true knowledge.


----------



## sixxgun1 (Sep 8, 2009)

The fact is that religeon is man made, nothing more than philosiphy built upon by man. there is alot of symbolism that goes along with it that too many people take in its literal sense. its natural for people to question why we are here if there is any reason at all, and when they fail to understand that they tend to start rationalizing thru magical thoughts, people who come back from the dead and such, old men that gather 2 of every animal etc. etc. note that the ONLY animals mentioned in the bible are the ones exclusive to that geographic plane. the bottom line is its easier to follow along with what sounds good and to simply believe without question, than it is to think for your self. religeon is philosiphy with a political agenda, history has shown that every empire will fall so its easier to breed people to contain themselves with extremely limited mindsets.


----------



## dontexist21 (Sep 8, 2009)

fish601 said:


> big bang..  and you think bible stories are fairytales


Big Bang supported by mathematical data and experiments, but of course we are talking to some one who just says things are wrong when they do not fit his little world. For some people the world is not simply explained but must always be questioned. For others they take the easy way out since they cannot handle uncertainty. Something tells me you have no idea what the Big Band Theory is.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 8, 2009)

dontexist21 said:


> . Something tells me you have no idea what the Big Band Theory is.


i love this story, please tell me again


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

> i love this story, please tell me again


Just look at it this way Fish. If god was supposed to be there before everything and is eternal, then why can it not be the same with all the matter in the universe?

It is the same concept, eternal, ect. You may as well call it god, but the effect is the same. 

You have all matter which is in one dense object, the gravitational force keeps pulling in on it until it explodes out. That explosion can be equated when and where due to the direction that everything is moving and the speed it is moving. Eventually gravity is pulling on everything and pulling all the dust into larger balls that continue to pull on the other matter out there as it is hurdling through space.

Eventually those 'balls' of matter are going to be very large once again, and pulling on eachother they will form one object once again (feel free to insert god here) and as it pulls all the matter more and more inside of itself it hits a point where the pressure is so much that it explodes once again and the whole process is done again.


I believe that is the gist of it.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 9, 2009)

hanimmal said:


> Just look at it this way Fish. If god was supposed to be there before everything and is eternal, then why can it not be the same with all the matter in the universe?
> 
> It is the same concept, eternal, ect. You may as well call it god, but the effect is the same.
> 
> ...


let me get this right 

you believe matter , gravitational force , speed, space, and dust all existed but you think its unbelievable for a god to exist?


----------



## hanimmal (Sep 9, 2009)

No you know that I have allowed for god everytime it gets to this level. Because nothing is there to disprove it. There is room for god, I am just saying that the man made bibles (aka all of them) are now too narrow to contain everything that we have learned. There _could_ be a greater reason for everything that happens, but we were not imparted with this, so in absence of that we should continue to try to learn and use the gift we have (personal awareness and intelligence) to try to do our best and figure out as much as we can and pass that earned knowledge down through the generations.

Eventually if we last long enough as a species we may need to move from the confines of this planet and we need science to help us to understand how things work, so that we can figure out before we ship out what the best way to do it is.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Sep 15, 2009)

Yet another spam post failing to credit the source.http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolfact.htm


zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


----------



## duguP (Sep 15, 2009)

dragons. classic lol


----------



## fish601 (Sep 15, 2009)

zorkan said:


> "Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
> "No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
> "Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
> "The strata may show..."
> ...


 
your so right.... it doesnt qualify as real science


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 15, 2009)

I find it hard that you can believe in something without any real evidence (Religions) but you will dispute in the face of masses of evidence, I don't claim it to be complete evidence, that Evolution is wrong. All science has flaws, only looking into it further will we get all the answers, if not all of them we will get as many as possible. Religion just holds us back from the truth with unfounded and unproved propagander.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 15, 2009)

Modern evolutionary theory breaks down because it CAN'T explain the origin of the information contained in DNA.
And that is just one huge flaw with the theory, more than enough to bury it. The problem is that most people working in evolutionary biology don't understand this whole information problem. They are not trained in information theory.
DNA is a digital code, much like the english alphabet. The following makes no sense:
allssk gfee ddrruem.
DNA is the same way. There is an alphabet that we haven't fully cracked yet. And only certain 'words' make biological sense. Certain 'words' make meaningful proteins. And my argument isn't even touching on HOW these proteins are put together to make the tiny machines in our cells.
Who laid out that alphabet? Not nature, that's for sure. Nature is redundant. Chemistry contains no information.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 15, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> Modern evolutionary theory breaks down because it CAN'T explain the origin of the information contained in DNA.
> And that is just one huge flaw with the theory, more than enough to bury it.


This does not bury it, it just confirms that it doesn't have all the answers, but we may get there one day. Just need to keep looking at were the evidence leads us. If that evidence eventually tells us as there is a higher being than ourselves that put that code there (lets call him/her/it god for arguments sake, as I don't say there is no god I just doubt it) then fair enough, I will accept what the evidence tells us, but we simply do not have all the answers, but at the moment evolution is the most logical, backed up by evidence, answer we have.

What it does do is show how most religions are a made up load of bollocks with one agenda, to control man with lies.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 15, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> This does not bury it, it just confirms that it doesn't have all the answers, but we may get there one day.


We won't get the answers we look for from classical Darwinian theory.
I am not arguing against natural selection, in and of itself.
But natural selection does not account for what Darwin thought it could.
That is my point.
Darwinian theory can NEVER tell us how the information got into DNA.

Darwinian theory does a good job at explaining alot, but it doesn't account for what Darwin thought it could. That's all.



> Just need to keep looking at were the evidence leads us. If that evidence eventually tells us as there is a higher being than ourselves that put that code there (lets call him/her/it god for arguments sake, as I don't say there is no god I just doubt it) then fair enough, I will accept what the evidence tells us, but we simply do not have all the answers, but at the moment evolution is the most logical, backed up by evidence, answer we have.


This HAS happened. The evidence shows that _some _intelligence was responsible for DNA, and hence, life.

I am not saying that 'evolution' is total garbage. Evolutionary theory does have a good, scientific purpose, but it breaks down in many places, much like Newtonian physics broke down when we started looking at atomic phenomena and physics in large gravitational fields.



> What it does do is show how most religions are a made up load of bollocks with one agenda, to control man with lies.


Government and mainstream media are bigger controllers of what people believe.
I offer you the idea that this same system of control is ALSO in most 'religions'.
All it is is deception.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 15, 2009)

> Modern evolutionary theory breaks down because it CAN'T explain the origin of the information contained in DNA.
> And that is just one huge flaw with the theory, more than enough to bury it. The problem is that most people working in evolutionary biology don't understand this whole information problem. They are not trained in information theory.
> DNA is a digital code, much like the english alphabet. The following makes no sense:
> allssk gfee ddrruem.
> ...


 
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the information contained in DNA. Are we to conclude that germ theory and cell theory are false too because the theory of evolution "CAN'T explain" them? 

I think what you're opposing here is a-biogenesis. Commonly confused with the theory of evolution among creationsts, again showing those that tread in these waters often enough you're true colors, because it goes against their belief. The theory itself is pretty sound when you actually think about it, and as more time passes, we just keep getting closer to reproducing life in the lab. Like I've explained before, man made, synthetic life, created in the lab and you guys would STILL say it's not life because it doesn't have a soul. Be honest Shroomer, if we actually created life, would you recognize it as such, or would you do exactly what I'd expect you to do and shimmy your way out of the corner, again, like always...? At least give me that..

Whose to even say what life is? What if we created a highly intelligent computer that could learn and had emotions, or at least perceived programmed emotions, would that be life? What is life, as defined by you? Let's start with that.

Why not nature? You just admitted in the same exact paragraph "we haven't fully cracked yet."... So how can you be certain nature isn't capable of shaping our species and others? Take a look around you bro, how many different dog species can you see? Did you know wolves, coyotes, fox's, dingo's etc. all evolved from a common ancestor, but they cannot mate with eachother, they are a different species, but look how similar they look. Anyone would agree, even without a general knowledge of genetics or trait variation that they would belong in the same group among a group of animals. Same with all the cats, same with all the birds, etc... Why is that? Take it back even further, all the way back to the beginning, everything that is alive, everything that we've ever studied, dude, litterally millions of different organisms, are ALL based on carbon. All of them. Each and every single one has DNA with the bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. What does that suggest about all life on Earth? Why would an intelligent creator design life that is only based on the element Carbon? Why wouldn't there be other base pairs? It really seems like if there is an intelligent creator behind the scenes, he's not very intelligent and he's trying to trick us into a deceptive kind of blind faith. It's no longer belief without evidence, it's become beliefe DESPITE the evidence. What kind of omnipotent being would design such a system? One I certainly wouldn't worship.

One final note, Chemestry contains all the information on which life as you know it is based. Biology deduces back to Chemestry, Chemestry deduces back to Physics. You're here because biology allowed your existence to happen, biology happened because the chemestry was right, the chemestry was right because the physical laws were right. All the information you see is a result of this. Your misinterpretation of 'information' doesn't mean there is no natural explanation for existence.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 15, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the information contained in DNA. Are we to conclude that germ theory and cell theory are false too because the theory of evolution "CAN'T explain" them?
> 
> I think what you're opposing here is a-biogenesis. Commonly confused with the theory of evolution among creationsts, again showing those that tread in these waters often enough you're true colors, because it goes against their belief. The theory itself is pretty sound when you actually think about it, and as more time passes, we just keep getting closer to reproducing life in the lab. Like I've explained before, man made, synthetic life, created in the lab and you guys would STILL say it's not life because it doesn't have a soul. Be honest Shroomer, if we actually created life, would you recognize it as such, or would you do exactly what I'd expect you to do and shimmy your way out of the corner, again, like always...? At least give me that..


Would this 'life' be mindful? Or would it just be a computer programmed to do what we tell it to do?
We'll see if this synthetic life can make decisions.


> Whose to even say what life is? What if we created a highly intelligent computer that could learn and had emotions, or at least perceived programmed emotions, would that be life? What is life, as defined by you? Let's start with that.


Good question. I guess it would be able to make decisions. I don't really know.


> Why not nature? You just admitted in the same exact paragraph "we haven't fully cracked yet."... So how can you be certain nature isn't capable of shaping our species and others?


I don't doubt nature has shaped life on earth, at all. We respond to external stimuli. 



> Take a look around you bro, how many different dog species can you see? Did you know wolves, coyotes, fox's, dingo's etc. all evolved from a common ancestor, but they cannot mate with eachother, they are a different species, but look how similar they look. Anyone would agree, even without a general knowledge of genetics or trait variation that they would belong in the same group among a group of animals. Same with all the cats, same with all the birds, etc... Why is that? Take it back even further, all the way back to the beginning, everything that is alive, everything that we've ever studied, dude, litterally millions of different organisms, are ALL based on carbon. All of them. Each and every single one has DNA with the bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. What does that suggest about all life on Earth? Why would an intelligent creator design life that is only based on the element Carbon? Why wouldn't there be other base pairs?


There is no reason why this intelligent creator wouldn't use the same parts for different things.
We use engines in motorcycles, cars, submarines, boats, etc. 
It doesn't mean that they all had a common ancestor. It means that engines work well to do certain things.



> It really seems like if there is an intelligent creator behind the scenes, he's not very intelligent and he's trying to trick us into a deceptive kind of blind faith. It's no longer belief without evidence, it's become beliefe DESPITE the evidence. What kind of omnipotent being would design such a system? One I certainly wouldn't worship.
> 
> One final note, Chemestry contains all the information on which life as you know it is based. Biology deduces back to Chemestry, Chemestry deduces back to Physics. You're here because biology allowed your existence to happen, biology happened because the chemestry was right, the chemestry was right because the physical laws were right. All the information you see is a result of this. Your misinterpretation of 'information' doesn't mean there is no natural explanation for existence.


All natural processes are devoid of any kind of information. They are, by definition, redundant. The same thing will happen over and over, given the same initial conditions.

The point here is that chemistry and physics and such can only explain why ink sticks to paper. They can NEVER explain what the message says. It is the same thing with DNA. All things 'natural' (chemistry, physics, etc) can only explain why things attract and bond, but they can't explain what's encoded in DNA, just like chemistry and physics can't explain the english alphabet.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 16, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> Government and mainstream media are bigger controllers of what people believe.
> I offer you the idea that this same system of control is ALSO in most 'religions'.
> All it is is deception.


All to true, but its the religions that started it. After all until recent history in most parts of the world and still in some, it was the "churches" (please change for appropriate religion) that controlled the governments.


----------



## shroomer33 (Sep 17, 2009)

Religion has been, for the longest time, intertwined with government. Even back in Egypt and Babylon, kings/pharaohs were considered gods. This intertwining of religion and state has been around for a reeeeeaaally long time, and it has never done humanity any good. It is all mind control and power. If you can control what people think, you have all the power. And the Catholic Church is a great example of this. 
This is why in America there is supposed to be a 1st Amendment. That is, "Congress *shall make no law* respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise therof *..."*

...at least that's how I see it.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 17, 2009)

I agree, now where told different lies by the government, but at least we have the freedom to believe what we like without persecution from the state, to an extent anyway, giving us the chance to make up our own minds rather than being told we must believe.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 17, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> Religion has been, for the longest time, intertwined with government. Even back in Egypt and Babylon, kings/pharaohs were considered gods. This intertwining of religion and state has been around for a reeeeeaaally long time, and it has never done humanity any good. It is all mind control and power. If you can control what people think, you have all the power. And the Catholic Church is a great example of this.
> This is why in America there is supposed to be a 1st Amendment. That is, "Congress *shall make no law* respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise therof *..."*
> 
> ...at least that's how I see it.


 
At least you admit that much. I'll give you that.

I can't say the same for your boys fish and GreenCross though.. 

Apparently "white male Christians" are being persecuted in America today "specifically because of their religious beliefs". (that's GC talking there, but the way I see it is more people are becoming open to talking about these issues, facts are being presented and knowledge is being shared like never before with things like the internet and it's getting out in the open, becoming public because of this. It's not that religion is being criticized like never before, it's infact being criticized the same, it's just that our technology today makes it easier to witness and harder to hide. That's what CG is seeing, and I fucking *welcome* it! Actually, I personally go a little farther than that, as I'm here actually contributing to it's intevitable demise, not just RIU, but plenty of other places too, as well as in my daily life...)


----------



## Basshead (Sep 17, 2009)

Alot of people inside and outside religion misconstrue its purpose. You don't grab a chainsaw, and walk into a rainforest with the intent of building a Personal Computer. Personal Computers serve their purpose in the technology arena, and Trees serve their purpose in the ecological arena. For us as human beings, we have utilized technology to such an extent that is is a wonderful supplement if we haven't come to is as a dependency completely. But without our ecological system, everything would die. Read MLK :
"softmindedness often invades religion. this is why religion has "sometimes" rejected new truth with dogmatic passion. through edicts and bulls, inquisitions and excommunications, the church has attempted to prorogue truth and place an impenetrable stone wall in the path of the truth seeker. the historical-philological criticism of the Bible is considered by the soft-minded as blasphemous, and reason is often looked upon as the exercise of a corrupt faculty. Softminded persons have revised the Beautitudes to read, "Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God."

This has also led to a widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But this is not true. There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and tough-minded scientists, but not between science and religion. Their respective worlds are different and their methods are dissimilar. Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with cold hard facts; religion deals mainly with ethical values. THE TWO ARE NOT RIVALS. they are complimentary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
does this lead you to better understanding? There are some scientists I am aware of that are getting highly annoyed with our fetishism with the so-called "conflict" between religion and science. Its softmindedness. A strong minded scientist accepts the limitations of his or her practice. A strong minded Religious person accepts the limits of his or her religious belief.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

I'd say rather that Evolution gives Religion the "pink slip". It's no longer really needed. We know enough now to understand that the Bible is a set of nice stories, and there are some good morals to be found within, but it's certainly not the word of G*D. Even the church is sliding on that one..... only the fringes will remain in the end.

I just hope they don't run through the streets with all kinds of snakes..... scares the kids and women.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

Give it Up 4 da Doc'.. Great Find!! +rep

Some people don't cAre 4 Commies..



Basshead said:


> Alot of people inside and outside religion misconstrue its purpose. You don't grab a chainsaw, and walk into a rainforest with the intent of building a Personal Computer. Personal Computers serve their purpose in the technology arena, and Trees serve their purpose in the ecological arena. For us as human beings, we have utilized technology to such an extent that is is a wonderful supplement if we haven't come to is as a dependency completely. But without our ecological system, everything would die. Read MLK :
> "softmindedness often invades religion. this is why religion has "sometimes" rejected new truth with dogmatic passion. through edicts and bulls, inquisitions and excommunications, the church has attempted to prorogue truth and place an impenetrable stone wall in the path of the truth seeker. the historical-philological criticism of the Bible is considered by the soft-minded as blasphemous, and reason is often looked upon as the exercise of a corrupt faculty. Softminded persons have revised the Beautitudes to read, "Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God."
> 
> This has also led to a widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But this is not true. There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and tough-minded scientists, but not between science and religion. Their respective worlds are different and their methods are dissimilar. Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with cold hard facts; religion deals mainly with ethical values. THE TWO ARE NOT RIVALS. they are complimentary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
> does this lead you to better understanding? There are some scientists I am aware of that are getting highly annoyed with our fetishism with the so-called "conflict" between religion and science. Its softmindedness. A strong minded scientist accepts the limitations of his or her practice. A strong minded Religious person accepts the limits of his or her religious belief.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 17, 2009)

Basshead said:


> Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. *Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism*."


I disagree. 

I realize this is it, this life is all there is. That does not make my life less meaningful, it infact makes it MORE meaningful. 

As an atheist, materialism is not the only thing I believe in. I try to be as moral as possible, my atheistic beliefs say nothing about me being a nice guy or believing I have a purpose or striving for success or any of that. This nihilistic view believers (again..) believe atheists have without any evidence (or I guess I shouldn't say any evidence, it's how they think they would feel if they let go of the fairy tale... which sure as fuck says a lot about the people who present these kinds of arguments in the first place eh...) is ridiculous. Just because you might feel lonely and useless without God doesn't mean I would.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Nobody is more materialistic than the church.....


----------



## Brazko (Sep 17, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I realize this is it, this life is all there is. That does not make my life less meaningful, it infact makes it MORE meaningful.
> 
> As an atheist, materialism is not the only thing I believe in. I try to be as moral as possible, my atheistic beliefs say nothing about me being a nice guy or believing I have a purpose or striving for success or any of that. This nihilistic view believers (again..) believe atheists have without any evidence (or I guess I shouldn't say any evidence, it's how they think they would feel if they let go of the fairy tale... which sure as fuck says a lot about the people who present these kinds of arguments in the first place eh...) is ridiculous. Just because you might feel lonely and useless without God doesn't mean I would.


I Disagree, 

I realize this is Not it, This is Not all there is to Life, and Matter in itself is Non existent, so I would be a Fool to Place my Entire Belief/Being in It, 

I Concur, I seriously doubt You would Feel Lonely w/o God, but He Sure is #1 on Your Shit List...,  




CrackerJax said:


> Nobody is more materialistic than the church.....


iS this A True or False Question....


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 17, 2009)

Maybe paris Hilton could give the church a run for it's "money", but it'd be close............


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 17, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I realize this is it, this life is all there is. That does not make my life less meaningful, it infact makes it MORE meaningful.
> 
> As an atheist, materialism is not the only thing I believe in. I try to be as moral as possible, my atheistic beliefs say nothing about me being a nice guy or believing I have a purpose or striving for success or any of that. This nihilistic view believers (again..) believe atheists have without any evidence (or I guess I shouldn't say any evidence, it's how they think they would feel if they let go of the fairy tale... which sure as fuck says a lot about the people who present these kinds of arguments in the first place eh...) is ridiculous. Just because you might feel lonely and useless without God doesn't mean I would.


Are you an athiest that would protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop?

If you don't believe in god or say christianity than it has no meaning. It's pieces of wood that means something to someone else.

You may not be one of these athiest. But I see no Jews or Muslims protesting these symbols. Only athiests. Your very belief system says these mean nothing so why do your brothers pursue their destruction?

I'm not saying you're one of them. I'm trying to understand.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 18, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> Are you an athiest that would protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop?
> 
> If you don't believe in god or say christianity than it has no meaning. It's pieces of wood that means something to someone else.
> 
> ...


No, I would not protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop. 

It's not the cross that bothers me. It's what the message behind the cross does to the mind. 

Jews and Muslims do not protest other religious idols, artifacts or symbols (well they do but not nearly as much as atheists) because they have their own stories with their own prophecies. As an atheist, I sit in a place where there are no stories, my position is that ALL of these stories are EQUALLY as bad for the mind. They all do the same thing, which is close it and cripple a persons ability to think correctly, sensably, logically, rationally. Instead they have faith things will turn out right, or hope their prayers are answered. 

Just for an example...

This stuff has people, my age, believing that dinosaurs walked with man a few thousand years ago... 

That statement in and of itself is enough to simply blow anyones mind. (I would think!) 

HOW THE FUCK COULD THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE YOU ASK???

The short answer;

RELIGON.


----------



## Basshead (Sep 18, 2009)

> padawanbater said :
> As an atheist, materialism is not the only thing I believe in. I try to be as moral as possible, my atheistic beliefs say nothing about me being a nice guy or believing I have a purpose or striving for success or any of that. This nihilistic view believers (again..) believe atheists have without any evidence (or I guess I shouldn't say any evidence, it's how they think they would feel if they let go of the fairy tale... which sure as fuck says a lot about the people who present these kinds of arguments in the first place eh...) is ridiculous. Just because you might feel lonely and useless without God doesn't mean I would.


From what I understand is reasonable to an extent. Although you still call religion a fairy tale, and you also refer to something which is a personal belief, or a testimony, you call it AN ARGUMENT, which seems to give me the impression you approach this with a sense of conflicting, or judgement. Lighten up on the Church People man. Church people = regular people. How much bad, and how much good has come from regular people? There are misanthropes out there, they just don't like people for what people have done. and if you talk to them , they'd probably say something reasonable.. . 

In the New Testament Jesus does say he is here for those who need to be saved, or those who need to be reborn. He says that he's not here for someone who is naturally righteous. If you already have pure righteousness in your soul, heart, and spirit, then you have no need for Jesus. Is what the Bible says, but most churchgoing folk won't tell you this.

Which leads me to my next point, sure we all are set in on the best intentions. But who - REALLY - is perfectly righteous, from our very first breath onward until today? Not everybody needs religion, not everybody needs the Christian Religion. But I do. and I highly recommend it when I feel it necessary. I've fucked up, majorly, in my lifetime, and I was reborn once I understood the Christian Language. Maybe not everybody, but it makes me feel much better.

Also in the stated paragraph you refer to yourself in relation to materialism, and atheism. While you may not be materialistic in your atheism, and I may not be materialistic with my religion, we are probably a minority in our practices. Lets face it, hedonism just feels good because it eases suffering. The buddhists have these noble truths about sufferings. . . But we have to be careful not to let the Bad Spirits fool us into selfishness. Everyone wants to feel good and be happy, Everyone also knows that selfishness causes detriment.

*&#8220;When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.&#8221; - Jimi*


One minute we are enjoying ourselves, the next minute we find ourselves in hell. What an Atheist would refer to as a lack of Equlibrium, a religious person would call a demonic influence.

Back to talking about oneself personally, I will add to the practice. I personally suggest and promote my own religion. I don't shove it down people's throats or tell them they will burn in hell for rejection. Which is common practice in religion. We all just got to reach the collective understanding that was lost. Please realize that the religion itself means no harm. Its some(alot) of the people and what they do in and with the religion. Those people who do bad in religion would have been bad without it as well, and vice versa for "Mad Scientists". Science is made to benefit humanity and build an understanding of Nature. But if you watch Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, he clearly shows that There is a crisis that emerges from industrial and technological advances in science if we don't utilize it with care(pollution, advanced weapons, toxic waste - etc) - and he also states, that in many cases - we haven't. I haven't went and joined the E.L.F. and started hating on industrial engineers, yet.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 18, 2009)

No one blames the ordinary German citizen for WW2 directly, but it couldn't have happened without them. religion falls into the same category, although with a different equation. 
No one directly blames the flock, but one has to wonder if the church could continue the craziness without them.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 18, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No one blames the ordinary German citizen for WW2 directly, but it couldn't have happened without them. religion falls into the same category, although with a different equation.
> No one directly blames the flock, but one has to wonder if the church could continue the craziness without them.


Excellent point CJ. 
, to remove yourself from the building, does not remove you from the Grace of God or Christ, if that is who you truly serve.. For a building is just that, The People are the ones who are the Church


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 18, 2009)

TEHRAN said:


>


gtfo with this spam! You're just making yourself look stupid by showing you don't have any idea how the theory works.


----------



## smoker toker (Sep 24, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Excellent point CJ.
> , to remove yourself from the building, does not remove you from the Grace of God or Christ, if that is who you truly serve.. For a building is just that, The People are the ones who are the Church


Agreed... the building in itself means nothing, the cross in itself, means nothing. I personaly believe in god heaven and jesus, but everything else is what we as human beings make of it. God gave people free will, and it was people who wrote the bible, and that IS fact that a human wrote the bible. A human, who dispite how fiathful he might've been, still has an opinion.

Faith in god is whatever people make it to be... If you're an athiest so be it, but understand that you are the minority in the world, and understand that religion, whether or not you agree with it, exists so long as there are people. Nothing will change that, and like all of us, ya just gotta learn to deal. 

Logically though? At the end of the day, we all die. Out of every belief out there... one of us is right... ... hahaha.. the rest of us are fucked and I'm gonna be sittin in hell saying "Mother fucker should've rolled with the Hindus" rofl (no offense to any Hindus out there )

 Smoker Toker


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 24, 2009)

It looks like "Freedom of religion" can't keep you haters from trying to destroy religion, but that's your right.

If you really didn't care about religion or simply didn't believe in it, you wouldn't waste your time bashing it, you'd ignore it. 

At least have the balls to state your purpose/agenda - is is *NEO-MARXIST FASCISM*
(the new religion of the left)?

Dr. Sanity (link)
Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life​
</B>

"Thursday, January 18, 2007

*NEO-MARXIST FASCISM
*
Iain Murray at The Corner asks, _Is Affluence the Root of All Evil?

_So argue the new moralists of the left, especially the anti-consumer greens. A new book entitled The Challenge of Affluence: Self-Control and Well-Being in the United States and Britain since 1950 advances the idea that consumer choice, affluence and progress have brought us to a moral abyss. Prof. Christie Davies of the British think tank The Social Affairs Unit savages the thesis:
British sobriety was built at an earlier time of increasing affluence, indeed alcohol consumption fell in the last decades of the nineteenth century because the men's beer money was diverted into consumer goods. The problem today is that it has been diverted back again. Yet the worst of all alcohol problems, one that knocked several years off life expectations, was produced in the old Soviet Union - a land of rising money incomes, no consumer goods, high levels of personal saving, no advertising and a population that got fat on bread and spuds, stank of rank tobacco and rolled drunk in the snow. But according to Offer, it's all the fault of capitalism and advertising...

Offer does not suggest how we (and in their different ways the unhappy Americans and the shrinking childless peoples of Eastern and Southern Europe) get out of the pit of affluence but his snide remarks about Conservative politicians imply he likes leftist solutions incorporating the evils of social justice. Sensible people know that it is only through a return to a society based on our old loyalties, traditional values and primordial commitments that a solution could be found. Maybe there is no solution at all but this is the only path with any promise at all. You certainly won't solve the crisis by letting the economy collapse and setting up committees on happiness.​
The new moralists of the left have erected a secular religion as fundamentalist and rigid as any in its belief system. Those who understand the etiology and purpose of postmodern rhetoric will recognize that the agenda of this book is to promulgate (whether consciously or unconsciously) the same old tired anti-capitalistic, anti-consumer slogans of socialism and communism under the new trappings of _multiculturalism_, _political correctness_, and _radical environmentalism _
(three of the four pillars of the 21st century's socialist revival )

It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.

Because, even Karl Marx believed that wealth was a _good_ thing. He was only delusional in thinking that socialism would be able to deliver the goods more efficiently and "fairly" than capitalism. Reality proved him terribly and catastrophically incorrect.

It is said that the only way to make a small fortune as a Marxist is to start with a _large _one--and this truth has been proven repeated all over the world where Marxist ideas have been applied to national economies.

Thus, Marx's decendents have been faced with a terrible ethical dilemma. Their ideology of choice is complete crap and is unable to deliver any of the material goods it promises--so what to do? Simple! You make one tiny little ethical change, and instead of touting that wealth is _good_, you convince people that wealth--and everything that is necessary to create it--is _bad_!

The new ethics of the neo-marxists have taken their beloved Marxist theory several steps further into the realm of delusion; dismissing wealth as anything worthwhile, since they aren't capable of producing it anyway. Meanwhile, the radical environmental wing of the party aggressively asserts that _technology_ is bad and inherently evil because it destroys the earth.

All in all, in their anti-capitalist fervor, they have managed to conclude not only that wealth itself is bad; but _producing _wealth is bad, and that _producers _of wealth are bad. This has enormous implications, especially for the poor saps in the proletariat class (everyone but the revolutionary leaders and the damn capitalists).

But not to worry! Those benevolent leaders will tell you the best way to live as they control all that evil technology for you (just like they did in the old Soviet Union, for example; one of the worst polluters and destroyers of the environment in history); and as they control what makes that technology possible--the human mind.

_They_ will heroically manage whatever wealth does come from your mind and work, for the happiness of all!

Siggy observes in his recent post on "The Patron Saints of Fascism" :

The new religion of the left, anti-Americanism, was founded for one reason and one reason only: to counter the incoming high tide of truth. Revolutions today aren&#8217;t about marxist or socialist agendas. Today&#8217;s revolutionaries cannot hide the truth any longer. Today&#8217;s revolutions are about power.

Today&#8217;s revolutionaries need to upend free societies, capitalism and market economies. That is what people want, from Africa to South America to Eastern Europe because those are the ideas that have liberated and empowered billions of people. The war of ideas is over and the socialist agenda has been soundly defeated on every front. The high tides of freedoms and the aspirations of free men can no more held be back than the high tides of the oceans. Todays&#8217; leaders of &#8216;the revolution&#8217; will be forgotten. Their proved excesses in death, destruction and the curtailing of human rights have guaranteed their legacy- and the legacy of their supporters.
[...]
The religion of the left is as bereft of ideas as it is of political integrity. The sloganeering of _&#8216;No to Terror! No to War!&#8216;_ is as relevant as saying _&#8216;No to Cancer! No to Radiation!_&#8216;
[...]
In fact, the most self absorbed and *materialistic *are the leaders of the most tyrannical regimes in Africa and the Arab world, where greed, corruption, excess and deceit are the defining adjectives of those regimes. Those levels of greed, excess, corruption and self serving attitudes rival the most fanatical religious extremists in their tenacious expressions by citizens of all strata in those countries- and these are the leaders the left reveres.​This is the new fascism; the latest postmodern ploy; the socialist dead-enders' last ticket to power over the masses. Their latest motto is: _No to capitalism! No to the human mind!_ Happiness, they claim, can be found only in a lack of affluence--i.e., in poverty. This attitude is extremely convenient for them ideologically, particularly since that is precisely what the new socialists will create: _poverty for all._

One truth that the left must deny with rabid ferocity is the fact that the greatest human advances--social, cultural, political and economic-- have all come about as the result of the human mind set free to explore _every _possibility and _every _potential. 

_Happiness _, contrary to any and all propaganda, is hidden within the free and joyful exploration of your own potential. Look at any growing child learning about his or her world if you want confirmation of this. 

Any psychologist worth his or her salt could tell you that happiness is not tied either to wealth or poverty _per se_; but is only a by-product that comes about when individuals take responsibility for their own lives; and when they are able to pursue thoses lives, relationships and goals freely, without undue interference from the state or collective.

In other words, in a politically and economically free environment, an individual retains responsibility for his or her own happiness. When the state and those who rule the state say they will take responsibility--then beware.

Happiness is not a gift that any economic or political system can bestow on you or guaranntee. The best any state or society can do with regard to happiness, is to strike down as many barriers that prevent a person from pursuing it in their own unique, individual way. _The state can no more dictate what will make you happy, than it can dictate what would please your palate._

Nevertheless, as the Clare Boothe Luce once wisely quipped, _"Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable."_

At least under capitalism you can be comfortably unhappy. Under the benevolent fascism of the neo-marxists, you will be given endless opportunities to be miserably unhappy.

The neo-marxist fascists--the people who claim to know what is best for you and how to make you happy--will tell you that it is capitalism, materialism, wealth, money, _affluence_ that is the root of all evil; but affluence is only a product of the human mind. As SC&A have remarked many times, utopia cannot be arrived at without the imposition of tyranny. When you try to control affluence--no matter how "good" your intentions might be--you must first enslave the human mind.

And there is no worse evil than that."


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 24, 2009)

No one is saying you can't practice ur religion. 

More and more ppl see it as nonsense in todays world... that's all.


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 25, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> No, I would not protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop.
> 
> It's not the cross that bothers me. It's what the message behind the cross does to the mind.
> 
> ...


Quick background:

I'm a struggling Catholic. Went to Catholic school 1st - 8th grade. I also was an alter boy. If I were to go back to Church it would be a Catholic Church.

My second grade teacher, a Nun was passionate about Dino's dude. To a retarded extreme. I personally don't know anyone in my world of Catholosism or Christianity that thinks the world is a few thousand years old. 

I also had sex ed by 7th grade, condoms and cucumbers dude! In the 5th grade, in an effort to keep us away from harmful drugs they brought in the PD to show us crack pipes, needles...everything except the drug itself. It's not all closed minded marching orders.

I barely showed up to high school. I'm succesful. My only education is from my Catholic school. They were struggling financially when I was there 20 years ago but now have a four year waiting list. 

I don't believe everything in the bible. I know Earth is billions of years old. I don't know what God is.

I cannot wrap my brain around The Big Bang. Something does not come from nothing. Even the "emptiness" that people talk about. Emptiness is something. Somebody either provided the space for the big bang or we really are in a giant ant farm.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 25, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> Quick background:
> 
> I'm a struggling Catholic. Went to Catholic school 1st - 8th grade. I also was an alter boy. If I were to go back to Church it would be a Catholic Church.
> 
> ...


 
Does your opinion of the meaning of life have anything to do with your belief in God?

ie, do you believe if there was no ''meaning'' as defined by a religion or a God, life would be meaningless and there wouldn't be any point?


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 25, 2009)

I'm just trying to understand where the space that Big Bang took place in came from.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 25, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> I'm just trying to understand where the space that Big Bang took place in came from.


 
Could have been another universe like our own, there could very well BE other universes, how would we know, we can't see that far into space, we can see the edge of space, where no more stars are, but beyond that, light has not reached that far yet, so we can't see anything.


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 26, 2009)

So then you say no Big Bang? Then what created those other universes that started ours?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 26, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> So then you say no Big Bang? Then what created those other universes that started ours?


 
No, I do support the big bang theory. The evidence points to it being correct, more correct than anything else presented so far.

If there are other universes, what created them or how they were created is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. There will *always *be an infinite regress, no matter what you believe. If you believe God created everything, well, what created God? What created that? What created that... If the big bang happened, what happened before that? What happened before that happened..? 

What we need to do is look at what reality tells us, the best way to do that is by using science, as that is *exactly *what it's for. It's got fail proofs in it's design that won't allow for mistakes to slip through the cracks of scrutiny and criticism. 

It's a GIANT leap to go from the evidence we DO HAVE about how the universe began to "magic man done it".


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 26, 2009)

Science says something cannot come from nothing. The "beginning" is highly debatable and requires a leap of faith from any perspective in my opinion.


----------



## fish601 (Sep 26, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> What we need to do is *look at what reality tells us*, the best way to do that is by using science, as that is *exactly *what it's for. It's got fail proofs in it's design that won't allow for mistakes to slip through the cracks of scrutiny and criticism.
> 
> It's a GIANT leap to go from the evidence we DO HAVE about how the universe began to "magic man done it".


 
look at reality you said? 

this guy did

_John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA)_: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."


think about this

The laws of physics are extremely fine tuned to permit the existence of matter, much less, the existence of biological life forms. For some of these physical laws, a change of as little as 1 part in 1037 (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) would prevent the universe from ever containing any kind of life.

did that happen by chance?









_Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics)_: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 26, 2009)

Well put Fish.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> look at reality you said?
> 
> this guy did
> 
> ...


 
Total _appeal to authority_ right there fish. I don't care at all what John O'Keef says about his personal experiences on reality, you know why? Because they don't mean anything to me. They are his own personal experiences, which has nothing at all to do with science. What if Mr. O'Keef believed he alone had the power to defeat gravity, since he's such an important astronomer at NASA, should we just all start believing we can defeat gravity too?? 

I know this is going to fly right over your head, again, for I think the third time now in this one thread alone... But nothing happened by chance. We are not here by chance, our existence isn't because of chance, our planet isn't because of chance, our consciousness isn't because of chance, I am not responding to your bullshit because of chance. You don't have any idea what the fucking word "chance" even means apparently. You have a "chance" you might win at the slots. There is a "chance" your kid will come out a boy and there's a "chance" it'll come out a girl. It's like saying a car happened by "chance". 

The conclusion of the existence we perceive is the way it is because there IS *NO OTHER WAY* FOR IT TO BE! Meaning there IS NO CHANCE involved.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 26, 2009)

Even if the big bang cannot be explained fully.... it doesn't necessitate inserting a mythical figure to fill the void. It's OK to not have the answer. You know more answers than those who came before you and ppl later on in time when we are all dust and long gone will have more answers than we do now.......


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 26, 2009)

fish601 said:


> look at reality you said?
> 
> this guy did
> 
> ...


You going on about chance and odds again. Thought we had this conversation in another thread and I put it quite simply in that thread and you shut up. Now your on another thread saying the same old shit and being shown logical arguments against your BS but you will not waver. I congratulate you on your resolve but you are truely ignorant fish. 

Any thing can come about by chance, because there is a chance. You say the odds are 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000 you can add as many 0's onto it as you like but odds can always come around in the end. because your saying chance you must be admitting that it could have happened. It does not matter how small of a chance there is, its still a chance. When you bring in the amount of planets there are in the universe then the chances increase, another day passes by with another chance of it happening.
Keep quoting chance and odds, it just contradicts your point.


----------



## Sure Shot (Sep 26, 2009)

It's pretty funny how fish's insights all come from copy + paste. LOL!!!


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 27, 2009)

I think the big bang theory is missing the whole boat. Odds are it's not about one big bang there is probably just a natural cycle to the universe as there is in all other things. A big bang follwed by a universe expanding for some unthinkable number of years which then slows and eventually contracts and crunches and then bangs again over and over. No actual beginning or end. With life randomly being created every place conditions are right. And as one dimension is expanding another is contracting, as one universe is being destroyed another is being created. Of course no god... Duh...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 27, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> You going on about chance and odds again. Thought we had this conversation in another thread and I put it quite simply in that thread and you shut up. Now your on another thread saying the same old shit and being shown logical arguments against your BS but you will not waver. I congratulate you on your resolve but you are truely ignorant fish.
> 
> Any thing can come about by chance, because there is a chance. You say the odds are 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000 you can add as many 0's onto it as you like but odds can always come around in the end. because your saying chance you must be admitting that it could have happened. It does not matter how small of a chance there is, its still a chance. When you bring in the amount of planets there are in the universe then the chances increase, another day passes by with another chance of it happening.
> Keep quoting chance and odds, it just contradicts your point.


Throw five decks of cards up in the air until they fall in one neat stack, sorted by suit and value. Then we can talk.

any odds more than 1 over 10 to the 50th power are considered an impossibility.


----------



## tebor (Sep 27, 2009)

What about the Allegorical interpretations of Genesis?
For Christians in this school of thought (no protestatns though, but they're not true Christians anyway.) the dinosaur argument is useless.

From wiki:
Those who favor an allegorical interpretation of the story claim that its intent is to describe humankind's relationship to creation and the creator. Some Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory instead of as historical description, indeed much earlier than the development of modern science. Two notable examples are Augustine of Hippo (4th century) who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain account of Genesis would require [1]; and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> Throw five decks of cards up in the air until they fall in one neat stack, sorted by suit and value. Then we can talk.
> 
> any odds more than 1 over 10 to the 50th power are considered an impossibility.


 
fish, consider this... 

Lets see how your Christian mind wraps around this one...

I'm going to show you exactly what "odds" mean and how they mean absolutely nothing when talking about things *that have already happened*. Calculating odds for something that has already happened is like picking the winning lottery numbers after the lottery...

I'm sitting in my backyard looking at my plants, just sitting there... A leaf lands on my knee from the tree above me. Do you have any idea the odds of that happening fish? Think about it. I'm 21 years old, what could the chance possibly be that I'd be in that exact spot, at that exact time? Further, what could the chances possibly be for that tree to have gone through countless life cycles to produce that single leaf that landed on my knee at that exact moment in time? 

Another example... 

What could the odds be that every single person on the planet is in their current position in time, at this exact moment, right now? There are over 6 billion people, each with free will and their own thoughts. What are the odds each person would be where they are? 

I really hope you can see how these examples defeat your position of arguing from ''odds''. You *cannot *calculate the odds of something that has *already happened* and say "see, that's way too small, it's much too unlikely..". In *both* examples I provided, the odds are UNIMAGINABLY small, MUCH SMALLER than any odds you could come up with in opposition to the theory of evolution, yet both of them happen...

If this isn't clear enough for you to understand, tell me.


----------



## That 5hit (Sep 27, 2009)

if being christian means 
your are trying to be more christ like
then why arent christian trying to be jewish
thats what jesus was ???????????????


----------



## fish601 (Sep 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> The laws of physics are extremely fine tuned to permit the existence of matter, much less, the existence of biological life forms. *For some of these physical laws, a change of as little as 1 part in 1037* (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) would prevent the universe from ever containing any kind of life.
> 
> did that happen by chance?





PadawanBater said:


> But nothing happened by chance. We are not here by chance, our existence isn't because of chance, our planet isn't because of chance, our consciousness isn't because of chance,.





krustofskie said:


> You going on about chance and odds again.
> 
> Any thing can come about by chance, because there is a chance. You say the odds are 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000 .


 


PadawanBater said:


> fish, consider this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nope it is is not clear.. 
I said
*For some of these physical laws, a change of as little as 1 part in 1037*
then i asked did that happen by chance? and you all just went off.....
here is where i got that info from http://www.godandscience.org/love/sld009.html


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 27, 2009)

fish601 said:


> here is where i got that info from http://www.godandscience.org/love/sld009.html


And thats an unbiased site for you information. Hard to take any notice of the info when they state that God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate). What a load of crap answer.


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 27, 2009)

Again, both sides require a great leap of faith to substantiate.

I'm willing to admit I'm struggling with my faith in God but everyone on here that sounds like pure evolutionists still cannot explain how everything began. They reference highly debatable science that no one can wrap their brains around (much like god). Something does not come from nothing.

CrackerJax says you cannot immediately say a mystical person created the universe just because we don't have the answer. But so many here claim that pure raw evolution (big bang moving forward) exists like Jack Daniels. That it was distilled and delivered. Please just explain to me how it all started.

The answer is you just don't know how it all started but are not willing to consider anything outside of pure science. Or we haven't found it yet.

We will never find out how to make something out of nothing because 1+1 still equals two on the sun.

Something from nothing doesn not exist. If you think it does then we live in an ant farm and we are all wrong.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 27, 2009)

smokealittle said:


> If I may. If that is a load of crap, how say big bang?


The big bang theory has holes in it, meaning we dont have all the answers yet, but it certaintly got a lot less holes in it than the religouse explinations.

At least with the big bang its open to being changed according to the data we have and will get further down the line, using logical means to come to a conclusion.

Religion changes its mind about things only when it suits them to try and control and some times apease the masses.

I feel most theories that religions try to dispute have room for God, its just the religions that claim to be the way to God are contradictory to the theories.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 27, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> if being christian means
> your are trying to be more christ like
> then why arent christian trying to be jewish
> thats what jesus was ???????????????


Being a Christian isn't about trying to be "Christ like" it's realizing that you're a sinner and accepting Christ as your savior. 

Many Jews at that time recognized Him as their Messiah, but if you're not Jewish that has nothing to do with you.

"_The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes."_ 

Jesus said to them, "_Have you never read in the scriptures: 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lords doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it._" When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. (Matt. 21:38-45)

And they were right


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 27, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> The big bang theory has holes in it, meaning we dont have all the answers yet, but it certaintly got a lot less holes in it than the religouse explinations.
> 
> At least with the big bang its open to being changed according to the data we have and will get further down the line, using logical means to come to a conclusion.
> 
> ...


Science hasn't changed? Really? The earth was flat at one time. 

Less holes in it...

I know of no facts as to how something is created from nothing. Hate to keep beating that horse but it's a really big horse full of holes that nobody can explian.

Please explain.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 27, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> Science hasn't changed? Really? The earth was flat at one time.
> 
> Less holes in it...
> 
> I know of no facts as to how something is created from nothing. Hate to keep beating that horse but it's a really big horse full of holes that nobody can explian.


The bible never said the world was flat science did


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 27, 2009)

Good point, I don't believe everything in the bible though. But I also don't subscribe to this whole thing about something exploding when nothing was there to begin with.

I'm no math genious but here is science today 0+0=0.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 27, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> Science hasn't changed? Really? The earth was flat at one time.
> 
> Less holes in it...
> 
> ...


As I said science IS open to change, thats whats good about it, it measures up the information it has to come to a conclusion. When there is new information then it will re-evaluate. Religion is less changing and only seems to change to suit its own means. eg: the Pope now says young children that died before confirmation no longer go to purgatory but now go to heaven, a changed view because the masses didn't agree with it so to appease them and keep the flock the view was changed.

As for the whole of the big bang that everything appeared from noting, thats not the view of most. Most believe, and I say believe as it cant be truly prooven, that all matter has always existed and that the big bang has happend many times before and will happen again and again. When the universe has finished expanding it will contract to the point where the big bang will happen again.

Once again even with this there is room for "God" but it does contradict what religions tell us. Time to seperate the idea of "God" away from man made religions.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 27, 2009)

> Dear, Sir How can you calculate the odds of something that never happend?


In the context of the discussion fish and I had, I was just explaining how odds don't really mean anything when trying to calculate the odds of things that have already happened. The smallest odds are meaningless if the event already happened, say there was a chance of 1 in 3 billion for some random event to happen...k, say it happened... that doesn't do anything to the odds, the odds stay the same. You can't look at the event, then calculate odds backwards... it doesn't make any sense. That's what he does with evolution, evolution happens, it's a verifiable fact, he admits micro evolution happens, then he sits there and says "but the odds against it are soooooooo small!"... as if taking both positions won't be pointed out...



> Again, both sides require a great leap of faith to substantiate.
> 
> I'm willing to admit I'm struggling with my faith in God but everyone on here that sounds like pure evolutionists still cannot explain how everything began. They reference highly debatable science that no one can wrap their brains around (much like god). Something does not come from nothing.
> 
> ...


It's not our responsibility to explain "how everything began". That has *nothing* to do with the theory of evolution. So I guess a more accurate description would be "big bangers" or something similar.. I'm a proud "big banger". lmao.. Anyway.. I do not know how everything began. I'm not going to sit here and lie and say I do. Where would that get me? I know it would get me nowhere... fast. Faster than _actually _not knowing... It's not a secret, and I fully admit it. That my friend is *progress*. 

The science is difficult if you don't know the basics. Trust me if you spend enough time researching, reading and studying this stuff it's not that hard to grasp basic concepts. The biggest obstacle is ALWAYS a persons faith, because what you discover to be true about the reality we experience usually conflicts with what was thought to be true thousands of years ago to ancient man. Your books tell you *specifically* that anything that tries to "lead you away from your faith" is guided by evil intentions, or evil spirits, or satan himself... If they don't say that, they must imply it because a lot of the believers I come across seem to believe that. It's not that the information is difficult, it's that the way they learn is selective. It's unbelievably detremental to oneself to only absorb and actually learn the things your belief system tells you is OK to learn. 

The big bang theory does not ever say "something came from nothing". Not at all. HUGE misconception. But what does Christianity, Judaism, Islam say about the creation of man? The creation of everything?.. They are the ones who are saying "something came from nothing" aren't they? 

The big bang theory is easy to understand if you realize it's not 100% certain, just like I explained pretty much nothing is 100% certain. If you're looking for absolute certainty, you will never be satisfied. The concepts involved are difficult to understand sometimes because they involve things we've never experienced, no time, no space, etc.. Things that happened litterally in the beginning.. The laws say matter can't come from nothing, and matter cannot be destroyed, only changed. That holds true everywhere we've ever been or ever seen. Whose to say that our universe didn't come from some other universe? Or from a previous universe's big bang that expanded, ran it's course then contracted and is in the cycle again? Time is such a difficult thing to grasp for our human minds, do not let that limit your ability to think outside the box.



> The bible never said the world was flat science did


...and the absolute beauty of this one ladies and gentlemen... GC doesn't seem to get the irony in it... 

Sir, the basic, uneducated human population of the world, you know, the ones who did not travel across oceans yet... the ones who were religious... were the ones saying the world was flat. It wasn't until science got involved that we discovered the world was round. Pull your head out, you're missing reality.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 27, 2009)

The Bible says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 

In order to have intelligent design you must have a Creator. 

Let's say you have all the ingredients necessary to make a set of blue prints, pencils, erasers, paper, rulers, etc. and you throw them up in the air, or explode (big bang) them in random patterns... do this as many times as you like you're never going to create anything but a mess. 

Science only confirms every thing creationist already believe, the universe is incomprehensible, and miraculous.


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 27, 2009)

At least everyone here has finally agreed that the big bang is a stretch. 

I'm still sticking to 0+0=0. Something from nothing does not exist even on another planet or the sun.


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 27, 2009)

From:
*The Evolution of Man 
Scientifically Disproved*

*in 50 Arguments*

*27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED*
Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:
1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.
2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":
4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.
5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.
6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.
7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.
8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"
9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.
10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.
11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.
12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?
13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."
14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.
In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.
Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?
Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."
Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."
Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."
Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."
Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."
Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."
The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.
Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."
Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."
Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?
Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."
Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.
Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."
Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."
These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."

"...
*25. ANALOGY; MATHEMATICS, LAWS*
Analogy raises a presumption against evolution. Analogy is not a demonstration. It is an illustration that strengthens and confirms other arguments. Both the science of mathematics and all physical laws must have come into being in an instant of time. Evolution is not God's usual method of creation.
1. Mathematical--There is no evolution in the science of mathematics. There is no change or growth or development. God is the author of all mathematical principles. The square described on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides, because he made it so The circumference of a circle is approximately 3.1416 times the diameter because he made it so. The wonderful calculations by logarithms, whether by the common system with a base of 10, or the Napierian system with a base of 2.718+ a decimal that never terminates, are possible and reliable only because God made them so. Think what great intelligence is required by the Napierian system, to raise a decimal that never terminates, to a decimal power that never terminates, in order to produce an integral number. Yet God has computed instantaneously every table of logarithms, and every other mathematical table--no matter how difficult. Thus we have positive proof of the presence everywhere of a great intelligent Being, and we catch a glimpse of that mind that must be infinite. He created the whole system of mathematics, vast beyond our comprehension, at once. A part could not exist without the whole. No growth; no change; no evolution; no improvement, because the whole system was perfect from the first. Reasoning from analogy, is it not reasonable to say that the God who flashed upon the whole universe, the limitless system of mathematics in an instant, also created man as Moses said? Analogy supports the doctrine of the special creation of man in a day.
The great system of mathematics which could not exist without a creator, is so extensive that 40 units are taught in a single university. New subjects are added, new text books written, new formulas devised, new principles demonstrated--and the subject is by no means exhausted He, by whose will this fathomless science came into existence, knows more than all the mathematicians of the past, present and future, and possibly all the evolutionists of the world."

And that isn't even half of it. Click on the link above to see the whole work.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 27, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> At least everyone here has finally agreed that the big bang is a stretch.
> 
> I'm still sticking to 0+0=0. Something from nothing does not exist even on another planet or the sun.


Have you been reading. Everything must be a stretch if you go along your thinking. Nothing is 100% but with the data we have the big bang is the most likely. Certainly more likely than religions answers. And the big bang theory does not say everything comes from nothing. It does not try to explain the before as it does not have the data to come to that conclusion, so then we must surmise what was before and it seems quite logical that all matter has always existed, why must there have been a creator that put it there, cant everything just 'be' and everything is on a cycle, universe expands, universe contracts, universe expands universe contracts and so on and so on.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 27, 2009)

Weak arguments are one thing, but:
"6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."

Someone honestly wrote this down as one of the top reasons disproving evolution? And we're supposed to still take any of the rest of that seriously?

Ancient heathen doctrine, that's a kick.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 27, 2009)

Imagine I had two cups, one with *blue* liquid and one with *yellow* liquid. I take a straw and get a few drops of *blue* and drop them into the *yellow* cup. Say I did this for an hour... Now, at what point does the *yellow* liquid turn *green*? Is there an *exact* moment that it happens? Can you stop the timer at a random moment and clock that as "*GREEN!*"? 

That is how evolution works... only muuuuuuuuuuuuuuch larger amounts of time and many more changes...


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 27, 2009)

I belive in evolution...duh right. We've found the bones. I don't need analogies and feel analogies are a crutch for lack of a better explanation.

I'm willing to accept that there is some science. Despite zero support anywhere in science for my "something from nothing" idea, you still firmly believe religion cannot exist but yet only science can.

Your unwillingness to come off your platform makes you sound like the same people that say that the world is only a few thousand years old.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 27, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> I'm willing to accept that there is some science. Despite zero support anywhere in science for my "something from nothing" idea, you still firmly believe religion cannot exist but yet only science can.


I and the big bang theory DO NOT claim "something comes from nothing", why do you keep bringing this up as an argument. For the third time now I will put it to you that all matter has always existed and the big bang is something that has happened countless times before and will happen countless times more in the future due to the universe expanding and then contracting time and time again.

And your right I don't think religion can exist with science but I can conceive a "God" existing with science, not what I believe but I can conceive it. Seperate man made religions from th idea of "God"


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 27, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> I and the big bang theory DO NOT claim "something comes from nothing", why do you keep bringing this up as an argument. For the third time now I will put it to you that all matter has always existed and the big bang is something that has happened countless times before and will happen countless times more in the future due to the universe expanding and then contracting time and time again.
> 
> And your right I don't think religion can exist with science but I can conceive a "God" existing with science, not what I believe but I can conceive it. Seperate man made religions from th idea of "God"


It's a very simple concept that science does not like to discuss. So it's not in any of their teachings. That's why.

It's as simple as it gets. No copying and pasting, no references from the bible or from other books. Just really simple.

So simple my athiest friends won't answer the question. It really gets them wound up.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 28, 2009)

DubsFan said:


> It's a very simple concept that science does not like to discuss. So it's not in any of their teachings. That's why.
> 
> It's as simple as it gets. No copying and pasting, no references from the bible or from other books. Just really simple.
> 
> So simple my athiest friends won't answer the question. It really gets them wound up.


But you *are* claiming that science says the big bang came from nothing when they don't, so you're argument is mute. You are making a statement not asking a question. Who in science says 0+0=1, no-one is claiming that but *you* insist they do, so for a *fourth time* of telling you all matter could have existed for all time and the universe has expanded and contracted many many times, *this is not 0+0=1*. Science doesn't have all the answers, yet, thats why you're athiest friends cant answer you.

To say science doesn't like to discuss it, shut up, thats all science does, to try and explain and learn all they can with logic and reason using the evidence at their disposale.


----------



## Mcgician (Sep 28, 2009)

You can't take the bible literally! Nor can you take infant sciences at their word either. The Bible is full of stories and lessons, and in many cases, has the archaeological evidence to back up what is written. Science can NEVER disprove the existence of God. Try again.


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 28, 2009)

Mcgician said:


> You can't take the bible literally! Nor can you take infant sciences at their word either. The Bible is full of stories and lessons, and in many cases, has the archaeological evidence to back up what is written. Science can NEVER disprove the existence of God. Try again.


Your are right and I agree "Science can never disprove the existence of "God" and its not trying to. But it does contradict religouse teachings. The argument is against man made religions invented by man to control man by man, not against the existence of a "God"


----------



## Mcgician (Sep 28, 2009)

krustofskie said:


> Your are right and I agree "Science can never disprove the existence of "God" and its not trying to. But it does contradict religouse teachings. The argument is against man made religions invented by man to control man by man, not against the existence of a "God"


Where does it say that? thanks.


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> 14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.
> In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?
> And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.
> Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?
> ...


Your post was bullshit in general, but this list of "the highest authorities in the world" really takes the cake for me. Some of these guys have been the subject of conversations that have taken place in the past few days on here. Most i'd never heard of. So, I hit up google.

This list comprises ENTIRELY of people who lived in the 1800s. Some of them had extreme views in general, and not just regarding religion. Many were actually supporters of evolution who have had their words taken out of context. Some were religious zealots. Many were not the experts your article claims them to be. _None of them_ had access to the evidence we have today, particularly genetic evidence.

Do you have any modern day, respected scientists making these kind of statements?


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 28, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> I think the big bang theory is missing the whole boat. Odds are it's not about one big bang there is probably just a natural cycle to the universe as there is in all other things. A big bang follwed by a universe expanding for some unthinkable number of years which then slows and eventually contracts and crunches and then bangs again over and over. No actual beginning or end. With life randomly being created every place conditions are right. And as one dimension is expanding another is contracting, as one universe is being destroyed another is being created. Of course no god... Duh...



I agree that perhaps Man at this juncture cannot explain how the Universe came into play. I also think it may be a bit much to ask of 21st century man's science. 

So perhaps we are not equipped to say with certainty what happened long ago. It doesn't mean science as a whole is a stretch. Most everyone can agree that so far science has been the best tool man has. We use it every day, sometimes without thinking about it at all, taken for granted. 

So using science to look at the Big Bang is not such a stretch. Following where science takes us seems to be the only path that will eventually lead to an answer.

Religion has no real answer. It just says... it is. It has only a book written by men to say it's true. 

Religion is the stretch. That much is plain. So which path will bear the fruit? I think that answer is an easy one to make, and more ppl are making it every day.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 28, 2009)

Cracker I think you took my post wrong. I was only trying to clear up the idea that the big bang meant something or everything came from nothing. I believe in the big bang theory, partially at least, unless that claim is made.

I wasn't argiung against it entirely, only that small detail.

I'm an athiest...


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 28, 2009)

Nocturn3 said:


> Your post was bullshit in general, but this list of "the highest authorities in the world" really takes the cake for me. Some of these guys have been the subject of conversations that have taken place in the past few days on here. Most i'd never heard of. So, I hit up google.
> 
> This list comprises ENTIRELY of people who lived in the 1800s. Some of them had extreme views in general, and not just regarding religion. Many were actually supporters of evolution who have had their words taken out of context. Some were religious zealots. Many were not the experts your article claims them to be. _None of them_ had
> 
> ...


No, what's BS is your poor attempt to discredit all the sources I listed, using nothing more than immature insults. Now try to think logically instead of emotionally. 

The order seen in the universe can't possibly be explained by some random, disorderly event. If it could... you big bangers, should be able to provide many everyday examples of this happening. Isn't there 1 example of a natural disaster resulting in at least 1 new species? 

What's amazing to me is that these big bangers have so much faith in what they preach, even though there is little evidence of a "big bang". Evolution is your religion, and you feel so strongly about it, you're motivated in telling everyone about your new found faith all over the Internet. You're as bad as Jehovah's witnesses aren't you, spreading your doctrine here, with no evidence whatsoever?


----------



## Green Cross (Sep 28, 2009)

*Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution*



Printer-friendly version
Reports of the National Center for Science EducationTitle: 
Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution


Author(s): 
Larry Witham


Volume: 
17


Issue: 
6


Select Year: 
1997


Date: 
NovemberDecember


Page(s): 
33


_This version might differ slightly from the print publication._


While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

"I believe God could work through evolution," a South Carolina mathematician wrote in a marginal note on the survey "Bell shaped curves describe how characteristics are distributed.. . so I think that God uses what we perceive to be 'random processes.'" Despite such affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man, according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.

"I am surprised to find that so many are theistic evolutionists" Duncan Porter, a Virginia Tech botanist and Darwin scholar, said in an interview. "As an Episcopalian, I don't compartmentalize those things," he said of God and evolution, "I put them together in an overall view." Rick Potts, director of human origins at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said it is not unusual to find religious beliefs in any community including scientists.

But "I'm happy to see that 55% are taking a naturalistic approach," he said. "Most anthropologists would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side. We want to explain our phenomenon without recourse to things we can't observe or measure." The survey, which had a 60% response rate, asked scientists the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God "guided" evolution to create humans.

While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.

Because only a quarter to a third of Americans are Protestant evangelicals or fundamentalists, the 1991 Gallup Poll showed that many mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews believe in a "last 10,000 years human creation." The 1991 poll also showed that college-educated Americans were far more likely to accept evolution, underscoring their closer affinity to the views of scientists.

The standard view in science is that modern-day _Homo sapiens_ emerged 40,000 years ago and began to organize societies 10,000 years ago. The oldest humanlike ape is called _Australopithecus_, or "southern ape." It was found in Africa and is believed to date back 4 million years. _Homo erectus_ developed 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia beginning 100,000 years ago.

The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality. Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics. Before the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, scientists and the Western public agreed that God designed human life. Afterward, they became sharply divided.

The belief that God creates through evolution has been called "theistic evolution" though there are different views on how much God intervenes in the process. A physicist from New Mexico wrote on the survey that God created man "within the last 10,000 years, but the universe is billions of years old." Two biologists from Ohio refined the question about God and evolution. One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place." "Creation science," most visible in school board debates and court rulings, is only one brand of creationism. It holds that the earth is about as young as human creation. But many Bible believers combine an ancient earth and some evolution with a recent human creation.

[_This article appeared in the _Washington Times_ on April 11, 1997, pA8. It is reprinted here with permission._]


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 28, 2009)

I get such a kick out of statements like that. Spreading doctrine with no evidence whatsoever is what you're guilty of, not us. The only evidence you have is a book written and edited many times by men, based on stories we can see are only ripoffs from previous faiths. 

And only you claim evolution is a religion, nobody else does. My life wouldn't change one bit if tomorrow evolution was proved false somehow. If your religion were proved false (to your satisfaction) you can't tell me you wouldn't be devastated.

Aren't you the slick willy con artist precher with a pot club who also teaches "how to get rich quick in the marijuana industry" classes? I question your ethics... I don't know you, maybe you aren't a scamming tool but I think of TV evangalist type guys who claim jesus needs cash when I think of you and your story Green Cross. Have you ever been on TV in that regard? Do you wear a rolex and drive a bently and take money from grandma's on social security or did the police confiscate it all?


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 28, 2009)

> The order seen in the universe can't possibly be explained by some random, disorderly event. If it could... you big bangers, should be able to provide many everyday examples of this happening. Isn't there 1 example of a natural disaster resulting in at least 1 new species?
> 
> What's amazing to me is that these big bangers have so much faith in what they preach, even though there is little evidence of a "big bang". Evolution is your religion, and you feel so strongly about it, you're motivated in telling everyone about your new found faith all over the Internet. You're as bad as Jehovah's witnesses aren't you, spreading your doctrine here, with no evidence whatsoever?


Take a look around, why don't you go ahead and give me a few examples of things in the universe that you think are orderly. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Zero faith involved in accepting the big bang theory. That's another thing that's pretty telling about you guys... How you miss it is beyond me... You *know* having faith in something is *retarded*, yet your Bible tells you you MUST have faith. So you have to try to bring science down to the level of retardation your faith is on just so you feel like you can have a fair fight. The sad part is, if it's subconcious or not, you *know* having faith in your religion is an illogical position to hold. You keep your faith, I'll stick with the evidence.

The motivation to tell people about evolution has to do with the benefits knowing about this stuff would bring to people, on a large scale, if enough of them knew about it. It has to do with dropping the religious motivations for things like war. It shows us we're all equal, nobody is better or worse, because as a species, we are all the *same*. You asshats have somehow turned the theory around with eugenics and Hitler and Stalin and Mao... I swear the things your brains conceive... I guess if you can come up with and "believe" in any of those creation myths it's not a stretch to avoid all *real* knowledge about actual things... But it really is sad.

*



Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution

Click to expand...

*


> Printer-friendly version
> Reports of the National Center for Science EducationTitle:
> Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution
> 
> ...









First Mistake - You went and got a paper from 1997 - that's 12 years ago - to defend your position. 

A - BUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLSHIT GC. You *clearly* misinterpret "include God in the process" as "Yep yes sir, that's mah Jebus!"... "include God in the process" could mean anything from "some uknown natural force we havn't recognized yet" - similar to Einsteins view, similar to a LOT of atheists I know, to "magic man in teh sky dun it!" like the 30% or so of Americans (mainly the South.. sorry for the generalization my atheist friends in the south, I know how you feel!) 

B - Pwned.

C - "it is not unusual to find religious beliefs in any community including scientists." - Again, could mean anything...

D - "Most anthropologists would draw the line heavily toward the naturalistic side." - LMAO, Pwned again! Gee, I wonder why the scientists actually studying the origins of humans would be the ones most likely to lean "heavily toward the naturalistic side"... 

E - Basically saying there is a huge gap in belief between the general public and the scientific community... GC, if your house was on fire, would you go call the baker? Howbout the nurse?... Or would you do the smart thing and call the firemen? Who do you think you should talk to about science... - that's what you're doing, you're house is burning away and you're getting the lawyer to come put the flames out when it's the firemen you need to be talking to.

F - Pfft! Dude, why did you post this? It's totally supporting my position!

G - Where the hell did you get those ''facts''...? Flawed big time.

...anyway, here's an *updated* survey of scientists who accept evolution;













http://www.polypterus.com/results.pdf







http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf







http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf

Followed by a very easy to watch video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY


----------



## fish601 (Sep 28, 2009)

ok so alot of them are atheists... of course they would deny creation... that is why evolution is being preached.. it doesnt make it true tho


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 28, 2009)

Let's keep in real. This is a much better video on youtube. The 1min mark is where it all begins. See, you got me to go to youtube and I can't help but check out this performance wondering why I wasn't there in 1998.

Random I know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8wEOvwy7vA


----------



## Nocturn3 (Sep 28, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> No, what's BS is your poor attempt to discredit all the sources I listed, using nothing more than immature insults. Now try to think logically instead of emotionally.
> 
> The order seen in the universe can't possibly be explained by some random, disorderly event. If it could... you big bangers, should be able to provide many everyday examples of this happening. Isn't there 1 example of a natural disaster resulting in at least 1 new species?
> 
> What's amazing to me is that these big bangers have so much faith in what they preach, even though there is little evidence of a "big bang". Evolution is your religion, and you feel so strongly about it, you're motivated in telling everyone about your new found faith all over the Internet. You're as bad as Jehovah's witnesses aren't you, spreading your doctrine here, with no evidence whatsoever?


I was thinking logically. Logic told me that I shouldn't spend an hour of my time individually discrediting each part of a list that you copy>pasted in a few seconds, especially since you wouldn't take any notice anyway, and much of it has already been discredited in recent posts.

If you would like, i can discredit each one of your "sources" one at a time. Would you like me to start with "Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world"?

I invite anyone with a non-biased interest to google any or all of these names, and see the truth of your claims for themselves, as I have.

It is _you_ who is thinking emotionally rather than logically, and it shows, both here and in the politics forum. You regularly resort to name calling and labelling. I also find it interesting that you want "big bangers" to explain evolution. They are seperate and distinct theories, as you well know.


----------



## PadawanBater (Sep 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> ok so alot of them are atheists... of course they would deny creation... that is why evolution is being preached.. it doesnt make it true tho


 
Yet again, you're ass backwards in your logic fish...

Scientists don't all of a sudden decide to become atheists... then try to discredit religion through science. They use science to discover things about reality THEN decide to become atheists. The things they figure out sway their opinion on whether or not there is a God. They find that reality DOES NOT support any creation myth and those books and beliefs are nothing but ancient fairy tales...


----------



## fish601 (Sep 28, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Yet again, you're ass backwards in your logic fish...
> 
> Scientists don't all of a sudden decide to become atheists... then try to discredit religion through science. They use science to discover things about reality THEN decide to become atheists. The things they figure out sway their opinion on whether or not there is a God. They find that reality DOES NOT support any creation myth and those books and beliefs are nothing but ancient fairy tales...


 
i think they are atheists before they become scientist... otherwise they would see the truth BUT that is just me thinking so if you can find evidence that says otherwise....


----------



## krustofskie (Sep 28, 2009)

fish601 said:


> i think they are atheists before they become scientist... otherwise they would see the truth BUT that is just me thinking so if you can find evidence that says otherwise....


I think you will find that most will start out following a religion and then become Atheist. Its logical as most people learn about their parents religion from birth, told that this is the way and are as such forced into believing whatever there forefathers said is so. Then as they grow and develop and learn they start to make the own mind up about things and weigh up the evidence before coming to the conclusion that they are Atheist.
This would not be the same for all and will be fewer and fewer in the future as less parents nowadays are religouse, but most adults around at the moment would have been bought up to believe their parents religion so it highly unlikely they started out Atheist.


----------



## OregonMeds (Sep 28, 2009)

Regardless of whether they were athiest before or after becoming highly educated in these specific fields, it shows clearly that those who in fact know the very most overwhelmingly dismiss religion. You'd think that would be a clue to some people but no...


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 29, 2009)

You cannot be a logical person and believe the Bible. If you believe the Bible, you just aren't cutting it.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 30, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You cannot be a logical person and believe the Bible. If you believe the Bible, you just aren't cutting it.


Agreed.

The whole idea is ridiculous. I honestly lose a little respect when someone does believe in the Bible... doesn't mean i don't like them... just know they're not very logical.


----------



## CrackerJax (Sep 30, 2009)

Exactly JGordo.

The more fundamental the belief, the less logical I consider that person to be. They may have great jobs, families, 23 cars, whatever.... but I know they view the world through rose colored glasses none the less.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Sep 30, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Exactly JGordo.
> 
> The more fundamental the belief, the less logical I consider that person to be. They may have great jobs, families, 23 cars, whatever.... but I know they view the world through rose colored glasses none the less.


Yuuuulp

I just don't get it, Cracka


----------



## DubsFan (Sep 30, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> Yuuuulp
> 
> I just don't get it, Cracka



Alright kids...It was fun playing along. I must move on.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 1, 2009)

Where'd all the fundie believers go??


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 1, 2009)

Back to the womb I suppose.... Ommmm nappattah... ommmm... amen.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 2, 2009)

Fish, your avater reminds me of your religious views


----------



## edwardtheclean (Oct 2, 2009)

ok guys here it is, God created the universe, the universe in turn is every thing we see, a star explodes and another is born. several thousand years ago humans were stupid, well, not smart enough to invent a radio, anyways, so god allowed all of the religions on earth, each region has their own religion, imagine the earth any other way and it would be totally different, so, even tho i believe that good people go to heaven and evil people go to hell(whatever hell is), i still think it sux that the catholic church hung people when they said that the earth moves around the sun and so fourth, our brains could not understand god so he gave us religion to guide us in the right direction, 

its like one of those things we cant understand, how could our brain comprehend how the universe was made? i gave up trying, i think if we could handle the truth than maybe god would come down and give us some more direction, but now days, a Jesus freak would totally freak out of they seen anything out of this world, including aliens, 



by the way, does anyone know how old the earth is? and compare that to how long humans have been on the earth!!!!


----------



## atheisty (Oct 2, 2009)

religion is for fools who search for peace in their minds because they are afraid to die.
anything can be painted onto a blank canvas (human mind)
ie keep telling a kids they have to slap their head everyday to be close to jesus n theyd do it no q's. this would then turn into a head slap branch of christian religion or w/e.
fairy tales ne1 with half a brain knows this...


----------



## edwardtheclean (Oct 2, 2009)

also there is nothing wrong with any religion, they all, in essence, teach to be respectful, and care for each other, dont get me wrong, the church has hated science for ever, but now, these days, science and religion go hand in hand, has anyone looked up at the stars and said, "yea, it just happened" if u believe that then i think u have more problems than people following a religion, God is too powerful for any of us to understand, any one with half a brain could realize that no one religion is right, people are either smart or stupid, like the church in early days of astronomy, they were so scared that science would take away all of there money that comes in every sunday, so they banished anyone claiming truth, which then was that the earth goes around the sun, and now we know that the sun goes around the center of the milky way, and that our sun is actually one of the smallest stars out there, man, i could go on forever,


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Man is a superstitious creature..... period. Religion is a manifestation of that superstition. So are UFO visitation, and ghosts and hauntings. All can be explained by science, but some ppl prefer the myth.


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 2, 2009)

Why would the spiritual mind evolve? What is the scientific purpose for people to believe in a higher power? 

Animals don't consider these things. 

And why is belief in a higher power a part of any 12 step program? The 12 step program was a product of the psychological (scientific) community, but they obviously see the power in prayer and belief. 

Did you know that prayer has been scientifically proven to help heal sick people? Please explain this lol 

And if there is a separation of church and state, why is it that there is a daily prayer which opens the house of representatives each day, and all swearing and oath taking, takes place with your hand on a Bible? Have you never been to court?

When I was a teen most of us questioned authority, but "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Man is a superstitious creature..... period. Religion is a manifestation of that superstition. So are UFO visitation, and ghosts and hauntings. All can be explained by science, but some ppl prefer the myth.


Cracker, How does science explain UFO visitations.
I've come to think that UFO visitation may have led to religion.
Like maybe Ezikeil's wheel was a UFO.


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Man is a superstitious creature..... period. Religion is a manifestation of that superstition. So are UFO visitation, and ghosts and hauntings. All can be explained by science, but some ppl prefer the myth.


Let me get this strait? You believe in evolution, but you don't believe the universe isn't teaming with intelligent life?


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 2, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Why would the spiritual mind evolve? What is the scientific purpose for people to believe in a higher power?
> 
> Animals don't consider these things.
> 
> ...


Prayer is positive thinking.
Our thoughts affect our actions.
Our actions effect the actions and thoughts of other people.


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 2, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> Prayer is positive thinking.
> Our thoughts affect our actions.
> Our actions effect the actions and thoughts of other people.


Positive thinking doesn't necessitate belief in a higher power, so why would a 12 step program require belief in a "higher power", rather than just some positive thinking technique? They must know something you don't. 

You can believe someone you love will not die, but it's specifically prayer, not positive thinking that is involved in most miraculous healing. 

Believing you will not die, can be attributed - in many cases - to denial, which is part of the grieving process. This contradicts your idea that positive thinking - in itself - is even genuine. 

It's fine with me if you don't want to believe it, but let's not play games with words, and known psychological/scientific techniques.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 2, 2009)

I didn't mention a higher power or a 12 step program.
_Prayer is positive thinking._
Do you pray negative things upon yourself?

"You can believe someone you love will not die, but it's specifically prayer, not positive thinking that is involved in most miraculous healing."

This is pure speculation.

Your suggesting that specific words manifest healing. Like LORD, GOD, or AMEN.
WTF?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

No prayer has ever stood objective scrutiny. It's always anecdotal evidence. Once placed into a true "test" mode, it fails to show any benefit. The only time a benefit has been shown is when the subject of the prayer is aware of the prayers, and then the Placebo effect kicks in, which has been proven.

Prayer is ineffective other than as a Placebo effect. No miracles there, just skewed perspectives.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 2, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Positive thinking doesn't necessitate belief in a higher power, so why would a 12 step program require belief in a "higher power", rather than just some positive thinking technique? They must know something you don't.
> 
> You can believe someone you love will not die, but it's specifically prayer, not positive thinking that is involved in most miraculous healing.
> 
> ...


 
Well, here ya go GC. Lets hear how you explain this one eh... 

My my, faith healing is so damn effective!



> Last month in Portland, Ore., Carl and Raylene Worthington's toddler Ava got sick with a blood infection and pneumonia. Both conditions were treatable with antibiotics, but unfortunately for little Ava, her parents belong to the Followers of Christ Church, some members of which believe that prayer can cure the sick. Instead of taking their gravely ill child to a doctor or hospital, they chose to pray for Ava's recovery as she struggled to breathe. The fifteen-month-old died at home on March 2; her parents have been charged with manslaughter.


http://www.livescience.com/health/080410-bad-prayer-kills.html

further reading about "medical miracles"...

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060729_medical_miracles.html


No yeah, faith healing is awesome! Praying you'll get better actually works! 

It's scientifically proven, right GC?


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 2, 2009)

Unfortunate innocent victims of the lord.
It was her "time" to go.
Nothing can stop God's will.
LMFAO!!


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 2, 2009)

The reason so many (not all) 12 step programs use prayer and belief in a higher power is because it works for a lot of people to THINK someone or something else is in charge and or helping them. Just like with children belief in santa can make them think more positively, maybe make them act a little nicer if santa's going to be judging them, and in the old days it used to make a long tough cold bleak boring winter pass easier because it gives kids something to look forward too even in the worst time of year.

God and Jesus are the Santa nobody made you let go of when you grew up, same principles exactly.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Exactly Oregon... G*D is one big arse Placebo.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

what... huh? said:


> Not to mention, it is silly to *us*. Your life being governed by something you see as a fairytale which feels compelled to force itself on you begets some ill will.



If that's your understanding of who God is, then I will join you in rejecting him. 


I don't recognize who you are talking about, though. 


Is that how your argument goes? Create a caricature of the one you are fighting against, making him to be a fairytale, then proving how much smarter you are to see through the lie? 


Who is us? Do you speak for the scientific community?


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Nobody is more materialistic than the church.....




Donald Trump is. So is the US Federal Government.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

They are childs play compared to the church. Nobody has been around longer either. the Church has been at it for 1500 years. No one else is even close. Govt's are mere pawns to the church..... mere pawns.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 2, 2009)

And churches are "off the books".


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> They are childs play compared to the church. Nobody has been around longer either. the Church has been at it for 1500 years. No one else is even close. Govt's are mere pawns to the church..... mere pawns.


It's been said several times that governments use religion to manipulate the ppl. They have always worked together for their own ends. So has the "scientific community", what ever faith they put their hopes in. The US Government is a good example of how wrong your earlier statement was. There have been just as many forms of government throughout history using religion as there have been religions using government. There will always be a conflict.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

Sure Shot said:


> And churches are "off the books".


Well! That just says it all! What have I been thinking?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> It's been said several times that governments use religion to manipulate the ppl. They have always worked together for their own ends. So has the "scientific community", what ever faith they put their hopes in. The US Government is a good example of how wrong your earlier statement was. There have been just as many forms of government throughout history using religion as there have been religions using government. There will always be a conflict.


you said it urself.... there have been many govts.... but only one church. The church will ride with any govt. which displays the power the church can use and needs. WW2 and the cozy relations between Hitler and the church prove that much.

So govt.s come and go in a disjointed fashion, but the church has always been there to switch to whichever side does it the most good.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> you said it urself.... there have been many govts.... but only one church.


What are talking about? I reread my last post. Can't figure out when you read me saying "many govts.... but only one church." Did you intend that comment for me? 

Just to be sure, what I said was, "There have been* just as many forms* of government throughout history using religion as there have been *religions *using government.




CrackerJax said:


> The church will ride with any govt. which displays the power the church can use and needs. WW2 and the cozy relations between Hitler and the church prove that much.


Now I understand you are an ignorant man, doing nothing more than ragging against God. Hitler hated the Church because he feared it undermined his control. 



CrackerJax said:


> So govt.s come and go in a disjointed fashion, but the church has always been there to switch to whichever side does it the most good.



Sounds like nothing more than sour grapes to me.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

You missed the point. There has only been one church through most of history.... the Roman Catholic Church. All sects of Christianity spring from that source. There has been only one church which coupled up to many forms of govt. 

So you can say that govt.'s are more materialistic, but you would be wrong.

As far as Hitler goes, you need to do a bit of research. The Vatican made deals over and over again with Hitler. The church has worked very hard to clean up the reputation of Pope Pius XII. That pope made deals with the devil. Of course it was all in the name of helping ppl.... right?

If Hitler had won WW2, the Pope would have immediately sent out feelers as to what kind of relationship it could have with the New Third Reich. It really would have been up to Hitler as to how cozy the relationship would have been. The Church would have gone along.... so they could "help" the ppl. 

Uh huh.... read up on Pope Pius XII


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You missed the point. There has only been one church through most of history.... the Roman Catholic Church. All sects of Christianity spring from that source. There has been only one church which coupled up to many forms of govt.


No, I'm following you pretty well. You are saying that the Catholic church is the one church throughout Christian history, and that they started every other christian like religion. Right?

I'm saying that is not the scientific fact, given recorded history. The Catholic Church started in 312 AD when Emperor Constantine proclaimed he had had a vision to unite the Roman Empire under a universal (i.e. "catholic") church, this began the Roman Catholic Church. 

How did you conclude that the Jews were Catholic? What about the Muslims? They didn't stem from the Catholic Church, and they were both around before the Christians. You have no idea what you are saying. 




CrackerJax said:


> If Hitler had won WW2, the Pope would have immediately sent out feelers as to what kind of relationship it could have with the New Third Reich. It really would have been up to Hitler as to how cozy the relationship would have been. The Church would have gone along.... so they could "help" the ppl.


First of all, your entire premise for saying this depends on your earlier statement that the Catholic Church is THE Christian church and always has been. You would be wrong.

Also, since we are playing "what if" with Hitler, if he did come into power, EVERYONE would have been sending out feelers to see how cozy that relationship would be. I'm not condoning it, that's just human nature, and not a bad idea if you want to survive under Hitlers regime. I'm sure the pure scientist would have shunned Hitler.......oh! Shit! They loved Hitler! My bad.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

When I say the Church, I'm talking Roman Catholic Church and I OBVIOUSLY don't mean Muslims nor Jews nor Hindus for that matter.

It is the Roman Catholic Church which holds most of the Christian wealth globally, no one else. We were talking about materialism... right? Follow along plz.

Yes, govt's certainly would be negotiating with Hitler, but the church isn't a govt. now is it....

It's just another indicator that the church will follow any govt. which allows it to ply its hucksterism.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> When I say the Church, I'm talking Roman Catholic Church and I OBVIOUSLY don't mean Muslims nor Jews nor Hindus for that matter.
> 
> It is the Roman Catholic Church which holds most of the Christian wealth globally, no one else. We were talking about materialism... right? Follow along plz.
> 
> ...




Ok, fine.................


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 2, 2009)

Here's a little taste of the Pope... 

The Kaiser wrote in his memoirs that he told Pacelli: "If the Pope did nothing, ... there was danger of peace being forced upon the world by the socialists," that is, a peace that would upset the status quo, *"which would mean the end of the power of the Pope and the Roman Church." *

The Kaiser added that Pacelli replied, "You are absolutely right!" Indeed, the preservation of the existing social order and with it the power of the papacy was to be the basis of his policy in World War II.


----------



## fish601 (Oct 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> When I say the Church, I'm talking Roman Catholic Church and I OBVIOUSLY don't mean Muslims nor Jews nor Hindus for that matter.
> 
> It is the Roman Catholic Church which holds most of the Christian wealth globally, no one else.


LOL the roman catholic church what a joke..................

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith


the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary 


Are Roman Catholics Christians? They are if they have trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of their sins. However, if they believe that the are saved by God's grace and their works, then they are not saved 


Being a Christian does not mean being a member of the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

You must be dense. Who put the Bible together? The Roman Catholic Church did... 

all sects of Christianity spring from their mother... the Catholic Church. It was not until Martin Luther did some ppl rebel against the papacy.

You need to work on your time lines.

So you think the ppl that wrote, edited, and published ALL the Bibles, you think the bible isn't theirs? 

Wow............


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 3, 2009)

I have a question for those that know more about the Vatican... Where do they get their money these days? Churches in the US don't ever send a penny to the vatican do they? Or if some do which ones? I never understood all the division and variants of cristianity there are or if any work together.


----------



## fish601 (Oct 3, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You must be dense. Who put the Bible together? The Roman Catholic Church did...
> 
> all sects of Christianity spring from their mother... the Catholic Church. It was not until Martin Luther did some ppl rebel against the papacy.
> 
> ...


*The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it.*

Church: It is people who believe In the real jesus the jesus of the holy bible. It is people who in an instant became a changed person changed by realizing that there is a God and Savior. Its not a building filled with "chrisian's" who wonders how much they can sin and still go to heaven. It's the christian's that has had a changed heart and does not want to sin.

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted.

Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians.


The real chruch, the one you can't see, it is real people, who really love, help, & care for people its not the neighbor who goes to church because there parents did, its not the stuff you see on tv, its not the hypocrite that we all know And its definitly not the church you call roman catholic.



Apparently you have never met a real christian.


----------



## White Grape (Oct 3, 2009)

fairyweed said:


> does the bible say if there were dinosaurs?? are religious people allowed to believe in dinosaurs???? because if you think about it we have ALOT of proof that they existed but if they did and we can prove that over time they evolved and went from the diff time periods (trassic, jarassic,etc.) then wouldnt it be safe to say that the theory of elvelotion of humans from monkey or apes or chimps would be logical?? i mean we have proof that we were cave men and back then we were diff and we elvolved.... i dont understand how the bible can just say there was adam already elvolved and then eve CAME from him already elvolved... and if that was true then reliogion is a big hoax cause my prest used to say that interbreeding and insest is bad yet if it started from adam an eve then there kids either had to get together or a kid and the parent but then there kids would have had to get together.... then saying that somehow they split up and some went to asia and africa and america and we (get this) elvolved into how we are today... the african had to get used to the sun so there bodys elvolved and gained more melenoma(i cant spel sorry) and pigment in there skin and the asains had to get accumstomed to there region and so forth.... so how would the bible explain that?? and why is it okay for you to "pray" to god and its ok but if you get an answer your crazy?? but if you think about it your crazy either way because they say if you talk and get no response your talking to yourself... i dont get it... can anyone help with any of these questions i have?? and im very sorry if i have offeneded anyone.


The thing is most people take what is written in the bible literally.
One thing I do remember reading is when God said he would show no evidence of his existence and that you have to believe by faith.
So to hide his existence there has to be an explanation for every thing.
What if when scientist's figured out where oil came from and the only answer they could come up with was God must of made it?
In a way science proves the existence of God.
Cannabis proves he's a loving God


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 3, 2009)

White Grape said:


> The thing is most people take what is written in the bible literally.
> One thing I do remember reading is when God said he would show no evidence of his existence and that you have to believe by faith.
> So to hide his existence there has to be an explanation for every thing.
> What if when scientist's figured out where oil came from and the only answer they could come up with was God must of made it?
> ...


 
Well then what does AIDS, the boubonic plague, and the flesh eating virus prove?


----------



## White Grape (Oct 3, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Well then what does AIDS, the boubonic plague, and the flesh eating virus prove?


Damned if I know.
I know real religious people will give you an answer, but I'm not one so I can't.

Here's my thoughts on what God is.
I figure we are all energy, that includes all plants and animals.
God is the collective of that energy.
As far as what others believe I don't care.'
As far as others excepting what I believe, I don't care.
My beliefs work for me, but may not work for you.
That's why I don't try to convince others I'm right and they're wrong or visa versa.
That's how most wars start.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 3, 2009)

If you simply see the world objectively, it's pretty messed up conceptually. Think about it.

Everything has to kill to survive. Almost everything gets eaten. In the animal world it's usually eaten while still alive. Uhhhh.... gross? Over the top violent perhaps? 

Tigers kill Gazelles, gazelles kill grass, grass kills trees...... on and on right on down to paramecium.

Has it occurred to you that this planet may be the worst place in the Universe?
What if most other life bearing planets all live off of sunshine and convert that into energy. There is no killing. It is unknown to them. This planet would be a HORROR show to them...... a horror.

I'm just saying...... the concept is crude and maniacal. Who would do something like this ON PURPOSE??????


The smaller we go (subatomic particles) the more chaos we find, not order. All the signs keep pointing to randomness.


----------



## ilovehighgrade09 (Oct 4, 2009)

i believe in god and i've started reading the bible sometimes it gets confusing but i find it easier to believe that we were created by someone who had a purpose for us rather than believe we were all created by accident. . 
and that we came from monkeys :s
but thats my opinion.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 4, 2009)

ilovehighgrade09 said:


> i believe in god and i've started reading the bible sometimes it gets confusing but i find it easier to believe that we were created by someone who had a purpose for us rather than believe we were all created by accident. .
> and that we came from monkeys :s
> but thats my opinion.


 
Why the fuck... does everyone say "we didn't come from monkeys..." - That's gotta be the biggest misconception in all of highschool science.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 4, 2009)

ilovehighgrade09 said:


> i believe in god and i've started reading the bible sometimes it gets confusing but i find it easier to believe that we were created by someone who had a purpose for us rather than believe we were all created by accident. .
> and that we came from monkeys :s
> but thats my opinion.


And that's pure human nature to want to believe you have some purpose, and all that might go with it like an afterlife in heaven. Who wouldn't want to believe it. I an athiest would like to, it's just that none of it stands up to any scrutiny if you challenge anything let alone if you are the type of person who challenges everything.

Trust me my life would have been easier had I just thought there was a god, anyones life is easier with that thought especially those with a hard life for any reason.

But even as a child I never could just believe something someone told me without question and I couldn't accept all the lame answers I was given to my questions by the nuns who should have known those answers in the catholic school I went to as a kid. This athiest is no stranger to the sytem, they tried to assimilate me, but I resisted. You choose not to resist, that's your right as an american I guess... As long as you are aware the reasons you choose aren't based in logic but are based in your personal desire to believe period then you are ahead of many already.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

ilovehighgrade09 said:


> i believe in god and i've started reading the bible sometimes it gets confusing but i find it easier to believe that we were created by someone who had a purpose for us rather than believe we were all created by accident. .
> and that we came from monkeys :s
> but thats my opinion.


Uh huh.... there was the key statement... 
*" i find it easier to believe that we were created by someone who had a purpose for us rather than believe we were all created by accident."

*Yes, it is easier, but entirely incorrect. The easy answers that spew forth from religion are meant to be a "comfort". It's completely made up non sense, but it can make ppl feel better.

I'd rather face the world as it is, than as I wish it to be.



PadawanBater said:


> Why the fuck... does everyone say "we didn't come from monkeys..." - That's gotta be the biggest misconception in all of highschool science.


 We did not come from Monkeys. We all came together from the same tree line of genetics, but that's it. They are our cousins, not our parents.

The church has been drumming that nonsense for quite awhile now. 

One more error on the church side. Let us prey, er pray.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 4, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> And that's pure human nature to want to believe you have some purpose, and all that might go with it like an afterlife in heaven. Who wouldn't want to believe it. I an athiest would like to, it's just that none of it stands up to any scrutiny if you challenge anything let alone if you are the type of person who challenges everything.
> 
> Trust me my life would have been easier had I just thought there was a god, anyones life is easier with that thought especially those with a hard life for any reason.
> 
> But even as a child I never could just believe something someone told me without question and I couldn't accept all the lame answers I was given to my questions by the nuns who should have known those answers in the catholic school I went to as a kid. This athiest is no stranger to the sytem, they tried to assimilate me, but I resisted. You choose not to resist, that's your right as an american I guess... As long as you are aware the reasons you choose aren't based in logic but are based in your personal desire to believe period then you are ahead of many already.




Now I'm not one for being a preacher or nuthing, but I would waiger a christian response to your above sentiment would be, "The fool in his heart says there is no God". Thats in the old testament, btw.

I've really been enjoying your posts and some of the other crusaders against God, too. *God is much more pleased with you than you may think.* 

He once said to a bunch of milk toast religious people "I wish you either loved me or hated me. But because you do nither, you make me want to vomit!" So, when I listen to people rail against God, I remember the apostle Paul, before he realized what he was doing......then I feel hopeful for you. 

Many people understand that you only get angry with the people you care about or admire in some way. No one gets angry with a fairytale character, unless you're insane.

Peace


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

Paul who? what was his last name again? Who were his parents? Where was he born?


 Hooboy!!!


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 4, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Now I'm not one for being a preacher or nuthing, but I would waiger a christian response to your above sentiment would be, "The fool in his heart says there is no God". Thats in the old testament, btw.
> 
> I've really been enjoying your posts and some of the other crusaders against God, too. *God is much more pleased with you than you may think.*
> 
> ...


 

Maui, what kind of bullshit is this? I certainly hope you don't actually believe that...


This is not the first time I've heard this.. "You must believe in God if you hate him so much!" - atheism has NOTHING to do with *believing God exists*. That is not what an atheist is. An atheist is a person who either believes God *does not exist *or that the thought of God actually existing is *highly unlikely.* (I don't think God exists...) 


It's not like we're sitting here saying "yeah, that God character sure is mean, I'm not going to worship him, he doesnt' deserve it!"... it's more like "ok, I don't see any reason to believe this God character exists (much like santa clause, am I angry at Chris Cringle too?)".. 


We argue against the *idea *of God that the organized religions push because all of us atheists know the stories don't line up. It's bullshit. I'm not content letting people throw their minds away and idly sit by and watch the world turn to shit because of this. I feel obligated to educate at every turn, especially about religion or science. 



So your logic of us being pissed off at God and that's why we're not believing in him makes as much sense as saying I'm pissed off at the easter bunny and that's why I don't believe in it, disregarding all the vast evidence to support the existence of the easter bunny that we have...


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 4, 2009)

I hate organized religions, not a god. Any that claim to have any answers or evidenced anything of a god should such a thing exist, which I believe is practically impossible. Should there have ever been something you would call a god that had any hand in putting people or other animals on this earth or hell creating a whole galaxy in a test tube we don't know but I would just consider that being not a god but a being which evolved much earlier than us. Beings don't just appear out of nowhere. Complex living organisms of any type even a type we can't understand yet don't just come about poof. No. It would have had to have evolved somewhere, meaning not perfect either just ahead of us. Also it wouldn't give one shit about us or how we live our lives nor would he need to be praised nor worshiped.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 4, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> I hate organized religions, not a god. Any that claim to have any answers or evidenced anything of a god should such a thing exist, which I believe is practically impossible. Should there have ever been something you would call a god that had any hand in putting people or other animals on this earth or hell creating a whole galaxy in a test tube we don't know but I would just consider that being not a god but a being which evolved much earlier than us. Beings don't just appear out of nowhere. Complex living organisms of any type even a type we can't understand yet don't just come about poof. No. It would have had to have evolved somewhere, meaning not perfect either just ahead of us. Also it wouldn't give one shit about us or how we live our lives nor would he need to be praised nor worshiped. Those are all obvously vain reasons created by man, a man seeking purpose, who would like to think he's somehow important enough to matter at all.


 
That's _another_ thing I dont get about religion... The *point *of it is to praise God and glorify God. That's coming directly from believers mouths, I've asked plenty of them what the point of it is, that's the most common answer I get. So if that's the point, how the fuck could you possibly be satisfied with that?! And what does that even entail? Worship and glorify God... for all of eternity... always, all the time, at every moment, for hundreds of years, thousands of years, millions of years, billions of years, trillions of years... ETERNITY... 

Talk about a fuckin' ego.

Clearly imperfect.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 4, 2009)

The Man G*D demands worship. 

The Dolphin G*D demands fish.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 5, 2009)

ilovehighgrade09 said:


> i believe in god and i've started reading the bible sometimes it gets confusing but i find it easier to believe that we were created by someone who had a purpose for us rather than believe we were all created by accident. .
> and that we came from monkeys :s
> but thats my opinion.



I agree with you. It is easier and it is eternally more meaningful. 

Stupid monkeys. No doubt because the anti-God crew like to throw their feces as people, they are probably the exception.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 5, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> I agree with you. It is easier and it is eternally more meaningful.
> 
> Stupid monkeys. No doubt because the anti-God crew like to throw their feces as people, they are probably the exception.


Listen to yourself! "easier and eternally more meaningful". 


You admit yourself you believe because it's easier to swallow than what is reality. But just because it's easier doesn't make it any more true. And you can't comment on an atheistic position and whether or not it serves as meaning to someone. We all derive our meaning from the same place, you just think God gave you yours. Meaning is subjective, as it *should* be. We do not all share the same meanings or purposes.


There is no such thing as an "anti-God" crew. You havn't proved your dieties existence for me to officially oppose yet, so for now, I simply remain an atheist, which is not the same as ''anti-God'' (whatever that is?). Personally I'd also consider myself an anti-theist, as I'm completely against any form of ''organized religion''.


So do you at least realize your belief system is no different than if I were to believe in unicorns? It's cool if you believe whatever... I just hope you realize that...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

There is a difference between NON G*D and ANTI G*D.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 5, 2009)

An atheist has no belief in gods.

A Christian picks one god to believe in, is certain of its unprovable existence, yet rejects thousands of others.

Which one is the bigger hypocrite.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

But the BOOK!!! The BOOK SAYS what I believe in is true!! The other books are false. they don't have the right book.... 

How bout just putting the books down and using a bit of good ol' common sense. 

Careful, you might turn into an atheist.


----------



## jackdirty (Oct 5, 2009)

i just want to put my two sense in take it or leave it religion is a crutch for the weak minded to pass time or get through a rough patch man up grab those testicles an do some with yourself! and theres hella creeps in church dont say there isnt cuz theres hella kids who get molested by a priest or volunteer... human race is pretty ugly if you step back and observe thats all i have to say about religion


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 5, 2009)

jackdirty said:


> i just want to put my two sense in take it or leave it religion is a crutch for the weak minded to pass time or get through a rough patch man up grab those testicles an do some with yourself! and theres hella creeps in church dont say there isnt cuz theres hella kids who get molested by a priest or volunteer... human race is pretty ugly if you step back and observe thats all i have to say about religion


Well freedom of religion is a right in the USA so most of you God haters, are on the losing end here. 

There are more important things to worry about than a few angry lesbian ashiest. 

How about the fact that the corporations own your politicians, and you could care less, because without religion you have no sense of morality. The result is rampant greed, and corruption, congratulations.


----------



## jfgordon1 (Oct 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Well freedom of religion is a right in the USA so most of you God haters, are on the losing end here.


Agreed, however.. just remember... Seperation of Church and State. I feel that line has been crossed...


> There are more important things to worry about than a few angry lesbian ashiest.
> 
> How about the fact that the corporations own your politicians, and you could care less, because without religion you have no sense of morality. The result is rampant greed, and corruption, congratulations.


Agreed


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

Indeed, no one minds the church, if they just stay out of the way. Do your thing, but keep it private.

The church has different ideas though, and that's where the trouble starts. 

I don't hate something I don't believe exists... that would be silly.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 5, 2009)

Because 12 step programs are brainwashing, pure and simple.


Green Cross said:


> And why is belief in a higher power a part of any 12 step program? The 12 step program was a product of the psychological (scientific) community, but they obviously see the power in prayer and belief.


Uh...tons of you religious folks have no real sense of morality.The religious right is the most corrupt party there is.I don't need to be threatened with an invisible being to treat others as I'd like to be treated.It's called empathy.


Green Cross said:


> How about the fact that the corporations own your politicians, and you could care less, because without religion you have no sense of morality. The result is rampant greed, and corruption, congratulations.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 5, 2009)

*Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin*

  

 

 
   Reuters  The Turin Shroud is shown in this August 1978 file photo in negative version. An Italian scientist says  



By Philip Pullella Philip Pullella  Mon Oct 5, 11:30 am ET
ROME (Reuters)  An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.
The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ.
"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.
A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
The Shroud of Turin shows the back and front of a bearded man with long hair, his arms crossed on his chest, while the entire cloth is marked by what appears to be rivulets of blood from wounds in the wrists, feet and side.
Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.
But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth.
Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.
They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.
PIGMENT, BLOODSTAINS AND SCORCHES
The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.
They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.
The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic nor that it is a matter of faith, but says it should be a powerful reminder of Christ's passion.
One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year.
Garlaschelli expects people to contest his findings.
"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," he said.
The accuracy of the 1988 tests was challenged by some hard-core believers who said restorations of the Shroud in past centuries had contaminated the results.
The history of the Shroud is long and controversial. 
After surfacing in the Middle East and France, it was brought by Italy's former royal family, the Savoys, to their seat in Turin in 1578. In 1983 ex-King Umberto II bequeathed it to the late Pope John Paul. 
The Shroud narrowly escaped destruction in 1997 when a fire ravaged the Guarini Chapel of the Turin cathedral where it is held. The cloth was saved by a fireman who risked his life. 
Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results. 
"Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."


----------



## MeisterYo (Oct 5, 2009)

Benny Hinn is a major contributor to why I don't like religion. Read the controversy part on wiki and thats just a brief overview.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

yes, but Benny Hinn is a smart dresser.... 

Gotta love those priest knockoff suits of his....


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Well freedom of religion is a right in the USA so most of you God haters, are on the losing end here.


Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion. Additionally, if a being is imaginary, hating it seems rather pointless. Distaste in the actions done in the name of said imaginary entity is wholly understandable.



> There are more important things to worry about than a few angry lesbian ashiest.


Provided that the "angry lesbian athiests" are making a claim for something tangible, rather than the cherry-picked words of a desert death cult spread by rampant imperialism, I would put greater weight on the importance of the lesbians.




> How about the fact that the corporations own your politicians, and you could care less, because without religion you have no sense of morality. The result is rampant greed, and corruption, congratulations.


Ah, so morality comes from religion. Which religion? Which morality? Morality is subjective, and what works for your concept of morality differs from that of others.

Which morals do you cherry pick from your religion? Have you ever worked on a weekend? The bible advocates death by stoning for he who works on the sabbath. Ever wished you could have sex with a woman who you are not married to? You could be stoned for that. Eaten shellfish? That's an abomination, and you're going to hell for that after your neighbors murder you with "God's" approval.

Oh, but you don't want THAT morality, just the specific items that fit best with how you think and live.

The funny thing about people who wish for more theocratic intervention in government is that they assume that everyone else believes the same things they do, because they happen to associate within a small group of people that believes mostly the same thing.

Want religion back in school? Fine. Kids will now be educated in Islam? What? You have a problem with that? But it's a religion. How about Norse? Perfect for a highly militarized society like the US.

Ooooh, you want YOUR religion.

Okay, so which branch of Christianity do you want? The biblical literalists who believe that it's the inerrant word of "God"? Or those who consider it to be simple a book of parables with life lessons.

Which parts shall we teach on? The parts where women are considered chattel, and can be offered up for rape to supplicate the mob? Or where it's advocated that all enemies within a city be killed down to the last man, woman, child, and beast, except for the girls who have never laid with a man, whom you may take for yourselves.

Have you read your bible? I have.
The Christian god is a petty tyrant, exhibiting traits of narcissism, sociopathy, and brutality.

If you have, I'm sure you can tell me why Sodom was destroyed.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 5, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> I don't hate something I don't believe exists... that would be silly.


It's funny you use the word silly 
I'm reading the book "The Power of Babel", which is a history of language (despite the title pun it's academic, not religiou  ), and he refers to the origin of the word, saying that it initially meant 'santified by God'.

In time it changed to mean 'innocent', then weak, and later 'foolish'.

1400 "Cely art thou, hooli virgyne marie."

1470 "Sely Scotland, that of helpe has gret neide."

1633 "Thou onely art The mightie God, but I a sillie worm."

Look out! Religion's gonna getcha!


----------



## sunshine17542 (Oct 5, 2009)

Man cannot live on bread alone


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Well freedom of religion is a right in the USA so most of you God haters, are on the losing end here.
> 
> There are more important things to worry about than a few angry lesbian ashiest.
> 
> How about the fact that the corporations own your politicians, and you could care less, because without religion you have no sense of morality. The result is rampant greed, and corruption, congratulations.




Daaaaaamn! That is smoken!!!! Hello repville+!

     


btw: I have to chill out on the reps. It may start to look like I really am trying to kiss your ass.

Ah, what the hell! Where is that booty?
kiss-ass kiss-ass kiss-ass kiss-ass


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 5, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> How about the fact that the corporations own *your* politicians, and you could care less, because without religion you have no sense of morality. The result is rampant greed, and corruption, congratulations.


Whoa! I can't believe I missed the implication there the first time around.

OUR politicians? You realize that in the United States it's virtually impossible for any individual to be elected to a position of any substantive power without being Christian?

So that would be YOUR politicians that are owned by the corporations.

Care to explain that?


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 5, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Because 12 step programs are brainwashing, pure and simple.
> 
> Uh...tons of you religious folks have no real sense of morality.The religious right is the most corrupt party there is.I don't need to be threatened with an invisible being to treat others as I'd like to be treated.It's called empathy.


Ugg! I totally agree with you! 12 step programs are brain washing people to believe they will never grow up. Just work the program, right? 

And, I also agree that you don't need to be threatened with some invisible being. That happens enough without the christian church adding to it. Ohy vehy!


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 5, 2009)

Yes, the USA is overwhelmingly Christian, especially in the business world which lives by networking. The church is a network, just like the golf course is.

So don't go throwing stones at corrupt business ppl and corp's. They are overwhelmingly CHRISTIAN followers at the helm..

So much for piety.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, the USA is overwhelmingly Christian, especially in the business world which lives by networking. The church is a network, just like the golf course is.
> 
> So don't go throwing stones at corrupt business ppl and corp's. They are overwhelmingly CHRISTIAN followers at the helm..
> 
> So much for piety.



Are you still bitching about Christians? OMG! You need to either commit your heart to Jesus and find inner peace, or look for a hoby. Theres a bunch out there.


Seeing how you recognize that Christians pretty much own and run the world, maybe you should act with a little more humility, seeing how your hatred for Jesus could get you fired or demoted.


p.s I don't think you wouldn't know piety if it bent you over a couch and was slapping up against those lily white cheeks.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 6, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> There is a difference between NON G*D and ANTI G*D.



So this is the lie you use in order to appease your conscience? 



THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.


Right, right, right. You will say that you don't hate God, you just don't believe in His existence and therefor feel nothing towards Him. The problem with that is there is a shit load of posts where you are showing some very impassioned, angry, emotional arguments against God's existence. You even can't bring your self to spell out the word G-O-D you hate him so much. 

So, my question is, why do you ooz contempt towards a fairy tail? If you didn't believe in God's existence, He wouldn't be such an interesting topic to you. Oh, wait! Let me try to anticipate your answer. It's the Christians who make you talk about GOD, not that you want to or anything. Right?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 6, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> p.s I don't think you wouldn't know piety if it bent you over a couch and was slapping up against those lily white cheeks.


Well, at least we're all agreed that Christianity is big on molestation.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 6, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> that you don't hate God, you just don't believe in His existence and therefor feel nothing towards Him. The problem with that is there is a shit load of posts where you are showing some very impassioned, angry, emotional arguments against God's existence. You even can't bring your self to spell out the word G-O-D you hate him so much.


I guess if you considered hating "god" the same as hating some asshole character on General Hospital the same, then you'd have a point.

Since both are fictions.

One made to entertain, and sell cheap crap to housewives.

One made to dominate, and feed crap to everyone.

Sort that one out for yourself.


The most pathetic part of Christianity is how it seems so bent on insinuating itself in the public's bedrooms. Would you like to have sex? Well, it's a horrible sin unless you get married in one of "our" temples. Afterwards you may only have sex with the person we have designated your partner until you die. Of course if you don't, that's a sin. But if you come and beg "us" for forgiveness, we'll work something out. Would you like to make a donation?

What a load of horse shit.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 6, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> The most pathetic part of Christianity is how it seems so bent on insinuating itself in the public's bedrooms. Would you like to have sex? Well, it's a horrible sin unless you get married in one of "our" temples. Afterwards you may only have sex with the person we have designated your partner until you die. Of course if you don't, that's a sin. But if you come and beg "us" for forgiveness, we'll work something out. Would you like to make a donation?
> 
> What a load of horse shit.


 
lmao +rep for that gem!


----------



## Xeno420 (Oct 6, 2009)

The bible is a bunch of crap... most of it anyway. The old testament was rearranged, the names changed, and the way things happened are either made up,in half truths, or close to the truth since all of it was taken from other sources (Sumerian and Akkadian). The new testament... there is not a single scholar or anyone else for that matter from the time of Jesus that documented his happenings. Everything written about Jesus was done centuries after his death. On top of all this, the one who had a big hand in this was a king named Constantine of rome (274 to 337 A.D.) which was a pagan (it is said that he was christian before death by some) until the day he died and was dubbed "Christian" after he died; it was finally "canonized" by the Nicean council sixty years after Constantine's death. Strange is it not? Here's another one for you, compare Jesus to Osiris and see the many similarities between the two. You would almost think that Jesus is an Egyptian god rip-off from 3000 years before his time. There are other "saviors" out there that share similar stories of Jesus and have the same MO. Anyway, good luck with your findings. +rep if you find this useful.

Edit: here's a nice lil web page that will keep you interested if you would like to know more about Jesus in comparison to the other saviors of the world http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisandjesus.htm... Happy reading


----------



## Xeno420 (Oct 6, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> So this is the lie you use in order to appease your conscience?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll speak on behalf. Some of us were brought into a religious home and our parents or the ones that raised us are such believers and are so worried inside for our salvation that we see the distress in them and makes us want to believe but the truth is that we feel something is seriously wrong, so we become rebellious to our teachings but at the same time we would love to see some stone cold truth; real proof. It will never happen and so we have such anger inside, even hatred because we feel like we have been lied to our whole lives... we're supposed to give ourselves up for god and for some of us rebels, it rubs us the wrong way to know that we spend our whole lives watching those we love waste their life away in ignorance and/or think that we may be wrong and beat ourselves up our whole lives in confusion. Ignorance is bliss then...


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 6, 2009)

It also doesn't help that religion insinuates itself into politics and the public school system at every opportunity.

I'm not sure if our Christian friend is a history buff, but they might recollect a period of European-wide theocracy.

It was called "The Dark Ages".

And then the religious "right" dares set foot in a science class and discounts hundreds of years of hard work and research by people who often found themselves persecuted by the church for the mere crime of being inquisitive about the function of the universe. 

If you put science and religion in a dark room, science looks for the light switch. Religion just sits there in the dark waiting to take credit for it when the lights come on. Sometimes it molests a kid or two while it has the benefit of darkness.


One of my favorite quotes:
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 6, 2009)

Xeno420 said:


> I'll speak on behalf. Some of us were brought into a religious home and our parents or the ones that raised us are such believers and are so worried inside for our salvation that we see the distress in them and makes us want to believe but the truth is that we feel something is seriously wrong, so we become rebellious to our teachings but at the same time we would love to see some stone cold truth; real proof. It will never happen and so we have such anger inside, even hatred because we feel like we have been lied to our whole lives... we're supposed to give ourselves up for god and for some of us rebels, it rubs us the wrong way to know that we spend our whole lives watching those we love waste their life away in ignorance and/or think that we may be wrong and beat ourselves up our whole lives in confusion. Ignorance is bliss then...


+ rep..., this has been about the Most Honest Thing I've heard an Atheist leaning Person Say..., and I completely agree with every word you Said, 

ON my Behalf and my personal opinion, Don't give up on God, just start over, and YOu are Right, he's not the God you were schooled to know, those teachings are from an entanglement of Greed / Manipulation / Power..but it works because truth still lies within and that is why the people are easily drawn to it, and held in Bondage. But the Strong, People who seek the True Nature of God, begin to break themselves free of the Lies, because in all Honesty, they want to Live a Life of Truth...., and so, I try to Get people to understand, that bashing somebody over the Head because they believe in the Literate Bible God, only works into the favor, of those who you despise... You are doing them a Favor, Supplying the Never Sleeping, all ways at Work Devil..., Believe Me, the Religious Get It, of all Faiths, Just Like those who are Atheist Get iT..., but none the less you are going to have weak minded people on both sides that believe/deny a Literal God, and believe/deny We Literally evolved from Bubbles..

I just think it's easier to get people to understand your point of view by using Honey, instead of Acid, then say you are doing them a Favor...

Anyhow, + rep bro for sharing your thoughts and feelings..

I'm about tired of these Senseless Threads, they are not POintless, I just think I'm starting to just get beyond them Now..


----------



## Xeno420 (Oct 6, 2009)

Brazko said:


> + rep..., this has been about the Most Honest Thing I've heard an Atheist leaning Person Say..., and I completely agree with every word you Said,
> 
> ON my Behalf and my personal opinion, Don't give up on God, just start over, and YOu are Right, he's not the God you were schooled to know, those teachings are from an entanglement of Greed / Manipulation / Power..but it works because truth still lies within and that is why the people are easily drawn to it, and held in Bondage. But the Strong, People who seek the True Nature of God, begin to break themselves free of the Lies, because in all Honesty, they want to Live a Life of Truth...., and so, I try to Get people to understand, that bashing somebody over the Head because they believe in the Literate Bible God, only works into the favor, of those who you despise... You are doing them a Favor, Supplying the Never Sleeping, all ways at Work Devil..., Believe Me, the Religious Get It, of all Faiths, Just Like those who are Atheist Get iT..., but none the less you are going to have weak minded people on both sides that believe/deny a Literal God, and believe/deny We Literally evolved from Bubbles..
> 
> ...


Well thank you Brazko, I'm in this state of mind so I speak from experience. I was raised with hardcore catholic parents, much so that father is a Knight of Columbus and a deacon and mom is a teacher of catechism, first communion and confirmation to kids and adults also... They are leaders in the community and do all sorts of youth and adult seminars. Anyway, the list is long and I've been overly-exposed to the ways of god, yet I have always been exposed to the ways of the world and views of god that are mind boggling. The ultimate question I have asked has been: "If all was well in the kingdom of heaven, why then did God create 'ha-Satan'? God is the alpha and omega, beginning and end; keeper of time. When you are a chef, you are the only one that really knows the intricacies of your dishes. As a computer programmer you know what the code you are inputting for the latest software version... In other words, God is the greatest chef/programmer, the knower of all time; past, present, and future..." I always received the answer: "Because god gave you free will". This haunted me and it still does because it is not a straight answer. We are born, not created unlike ha-Satan. He WAS created and so everything that god put into him including his emotions and curious ways was like a time bomb, waiting to happen. I have always thought (still do) that if God is real, why did he do it? Was he bored from seeing perfection and decided to make a toy and watch us under a microscope like germs hoping that we would pass the test for future plans? Who knows? I understand nature and it's ways that only the strong survive and we admire those animals that make it and sometimes feel pity for those that don't. I for one don't like to be put to the test and much less see 'the one that loves me' have me get kicked around just to discard me and let the unimaginable happen to me if I fail. Good fathers don't do that to their children! They don't leave you in an alleyway with weapons or bare-handed to see if you can fend off thugs. For what purpose? As long as society is not straight with me on the origins of God, then I'm not down with any institution.

Sorry about the rant, I had to get it out. Thanks for the +rep though


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Well, at least we're all agreed that Christianity is big on molestation.




Irony: An atheist trying to convince a believer that there is no God.

Atheism: A defined system of belief that there is no system of belief worth putting your faith in. (also ironic)

You arguments would actually have some sway if you had some kind of faith in something. Oh, wait! Your an atheist. I guess you do have faith in something. My bad. You're on the right track. Keep it up.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Atheism: A defined system of belief that there is no system of belief worth putting your faith in. (also ironic)


 
EPIC FAIL. Try again.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 7, 2009)

The following are a few sexual acts that are either "sins" or condemned by the church.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`Do not approach a woman to have *sexual relations* during the uncleanness of her monthly period. 
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]When a man *lies with* a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the *impurity* of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20"`Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening. 24"`If a man *lies with* her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean. . . . 32These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who *lies with* a woman who is ceremonially unclean. 
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`Do not *lie with* a man as one *lies with* a woman; that is *detestable*. 
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`If a man commits *adultery* with another man's wife --with the wife of his neighbor --both the *adulterer* and the *adulteress* must be put to death.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`If a man *lies with* a man as one *lies with* a woman, both of them have done what is *detestable*. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`If a woman approaches an animal to have *sexual relations* with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Hey, I'm not condoning bestiality, but is it really Fido's fault he was molested?)
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]"`If a man *lies with* a woman during her monthly period and has *sexual relations* with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. 
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]`If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13by *sleeping with* another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her *impurity* is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is *impure* --or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not *impure*-- 15then he is to take his wife to the priest
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]23If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he *sleeps with* her, 24you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death --the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife.http://www.bibleplus.org/homosexuality/homo_frame.htm


[/FONT]The official teaching rests on the view that the innate purpose of the sexual faculty is twofold: procreation and love union. Every sexual act must be open to procreation, and must be expressive of love. This is the churchs basis for condemning masturbation, contraception, sterilization and homosexual acts. It is also the ground for condemning artificial insemination, even with the husbands semen (AIH). Contraception is wrong, in the hierarchical magisteriums view, because it prevents procreation. AIH is wrong because the act of insemination is not the natural act which, by its very nature, is expressive of love.http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=113
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]
[/FONT]


morgentaler said:


> I guess if you considered hating "god" the same as hating some asshole character on General Hospital the same, then you'd have a point.
> 
> Since both are fictions.
> 
> ...


And I'll be happy to admit it.I hate religion.I hate the "god" that I have grown up being unwillingly subjected to every day of my life.But I hate ignorance.And ignorance is rampant in religion.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 7, 2009)

Yes, the Bible.... back in the good ol' days..... when gays were killed, women were 2nd class citizens and property of men.... and Jesus was down with slavery.

Let's all follow the Bible!!


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

Xeno420 said:


> I'll speak on behalf. Some of us were brought into a religious home and our parents or the ones that raised us are such believers and are so worried inside for our salvation that we see the distress in them and makes us want to believe but the truth is that we feel something is seriously wrong, so we become rebellious to our teachings but at the same time we would love to see some stone cold truth; real proof. It will never happen and so we have such anger inside, even hatred because we feel like we have been lied to our whole lives... we're supposed to give ourselves up for god and for some of us rebels, it rubs us the wrong way to know that we spend our whole lives watching those we love waste their life away in ignorance and/or think that we may be wrong and beat ourselves up our whole lives in confusion. Ignorance is bliss then...




Your anger at your parents justifies not believing that God exists? That's not very rational. Or, is it because of your superior wisdom? Are you a teen ager? Personally, I don't care what your beliefs are. That's the beauty or freedom. Think what you want. Say that some of the most brilliant men and women I've ever met are ignorant because they had faith, then we have something to talk about. I find your beliefs no different from the christian churches, at least in sentiment. Based on what you wrote, its as if you became the people in your religious experiences (you and your friends, I mean). 

Really, you think every nation that ever existed is ignorant because they knew there was a God? You are no different than a church that says *you *are the ignorant one because you can't see what is in front of your face. No one likes to told their entire life is all wrong, even you evidently. But you do the very thing to others you say has harmed you in the past. 

I don't claim to be christian (too much bull shit tied to that word) but I agree the christian churches are filled with all kids of darkness, greed, pettiness, selfishness, molestations (sorry CJ for the bending over the couch comment. I didn't know all you were children. It makes scene, though). Kind of like all the things you'll find in life, regardless of the personal beliefs. Rage against the christian church all you want. I may even join in. We all have our horror stories. But, you hold you are better than me and most of the people on this site........... shit, in the entire world and throughout all history! There aren't many people who would agree with your superior wisdom. Wise in your own eyes.

So, stop your whining. You got your feelings hurt? Welcome to life! Just a tip...... it gets worse. Wouldn't it be nice if you knew there was someone who was very patient with you, and didn't want you to be alone in your struggles? I may be waisting my breath.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Your anger at your parents justifies not believing that God exists? That's not very rational. Or, is it because of your superior wisdom? Are you a teen ager? Personally, I don't care what your beliefs are. That's the beauty or freedom. Think what you want. Say that some of the most brilliant men and women I've ever met are ignorant because they had faith, then we have something to talk about. I find your beliefs no different from the christian churches, at least in sentiment. Based on what you wrote, its as if you became the people in your religious experiences (you and your friends, I mean).
> 
> Really, you think every nation that ever existed is ignorant because they knew there was a God? You are no different than a church that says *you *are the ignorant one because you can't see what is in front of your face. No one likes to told their entire life is all wrong, even you evidently. But you do the very thing to others you say has harmed you in the past.
> 
> ...


 
So you spent that entire response talking about how irrational the post was, then at the very end of your post, you justify your belief by the warm cushy feeling you get in your stomach before you go to bed at night, *knowing *"someone who was very patient with you, and didn't want you to be alone in your struggles" is watching out for you. 

That's just a little ironic...


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> And I'll be happy to admit it.*I hate religion.I hate the "god" that I have grown up being unwillingly subjected to every day of my life.*But I hate ignorance.And ignorance is rampant in religion.



Just my humble opinion, but I think that's briliant, and probably the most well founded argument against the christain church I've heard on this thread. Thanks. 

I wish you could come and speak at my mothers church. It's Baptist. They will tell you what you can and can't do with your naughty parts. Masterbation is a great subject for guilting some teen age boy or girl into submission. The pastor, imho, is a big child and uses the power he enjoys to bolster his fragile ego. He teaches about a god that I don't recognise, especially when he uses the Bible to support his vile attmpt to bring the congregation further under his control. 

The bold part, very moving. Maybe because I've said the same thing. I was taught about a god that only seemed to care about how good I looked to "outsiders". Very self focused. When I got tired of thinking about myself so much I was confronted because you can't tell christians to start thinking about others more than themselves. It's all about their "good" whiteness, right? Got to protect god's image, because he can't seem to do it himself.


"For me, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. For me, all things are permissible, but I will be mastered by nothing!" 

That is a Bible verse that makes scene to me. Life was made for us to enjoy, so be free! And, it is wise to keep in mind that there are unbeneficial things that can take mastery over us. What those things are can only be decided by the individual. Say that to a christian and they'll try to shove you back into one of their boxes. If that doesn't work, then "to hell with you" is the only option. This is my long winded way of agreeing with you that religion breeds lazy minds.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, the Bible.... back in the good ol' days..... when gays were killed, women were 2nd class citizens and property of men.... and Jesus was down with slavery.
> 
> Let's all follow the Bible!!




Compared to the option of following an "evolved" monkey's wisdom............. I chose the Bible.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> So you spent that entire response talking about how irrational the post was, then at the very end of your post, you justify your belief by the warm cushy feeling you get in your stomach before you go to bed at night, *knowing *"someone who was very patient with you, and didn't want you to be alone in your struggles" is watching out for you.
> 
> That's just a little ironic...




Your self serving spin on my post not withstanding...... what do you find ironic?


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Your self serving spin on my post not withstanding...... what do you find ironic?


How you said "your argument is not rational" then admitted you believe in God because it's easier than not.

Whose arguement is not rational?

That is ironic.

Just to make this clear, you don't accept evolution, is that true?


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> You realize that in the United States it's virtually impossible for any individual to be elected to a position of any substantive power without being Christian?



Tell that to Barny Frank.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> How you said "your argument is not rational" then admitted you believe in God because it's easier than not.
> 
> Whose arguement is not rational?
> 
> ...



I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't say that. Maybe if you responded with a quote from that post in which you are referring? 

I remember saying that believing no God exists because you are angry at your parents isn't rational. Is that what you mean?


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> I remember saying that believing no God exists because you are angry at your parents isn't rational. Is that what you mean?


Yes, exactly. I agree, but then you go on to say why you do believe in God, because it makes you feel better, which is also, completely irrational. Right?


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 7, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> ..... then you go on to say why you do believe in God, because it makes you feel better, which is also, completely irrational. Right?



Sounds rational to me. What's irrational about wanting to feel better, or good...what ever? By that logic, it's irrational for me to smoke weed, too.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Sounds rational to me. What's irrational about wanting to feel better, or good...what ever? By that logic, it's irrational for me to smoke weed, too.


There is nothing irrational about wanting to feel better. What is irrational is when you believe in God *because* you *want *to feel better. 

What if believing that it'll never rain again is what made me feel better? Is simply *believing *that going to make it happen? What happens to my belief when it does rain again? 

What's irrational is believing something exists for any other reasons other than direct, observable, verifiable proof that said object or being exists.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 7, 2009)

Most religious ppl are only religious with the snippets of the Bible they agree with.

An indication that no one REALLY believes it. 

So the Bible is TRULY NOT the word of G*D.

It's a convenience, comfort and social networking tool, nothing more.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Tell that to Barny Frank.


Let me rephrase that then... "without belief in the Abrahamic God"

Since he's Jewish and still religious.

Show me an elected atheist and I'll be impressed.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 7, 2009)

There are NO self proclaimed Atheists at the national level of politics.

Half the Christians freaked out over Mitt Romney being a Mormon. Imagine that. A guy with Romney's business and political background having to go on national television to explain his faith.

It's a big problem in this country. The church needs to be cut away from the state and filtered out of politics.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 7, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Let me rephrase that then... "without belief in the Abrahamic God"
> 
> Since he's Jewish and still religious.
> 
> Show me an elected atheist and I'll be impressed.


 
I believe there is a single atheist congressman. Could be wrong about that, but I'm almost positive there is, I remember that because I remember thinking "how the fuck did an atheist get into politics in this day and age?!"


But yeah, 1 out of 435...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 7, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I believe there is a single atheist congressman. Could be wrong about that, but I'm almost positive there is, I remember that because I remember thinking "how the fuck did an atheist get into politics in this day and age?!"
> 
> 
> But yeah, 1 out of 435...


 really? I'll check that out.... that's amazing. 

Such tolerance!!! 1

Here's a good link to find public ppl who are brave enough to suffer the stings and barbs.

http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page


----------



## Brazko (Oct 7, 2009)

I think that equates pretty well, Considering Religion of the World Population 
32% Christian, 
19% are Islam, 
13% Hindu, 
12% Agnostic,
6% Buddhism, 
6% Chinese Folklore
4% Tribal/Shamanism, 
2% New Age (ie Scientology),
with the Rest of Relgions making up <1%, 

Atleast Athiesm isn't last making up 2%.... 

I think that is an overblown # 1 out of 435 considering this is a Christian Nation where as 75% of the people are Christian...

I don't see how 1 slipped through the Cracks, 

I think Quota was Made


----------



## Xeno420 (Oct 7, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> Your anger at your parents justifies not believing that God exists? That's not very rational. Or, is it because of your superior wisdom? Are you a teen ager? Personally, I don't care what your beliefs are. That's the beauty or freedom. Think what you want. Say that some of the most brilliant men and women I've ever met are ignorant because they had faith, then we have something to talk about. I find your beliefs no different from the christian churches, at least in sentiment. Based on what you wrote, its as if you became the people in your religious experiences (you and your friends, I mean).
> 
> Really, you think every nation that ever existed is ignorant because they knew there was a God? You are no different than a church that says *you *are the ignorant one because you can't see what is in front of your face. No one likes to told their entire life is all wrong, even you evidently. But you do the very thing to others you say has harmed you in the past.
> 
> ...


Mr. Mauihund,

My suggestion to you is start reading my posts starting at post #307. You obviously don't know anything about me and do not understand what what I am trying to say. My words are said through experience because I have been there, done that and have met with so many others that share my feelings as if I was speaking their hearts for them. I'm not going to say that I am super wise but wise enough to know how I feel because of the life I have lived... so how or why are you going to talk smack about me if you have absolutely no clue what it is like to walk in my shoes? I would suggest to read my posts when you are sober so that you can chew slowly and swallow with water what I am saying because I don't think you grasp my mentality and are skipping a few words or you are simply skimming my messages. I'm no idiot, God has been one of the most debated subjects of my life and I am not simply talking to gain browny points, I am talking my life just to share my views... I am no teen, lol, I'm older than you I bet. 1977 4 life!


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 7, 2009)

That number of athiests sounds wrong. Only 2%? Someone has seriously dropped the ball education wise.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 7, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> That number of athiests sounds wrong. Only 2%? Someone has seriously dropped the ball education wise.


Europe has a metric shitload of atheists (that's about 1/4 of a fuckton). But Europe doesn't have a lot of people in comparison to the rest of the world.

Countries with lower education tend to have high religious stats. So you've got Asia and Africa totally padding the other half of the world.
Plus in Middle Eastern countries, and others with fundamentalist Islam the atheist stats are skewed because admitting to it is almost certainly a death sentence.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 8, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> I believe there is a single atheist congressman. Could be wrong about that, but I'm almost positive there is, I remember that because I remember thinking "how the fuck did an atheist get into politics in this day and age?!"
> 
> 
> But yeah, 1 out of 435...




Just keep preaching the good word. You'll get more converts in time. People are just bound to realize the righeouseness of your cause.

It's been fun, gentlemen. God bless you all.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

It's not about converting ... that's what the church does. It's about creating an atmosphere so that real atheists can run for office and be accepted by the mythers who preach tolerance, but have very little for anyone outside their myth.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 8, 2009)

Guess what happens if you don't teach children to believe in Santa Claus.
They don't believe in him.

Can you guess what happens if you don't teach them to believe in God?

If God makes them, why doesn't he instill the belief in them from the beginning?
Atheism doesn't convert. It's the natural state.

No indoctrination needed.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

Exactly why the church is so INTENT on getting their hands on the children (no pun intended, tho I'm sure it's already crossed ur mind).


----------



## Xeno420 (Oct 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Exactly why the church is so INTENT on getting their hands on the children (no pun intended, tho I'm sure it's already crossed ur mind).


F***in' Jax! LOL


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 8, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> Guess what happens if you don't teach children to believe in Santa Claus.
> They don't believe in him.
> 
> Can you guess what happens if you don't teach them to believe in God?
> ...


Actually this isn't true. It's human nature to believe without any indoctrination in some form of some god and that's evidenced by historical facts that almost every group of people that have ever lived of any size from a few men in a tribe to an empire they all made up a god of one kind or another.

People fall into that trap as easily as a fly sticks to flypaper because it is our nature to feel like there must be more or there must be a reason or there must be order we just don't see it or understand it or whatever. 

You have to be either educated out of it or reason your own way out of that natural trap fairly early on in life.


----------



## PadawanBater (Oct 8, 2009)

I think it's a little bit of both. 

Sometime in the beginning, when ancient man started wondering these things about existence, he thought up the concept of "God". From then on it's mostly been indoctrination since birth for the majority of people. 


---------------------------------------------
I started smoking right about here... lol

---------------------------------------------

You live in America, chances are you're going to be Christian, Middle East/North/East Africa - Muslim, etc.. 


People push this stuff on us our whole lives, since the beginning, before we're old enough to know how to think about them. Just like how there are age restrictions for children on certain things because their minds aren't capable of understanding them correctly. Religion is exactly the same way.


Then there's that void from the human condition. The want to know. Curiosity, that keeps us asking how we got here or where we're going. An intelligent person knows that they do not know all things. They know when to admit it and attempt to learn. 


So the natural curiosity we have is there, that's for sure, but the reason we place "God" into the equation is because our ancestors and all of our history tells us it's true, they thought it was true based on principles that were not designed to determine if something in the real world is true or not, so we can determine that since they started off with a false premise, the accuracy of the conclusion we see, that is religion worldwide, is not necessarily correct, simply because of that. Believers ask me "you don't believe in God? You really think 6 billion people could be wrong?" --- YES! Absolutely, 6 billion people could be wrong about religion. The numbers mean nothing.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 8, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Actually this isn't true. It's human nature to believe without any indoctrination in some form of some god and that's evidenced by historical facts that almost every group of people that have ever lived of any size from a few men in a tribe to an empire they all made up a god of one kind or another.


No, it's human nature for a child, during its formative years, to accept the things it is taught by adults. Dawkins addresses this with the example of a child told by its parents "Do not go to the waters edge or the crocodile will eat you." 
If the child was a purely rational (but not necessarily wise) being it may attempt to test this statement. 

Superstition, not reliant on any deities, is also present naturally. The superstitious organism is able to quickly establish cause/effect relationships, but with simple reinforcement rather than deductive reasoning.

[youtube]f15PNrk94kg[/youtube]


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 8, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Then there's that void from the human condition. The want to know. Curiosity, that keeps us asking how we got here or where we're going. An intelligent person knows that they do not know all things. They know when to admit it and attempt to learn.


If you want answers that make you continually question the way the world works, you turn to science.

If you want answers that demand you not question them, you turn to religion.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 8, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> No, it's human nature for a child, during its formative years, to accept the things it is taught by adults. Dawkins addresses this with the example of a child told by its parents "Do not go to the waters edge or the crocodile will eat you."
> If the child was a purely rational (but not necessarily wise) being it may attempt to test this statement.
> 
> Superstition, not reliant on any deities, is also present naturally. The superstitious organism is able to quickly establish cause/effect relationships, but with simple reinforcement rather than deductive reasoning.
> ...


Doesn't your second paragraph explain my position though? Every human that ever walked the planet attributed things he couldn't comprehend like weather and wind and disease etc to gods... Being naturally superstitious is the same as being naturally prone to believe in gods I think.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 8, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Doesn't your second paragraph explain my position though? Every human that ever walked the planet attributed things he couldn't comprehend like weather and wind and disease etc to gods... Being naturally superstitious is the same as being naturally prone to believe in gods I think.


Yes, this is why the Organized Scheme, Works... I think it's part of our minds natural evolution to recognize and associate a connectedness to the universe outside of what we recognize with our 5 senses... This isn't why religion is bad, this is how intelligent men of the time recognized the power of this phenomenom and have used it to enslave the masses... The Religion/Superstiton is a natural necessity in how we evolve.., We wouldn't even have science if we didn't question who we are and what our role in life was, It's been a continual evolution of consciousness...That's all Religion is, The REst is what it is, it doesn't matter how you try to label the Organiziation behind it(religion, political, goverment, the person, etc.. etc..) and that is usually who it comes down to, the people placed in positions of authority..

but that's just the way I see things


----------



## Brazko (Oct 8, 2009)

I believed in a Literal Space God, but always questioned and tried to wrap my brains around how such a being could exist.... I was able to believe this because as a child I felt a connection to nature and the world around me.. One day when I was actually listening to the preacher, I was like.., WoW.. that's what I've been feeling and the rest is history.. But it takes more than just accepting that, as I stated before, I wanted to understand the Truth about what I was feeling and just didn't settle...


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

Almost all religion we use today originated before science. Yes, it is "natural" for humans to fill in the gaps of information with "something". 

That doesn't mean we are born with it. as I have posted many times, one could just as easily raise children with Dr. Suess or the Brothers Grimm, and get the same moral lessons. No religious boogey man is necessary.

Science has freed us from the myth.... it's just that man for all his wondrous technological advances, is still quite primitive. 

Most cannot let go of the myths.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 8, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Doesn't your second paragraph explain my position though? Every human that ever walked the planet attributed things he couldn't comprehend like weather and wind and disease etc to gods... Being naturally superstitious is the same as being naturally prone to believe in gods I think.


It's not. A cause/effect relationship does not directly extrapolate to god.
If you're a seagull, and you drop a shell on a rock and it pops open, the ability to establish a cause/effect relationship in one instance is beneficial. Of course, if you show the seagull that if it stands on one leg clam meat will fall into a feeder in front of it, it will pick up on that too. Which isn't exactly beneficial if it spends all day standing around on one foot hoping for food instead of looking for it.

Superstition doesn't require a god in the slightest. Unless you're assuming that pigeons have their own Jesus sitting about somewhere 

Gods are not inherent, they are trained. There are cultures with creation myths that don't involve gods, but are just interactions between natural creatures. "How the elephant got it's trunk" is the interaction between the elephant and a crocodile.

If you raise a child without religion but also without dismissing religion, you don't get an automatically religious child.

My parents gave me a children's bible to read. They also gave me Greco-Roman and Norse legends. I had as much chance coming out of that encounter with literature a follower of Thor as of Yahweh. But they were just stories. 

Nobody told me I was supposed to believe them. Therefore I was not indoctrinated in it.

Though if you can show me a study that shows belief in Gods (not raw superstitious belief) is inherent, and therefore must be unlearned, I will concede. I'm a sucker for proofs


----------



## Brazko (Oct 8, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Almost all religion we use today originated before science. Yes, it is "natural" for humans to fill in the gaps of information with "something".
> 
> That doesn't mean we are born with it. as I have posted many times, one could just as easily raise children with Dr. Suess or the Brothers Grimm, and get the same moral lessons. No religious boogey man is necessary.
> 
> ...


Yes, CJ, that's exactly what I'm saying, we are not born with knowing God, as the word could of easily been the Almighty Poop Stain..., We would've connected our being to Poop Stain if that was how we were directed, but we would believe in Poop Stain b/c we had a unknown sense of being connected to the rest of nature.. It just that the Wise or Cunning would be leading..

anyhow, I think we are coming to the same conclusion, we just sit on different sides of the aisle... and express it differently


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 8, 2009)

I just realize that no matter what side of the aisle anyone is on.... there is no "word". 
No supernatural "word" anyway...... it's all man made.


----------



## Brazko (Oct 8, 2009)

Yes, the same point I'm making.., But we have to use some Word to Refer to a described meaning.. Correct it has nothing to do with an aisle, just what a person chooses to relegate as the meaning. I can understand the meaning of God/god, simply by listening and understanding the person, whether it be a Scientist or the Pope.. It's nothing supernatural in the Act of doing so...


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 8, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> It's not. A cause/effect relationship does not directly extrapolate to god.
> If you're a seagull, and you drop a shell on a rock and it pops open, the ability to establish a cause/effect relationship in one instance is beneficial. Of course, if you show the seagull that if it stands on one leg clam meat will fall into a feeder in front of it, it will pick up on that too. Which isn't exactly beneficial if it spends all day standing around on one foot hoping for food instead of looking for it.
> 
> Superstition doesn't require a god in the slightest. Unless you're assuming that pigeons have their own Jesus sitting about somewhere
> ...


Well I don't buy the whole superstitious pigeon thing either it's also human nature to assign our emotions and feelings to animals rather than trying to understand what's really going on. The birds have an internal clock far better than ours and know much more accurately than we would when it's close to feeding time. Maybe they just dance because they're anticipating the food and exited, not because there's any superstition that the food dance actually does anything. My dogs anticipate people coming home at certain times and get all wound up in anticipation, watching the door like hawks maybe pacing around a bit or something. It doesn't mean they think watching the door and pacing around makes us come home. If they did think that all they'd ever do when we're gone is pace around and watch the door all day and that just doesn't happen.


----------



## mexiblunt (Oct 8, 2009)

There is some really good experiments done with dogs in this nature. The one I saw was on discovery or tlc a few years ago. They took the internal clock, the sound of the vehicle, the anticipation of houshold members etc. out of the equation.

What they did was had someone from the research team notify the owner every day when to go home from work in real time at random times every day. At the time the person was told to go home they were given a different mode and route every time. A camera was set up in the home to watch when the dog would go jump at the door or window. The dog usually got excited and did this at the time the owner was notified it was time to go home.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 8, 2009)

B. F. Skinner's published paper:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

Thanks.To be honest though, I'm never sure where you're coming from.One minute you sound like an atheist, the next you don't.If you're being sarcastic in some of your posts, forgive me because it's hard to tell on the net.


Mauihund said:


> Just my humble opinion, but I think that's briliant, and probably the most well founded argument against the christain church I've heard on this thread. Thanks.


Baptists.Oh what fun they aren't,lol.All you really have to ask anyone, preacher, religious nut, etc,who tells YOU what gawd thinks or wants, is "How do YOU know?Has God spoken to you personally?" And watch them backpedal.I'd be fine with folks wanting to believe,as long as they don't:
1. Arrogantly assume everyone else feels the exact same way.
2.Try to dictate my actions or the actions of others based on their own personal belief system.
3.Brainwash young children into feeling shame or guilt for doing things that are completely natural, even in the animal kingdom.Monkeys and dolphins masturbate.Hell, my pet bird masturbates on one of his toys because his female isn't interested in sex.One day I caught her kissing him as he merrily fucked the shit out of said toy.Kinky birds.

Like I've said before, I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness.And they're not even the most loony of the Christians,trust me.But I was taught by a well meaning parent to feel shame about the sex act.Coupled with being molested as a young child by an older child, I had a lot of issues I had to work through as an adult.Shame and guilt are powerful tools of control,and that's why I get so pissed when religious people start in.I tend to get angry mostly at Christians, because I've never had a Buddhist,Wiccan,Hindu, etc,come over and preach their faith at me or to my loved ones.It's mostly the Christians who are in your face ramming their big fat throbbing Christ down your throat.
Knowing what shame and guilt can do to a person,I tend to get pissy when folks try to tell others what to be ashamed of. The only thing anyone should be ashamed of is harming another without good reason.That's it.Dishonesty isn't good either, but sometimes a lie can be a good thing, if it comes about as a means to avoid harming someone,and it doesn't have an impact on others in a detrimental way.
The sexual shame thing, the only reason I can figure it came about was because it's an easy way for the church to have a hand in ensuring an influx of new members who can be easily and readily assimilated.And celibate clergy members are so sexually repressed and frustrated that they are simply fascinated with the details of the entire act.They really just wanted to make it as unenjoyable for others as possible while still ensuring people did in fact procreate. Hence the Catholic church frowning on birth control....how else will they keep the church and its coffers growing?And since devoutly religious(read:brainwashed) parents tend to pass their beliefs on down to the kids,the institution of marriage is used to: 1.Attempt to ensure that both parents are of the same faith, thereby increasing the likelihood that any issue born of the marriage is immediately indoctrinated into the faith from birth.
2:Control and manipulate the sexual activities of its members.This is because the need to reproduce is born into us.If we are taught to second guess the instincts that lie at the very core of us,we are compromised on many levels.If we feel guilt for sexual feelings or actions, (and I'm talking normal ones here, not aberrations like rape,etc.),which most of us have on a daily basis,we can be manipulated into:a.procreating only within a "sanctified" union (which accomplishes what I said above on 1.),and b:feeling sinful, dirty, and unworthy,lowering our self esteem and making us easier to control,by making us feel we deserve it. The entire purpose of confession is to keep you feeling guilty,to give you a repetitive, meaningless penance such as a Hail Mary to occupy your mind so you won't actually think too much,and to give the priest a little thrill by being a voyeur into your private thoughts and feelings so he can pass judgement upon them and also gain insight into how to control the individual better.
The sad thing is,many people will believe in something without examining it too closely because it saves them the trouble of thinking.


Mauihund said:


> I wish you could come and speak at my mothers church. It's Baptist. They will tell you what you can and can't do with your naughty parts. Masterbation is a great subject for guilting some teen age boy or girl into submission. The pastor, imho, is a big child and uses the power he enjoys to bolster his fragile ego. He teaches about a god that I don't recognise, especially when he uses the Bible to support his vile attmpt to bring the congregation further under his control.
> 
> The bold part, very moving. Maybe because I've said the same thing. I was taught about a god that only seemed to care about how good I looked to "outsiders". Very self focused. When I got tired of thinking about myself so much I was confronted because you can't tell christians to start thinking about others more than themselves. It's all about their "good" whiteness, right? Got to protect god's image, because he can't seem to do it himself.
> 
> ...


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 9, 2009)

"Christians who are in your face ramming their big fat throbbing Christ down your throat."

Hahaha funny stuff, two thumbs up for that one!


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

Was it good fer you, baby?


OregonMeds said:


> "Christians who are in your face ramming their big fat throbbing Christ down your throat."
> 
> Hahaha funny stuff, two thumbs up for that one!


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

I have to spread some more rep around first, but that post is definitely getting some. Bravo


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 9, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> I have to spread some more rep around first, but that post is definitely getting some. Bravo


what post?


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 9, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Was it good fer you, baby?


Makes jesus taste a whole lot more spooge like than those body of christ crackers.


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 9, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> what post?


If we can educate people in a way that causes them to reject their own heritage, and the religious beliefs of their parents, we can enact our communist plan, just as Stalin did right? 

Hey, for all of you who don't believe in any other dimension other than the one you are so focused on, can you explain the recent overwhelming interest in the occult? Why is it most young folks don't believe in God, but they are quick to glom on to embrace the occult? 

*Movie Review: Jennifer's Body*

Seattle Post Intelligencer - &#8206;Sep 23, 2009&#8206;
This comes at the heels of recent allegations that rapper Jay-Z is involved in the *occult*. Hidden messages are in his music and videos. *...*

*Exhibitionist: The best art shows to see this week*

guardian.co.uk - &#8206;25 minutes ago&#8206;
The *occult's* relationship with a century of British art is the premise for The Dark Monarch, a show uniting figures as different as monolith-carver Barbara *...*

*Paranormal Activity'*

Kansas City Star - Colin Covert - &#8206;Oct 8, 2009&#8206;
In this bland domestic environment, *occult* occurrences are doubly freaky. The documentary style photography is all through the lens of Micah's camera, *...*

*Drag Me To Hell Unrated Director's Cut DVD Review*

NewsBlaze - Prairie Miller - &#8206;Oct 1, 2009&#8206;
Alison Lohman is Christine Brown, a highly uncooperative *occult* victim, in a role which might have been better served up by the somewhat weirdly fascinating *...*


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 9, 2009)

"If we can educate people in a way that causes them to reject their own heritage, and the religious beliefs of their parents, we can enact our communist plan, just as Stalin did right? "

Athiest don't get together to form plans. It's cristians that get together and make laws which force their limits and what behavior they deem appropriate and inapropriate on to others.

Being a preacher I'm sure you are thinking objectively about all this right?

People look for answers and things to keep their minds busy all the time. Just because the occult is more popular now or whatever doesn't mean any of that crap has any validity just like your crap doesn't have any validity either just because a lot of people believe something in no way makes it true.


----------



## HappySack (Oct 9, 2009)

What must the handsome prince fight in his effort to save the princess? A dragon! What is one of the central symbols of eastern culture and found in every parade? A dragon! What animal do you find pictured in every Chinese food restaurant? A dragon! Prior to the discovery of dinosaur fossils in the 18th century, these creatures were referred to in many cultures as "dragons". Now we view dragons as mythical when in reality they are real cultural memories of dinosaurs now extinct. It would be very hard to believe that so many people from so many different places could have come up with such similar stories and similar descriptions if dragons never existed. According to ancient stories, dragons cam in many shapes and sizes. Some could fly, some could swim and they even laid eggs just like dinosaurs!
The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34) From the description found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a Hippo and "Leviathan" is a Crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Oh really? Even in my own personal Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crock! But there are some obvious reasons why this conclusion is wrong.
First, "Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfect.
Second, "Leviathan" cannot be a Crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, "v9 you be laid low even at the sight of him? (This was a large animal) v10 No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; v25 When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; (crocs don't raise up at all but are always low) Because of the crashing they are bewildered. v26 (This animal was large! This animal made seismic thunder as it walked. You know...that slow, low, terrifying thud that Jurassic park portrayed so well.) v26 The sword that reaches him cannot avail; (crocs are quite easy to kill with a good spear) Nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. (Croc wrestling is a sport, the croc usually looses) v31 He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. v32 Behind him he makes a wake to shine; (crocs make little wake if any) v34 He looks on everything that is high" (again it was a tall animal with a long neck).
What is significant about this is that if "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are dinosaurs, then is it crystal clear that Job had either seen them personally, or there was a recent memory of them. This of course flies in the face of current evolutionary theory.
The Paluxy River in Texas is the home of Dinosaur National Park with hundreds of fossil dinosaur tracks. Right beside the dinosaur tracks are three sets of human fossil footprints and a large cat track. The most famous track is the Taylor Trail which consists of a series of 14 footprints in a left-right pattern. The stride and foot length is consistent throughout. The evidence is so convincing that several university students recently presented with all the data accepted that the human footprints were real, but doubted the dinosaur footprints were real. All the fossil footprints in the Park are genuine. No informed person would ever suggest that the human footprints were carved as was irresponsibly rumored 50 years ago. It is clear that man and dinosaur live together and co-existed at the same time. With this both science and the Bible agree!
So next time you order your favorite Chinese food dish, take a second look at the mural of the dragon on restaurant wall or on the take out container. Then go home an re-read Job 40-41
So here is my question to you, If humans evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

Wow, plagiarize much?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-dinosaurs-mentioned-in-bible.htm



> So here is my question to you, If humans evolved from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?


We didn't evolve from monkeys. If you are going to ask a question, based on a premise, then you should make a minimum effort to actually verify that your starting premise is correct.

You also assume that evolution has an end goal - that for some reason a primate ancestor should gravitate toward human form.

Evolution doesn't think ahead. It doesn't plan for tomorrow. It is the gradual change of species over time as natural pressure selects from the genetic profiles most successful at achieving reproduction.

Monkey's are related to humans, but they are not going to turn into humans.

But you already know that. If you can go out finding nonsensical biblical arguments you can also look up some of the links presented in this thread explaining genetic drift and ring species.

Instead you'd rather cut and paste someone's nonsense about historical accuracy of the bible (oh, fuckoff), reference the Taylor Trail (at which the locals *admitted* to adding some human footprints to accompany the well worn dinosaur footprints that non-paleontologists had mistaken for human), and use the claim that prior to the mid-1800s no dinosaur fossils had been seen.

You're a troll. And not even a good one. You're a lazy troll that didn't even try to find a half sensible argument.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> Hey, for all of you who don't believe in any other dimension other than the one you are so focused on, can you explain the recent overwhelming interest in the occult? Why is it most young folks don't believe in God, but they are quick to glom on to embrace the occult?


Hate to break it to you, but religion is the occult. They're just looking at ones that are more interesting to them.

Remember kids, any supernatural phenomena outside of person X's religion is not acceptable! You must adhere to the worship of the God-Thing!

And how is this recent anyway? One of the first popular silent movies was Nosferatu. Edger Allen Poe and HP Lovecraft excelled at occult fiction.

It gets harder to find entertainment like that as you start to go back in history, because your religious comrades would *murder* people for witchcraft or blasphemy at the drop of a hat. 

I'm left handed. There are a few places and periods in history where that would have been a death sentence if I did not hide such a fact.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

HappySack said:


> What must the handsome prince fight in his effort to save the princess? A dragon! What is one of the central symbols of eastern culture and found in every parade? A dragon! What animal do you find pictured in every Chinese food restaurant? A dragon! Prior to the discovery of dinosaur fossils in the 18th century, these creatures were referred to in many cultures as "dragons". Now we view dragons as mythical when in reality they are real cultural memories of dinosaurs now extinct. It would be very hard to believe that so many people from so many different places could have come up with such similar stories and similar descriptions if dragons never existed. According to ancient stories, dragons cam in many shapes and sizes. Some could fly, some could swim and they even laid eggs just like dinosaurs!
> The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34) From the description found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a Hippo and "Leviathan" is a Crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Oh really? Even in my own personal Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crock! But there are some obvious reasons why this conclusion is wrong.
> First, "Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfect.
> Second, "Leviathan" cannot be a Crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, "v9 you be laid low even at the sight of him? (This was a large animal) v10 No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; v25 When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; (crocs don't raise up at all but are always low) Because of the crashing they are bewildered. v26 (This animal was large! This animal made seismic thunder as it walked. You know...that slow, low, terrifying thud that Jurassic park portrayed so well.) v26 The sword that reaches him cannot avail; (crocs are quite easy to kill with a good spear) Nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. (Croc wrestling is a sport, the croc usually looses) v31 He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. v32 Behind him he makes a wake to shine; (crocs make little wake if any) v34 He looks on everything that is high" (again it was a tall animal with a long neck).
> ...


The sad part of this post is the author is either completely ignorant or a manipulator. Amen??


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

Green Cross said:


> If we can educate people in a way that causes them to reject their own heritage, and the religious beliefs of their parents, we can enact our communist plan, just as Stalin did right?


Except that your straw man argument doesn't have a brain.

Stalin communism wasn't just a political system. It was dogmatic, the dialectic to remain unquestioned. 

Dogmatic faith is bad. Whether it's religious or political. People who are trained not to question authority, religious or political, eventually end up doing terrible things, because eventually someone in power is going to take advantage of that faith.

Stalin's dogmatic communism demanded atheism not from logic and reasoning, but simply because dogma does not tolerate opposition. Religion dictates to the people, and a political dictator who tolerates competition does not stay in power very long. Stalin did not only crush religion where he found it. He controlled or murdered anyone capable of formulating reason or organization in opposition to him. Thousands of scholars and scientists were milked for their skills and then sent off to labor camps or execution because rational, educated people are a threat to a dogmatic system.

So now that you threw out your straw man argument, I expect to see your tin man and cowardly lion arguments shortly.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

Pointing out that a heritage which is FALSE is a NOBLE deed, no matter the amount of resistance.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 9, 2009)

He might as well have said:

[youtube]mJt5iDgMOLc[/youtube]


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

elderberry insults!!!


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 9, 2009)

[youtube]STlYN5KCiWg[/youtube]


----------



## Stoney McFried (Oct 9, 2009)

So uh...because some old book written a thousand years ago in Hebrew,(by authors noone can verify)which has since been translated into several languages by people of of varying levels of honesty and education who didn't all agree on the exact meaning of each and every word,and also heavily edited for content and completely rewritten with new characters and an altered story line says there were large creatures who walked the earth,those creatures existed?And were dinosaurs?And using the bible to prove the bible totally defeats the theory of evolution?Mmmmkay.


HappySack said:


> The Bible mentions two dinosaurs by name and describes them in great detail. "Behemoth" (Job 40:15-24) and "Leviathan" (Job 41:1-34) From the description found in Job, scientists have attempted to identify these animals. They believe "Behemoth" is a Hippo and "Leviathan" is a Crocodile. But these scientists limited their choices to non-extinct species and did not consider the possibility of dinosaurs because man and dinosaur never coexisted. Oh really? Even in my own personal Bible a footnote suggests these two animals were a hippo and a crock! But there are some obvious reasons why this conclusion is wrong.
> First, "Behemoth" cannot be a Hippo because of Job 40:17 "He bends his tail like a cedar". A hippo has a short tail like a pig. Behemoth, had a large tail shaped like a cedar tree (large and tapered). I believe a better choice is that Behemoth is a Brachiosaurus type of large land dwelling dinosaur. It fits the description perfect.
> Second, "Leviathan" cannot be a Crocodile but is probably a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur. Here is what Job 41 says with my comments in brackets, "v9 you be laid low even at the sight of him? (This was a large animal) v10 No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse him; v25 When he raises himself up, the mighty fear; (crocs don't raise up at all but are always low) Because of the crashing they are bewildered. v26 (This animal was large! This animal made seismic thunder as it walked. You know...that slow, low, terrifying thud that Jurassic park portrayed so well.) v26 The sword that reaches him cannot avail; (crocs are quite easy to kill with a good spear) Nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. (Croc wrestling is a sport, the croc usually looses) v31 He makes the depths boil like a pot; He makes the sea like a jar of ointment. v32 Behind him he makes a wake to shine; (crocs make little wake if any) v34 He looks on everything that is high" (again it was a tall animal with a long neck).
> What is significant about this is that if "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are dinosaurs, then is it crystal clear that Job had either seen them personally, or there was a recent memory of them. This of course flies in the face of current evolutionary theory.
> ...


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 9, 2009)

Dinosaurs with people ok.
How come monkeys aren't turning into people today? Wow your mastery of the concept of evolution is astounding.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

9 out of 10 teachers *recommend* good spelling in sig lines.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 9, 2009)

wreck-o-mend


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

ahhhh ... you mended. that'll be three fitty


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 9, 2009)

I'll have to pay you in buds that's all I have. 

Thanks though, totally missed that one.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 9, 2009)

BUDS!!!!


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 10, 2009)

Xeno420 said:


> Mr. Mauihund,
> 
> so how or why are you going to talk smack about me.........




I didn't intend to continue posting to this thread, but I did want to say I said all that without smack, I was smackless, smack free zone here. I spoke to you like I talk to my friends........ as if they can handle whatever I have to say. I think that's respectful. At least thats where I was coming from. 

If a guy I knew told me he just killed a woman because he thought she was a witch. But, he told everyone I gave him instructions to do so, my response would be something like "Are you out of your fucking mind?!!". The answer to that rhetorical question would be yes. He was out of his mind. People say all kinds of shit to justify their greed, murder and selfishness. Even christians. Maybe especially christians.

This is my attempt to describe the damage the christian church has done to society. By using God's word for their own selfish ends, many have taught their children an image of God that comes from in their own selfish minds. Like Nietzsche said (close, anyway) "We have created God in our own image. We then found him impotent, so we killed him. God is dead." If that is an unjust paraphrase, I apologies. But it still makes my point......

......which is, regardless of the specific cercomestances and details in your religious experience, no one can depend on others to teach them how to think. As a child you are kind of predisposed to listen to your parents point of view, but you didn't know their opinions were just as skewed as everyone else's. It sounded like you were saying that because someone told you "God gave them permission to harm you" in some way, you believed them. Then when you found out later they were full of shit, you concluded God didn't exist. I could be wrong. It's happened before. But, I say it without smack.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 10, 2009)

yeah, you just went over to another thread to call us monkeys, ya weasel 

but that's okay. no matter how heavily we bash each others opinions, these threads are refreshingly devoid of direct insults.

try that in youtube comments on videos either for science or faith, and the next thing you know people are calling you mean names in hopes that you'll cry and be electrocuted by your keyboard.


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 11, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Athiest don't get together to form plans.



You are either very wrong or you have a hidden agenda. In my humble opinion. 

Atheists are organized and purposeful in spreading their vision, their "cultural" agenda. 

You have done nothing more than substitute one form of religion for another. Humans were created to worship someone of something. Ath*ism* is proof of that. 

Here's just the first few conferences and organizasions I found on Google. For your reading pleasure.


American Athiest Conference:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/01/05/2009-american-atheists-conference-registration/

Seventh World Athiest Conference 2009:
http://www.sacw.net/article557.html

Dont Believe in God? You Are Not Alone, Aprosilatizing Athiests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html

The Rise of Atheism - Australian Atheist Conference 2010:
http://seantheblogonaut.com/2009/05/the-rise-of-atheism-australian-atheist-conference-2010/

Life Without a Net - American Atheists Conference:
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/american-atheists-conference/

Athiest Alliance International _:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/

CFI Student Leadership Conference - " DJ Grothe called our struggle to promote reason a cultural war.
http://www.examiner.com/x-14681-Rochester-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m6d30-CFI-Student-Leadership-Conference-2009-wrapup


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 11, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> yeah, you just went over to another thread to call us monkeys, ya weasel
> 
> but that's okay. no matter how heavily we bash each others opinions, these threads are refreshingly devoid of direct insults.
> 
> try that in youtube comments on videos either for science or faith, and the next thing you know people are calling you mean names in hopes that you'll cry and be electrocuted by your keyboard.



Oh yeah? Well you started it! 


And by the by.....you called yourself a monkey. If you can't get my position correct, at least get my mocking straight. What do you expect when you attack someones beliefs? A request to marry the fairest women from their village? 

If you don't like listening to yourself belly ache about someone who finds your superior comments insulting, maybe you ought to show a little more respect for others beliefs. 

I'm sure you would want the same treatment.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 11, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> You are either very wrong or you have a hidden agenda. In my humble opinion.
> 
> Atheists are organized and purposeful in spreading their vision, their "cultural" agenda.
> 
> ...


 
Clearly you don't know a thing about athiesm it's not a religion period and it's not normal for us to go to any of those things you mention. People don't come to athiesm in the sense you think athiesm is just what non believers are called when they hate religions.

99% of the time we never seek any meetings and of those that do most would never go more than once because it's as stupid as going to church.

The percentage of athiests or non believers that go to any of those has got to be so low it's statistically insignificant. What kind of weight do you think any of those organizations wield? What have they ever even accomplished at all?

If you actually looked beyond the surface most athiest "meetings" are just support groups and nothing more. Life without a god is harder to get through. With no imaginary friend to talk to and no promise of an afterlife where things will finally be better some people feel a need to actually talk out their problems with real people. People that think the same way and don't try to talk jesus to you.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

The absence of faith is not a belief system.

At the heart of the conflict with the religious is the belief that there is a PLAN. There is FATE, and DESTINY. 

Atheists, at least the ones that I meet, when I go to the secret underground meetings at the local catacombs, all logically conclude that life is chaotic and not unlike being in a rowboat in an ocean. When its calm, it's beautiful, but preparation and repairs need to be constantly done, because a storm is always on the horizon. It's just the randomness of life....and death. Some can face it (atheists), and some cannot (religious). 

No matter how much you patch ur rowboat, and no matter how fast you bail out the water of chaos, ur boat WILL sink on any given day without notice, and perhaps, on the calmest of days.

Some can face it head on without a myth.


----------



## IAm5toned (Oct 11, 2009)

How dare you speak of the catacombs on a public forum... the master plan has been compromised!

this was my random flame for the day


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

Ooops... I meant Wal mart... we meet at Wal mart.... look for spandex.


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 11, 2009)

I have contacted red leader and I suggest you submit yourself voluntarily rather than wait to be picked up.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

Ouch...... I understand.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 11, 2009)

Mauihund said:


> And by the by.....you called yourself a monkey. If you can't get my position correct, at least get my mocking straight. What do you expect when you attack someones beliefs? A request to marry the fairest women from their village?
> 
> If you don't like listening to yourself belly ache about someone who finds your superior comments insulting, maybe you ought to show a little more respect for others beliefs.
> 
> I'm sure you would want the same treatment.


I said that we are apes. There is a significant differences between the two.

A belief is only worth the respect it earns. Baseless beliefs without evidence are worth no respect.

If someone announces tomorrow that the cure for cancer is baked beans for breakfast and a gasoline enema before bedtime, unless they have proof their outrageous claims are fair game.

Your pompous religion already dictates that we athiests are going to hell and you are going to heaven (but only 144,000 of you, and then only the Jewish ones, oops), and that you are morally superior to us. 

Yet the representatives this "morally superior" religion still commonly beat children for simply writing with their left hand, as recently as 20 years ago. I went to school with some of their victims.

You can demand that I respect the beliefs of a religion that:


 advocates genocide (Jebusites and others)
advocates kidnapping and rape (Lot's daughter and any command to go into a city)
advocates murder (Jesus upholding the idea of murdering a child for speaking back to their parents)
pretends its holy book wasn't designed by committee at the Council of Nicea.

There are two defenses for Christianity:
"The bible says -" and "But we don't know -", and half the time the "We don't know" statements are based on science from prior to World War 2.

Want respect for religion? Show some evidence that it's not just smoke, and mirrors, and god's poor fiscal responsibility.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

To this day I turn my paper 90 degrees to write with my left hand. After multiple raps with the dreaded pointer (remember those?), my kindergarten nun Sister Mary Gerald (I'll never forget her) finally started turning my paper sideways to prevent me from writing with my left. Much to her consternation, I adapted to it. As a compromise I used my right hand on the chalkboard.

Sister Gerald wasn't a mean person, but determined in her doctrine. I never wished her ill will, but that pointer.... man that thing hurt.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 11, 2009)

I'm not sure why the religious right is having problems with the discovery of Ardi...
Just think, now instead of one "gap" where Ardi was, there's now TWO gaps. One on either side. This provides a whole new roosting place for the god of the gaps.

Additionally they are now one million years closer to Flintstone reality.
Yabba dabba doo!


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 11, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> To this day I turn my paper 90 degrees to write with my left hand. After multiple raps with the dreaded pointer (remember those?)


Even though I grew up in the ass end of nowhere none of my public school teachers ever smacked kids for the left hand.
It was went I moved and met friends who went to christian schools that I found out it was still going on.
One guys writing was completely unintelligible with his right hand, but he just couldn't use his left hand to write any more because they had aggressively abused him any time he attempted to.

If we had been born in the middle ages, there's a good chance we would have been killed for that simple reason. Our lack of belief certainly would have sealed the deal in many locales in Europe.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

I can still remember my very first day with Sister Mary Gerald....

Now Sister Mary was Polish, first generation, so she had a thick accent, especially for kindergarten kids.

My last name is of Czech origin, but my dad pronounced it more American then Czech.
So the very first day, Sister Mary did the first roll call to gather everyone up for lunch. When she called ur name, you would get up and stand in line by the radiator. Well, she plowed through some names and then hit mine. With her heavy accent I completely did not recognize my own name. She called it out like 4 times, each time with more gusto and consternation. As she "flew" over to her desk to get her class seating chart I remarked to the kid next to me...."whoever that kid is...he's in trouble"...

Well, she yanked me out of that chair spewing forth a bunch of Polish damnings and smacked my arse all the way across the room as she literally dragged me to the radiator. I was bawling like a new pup during Inuit seal season.

When I got home, my Mom was soooo excited as you can expect....
"What did you learn today. Honey"??
"I learned my name" I replied. We're not saying it right!!!

That was the first of many parent teacher meetings..... 

At least my parents stuck up for me....


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 11, 2009)

morgentaler said:


> If we had been born in the middle ages, there's a good chance we would have been killed for that simple reason.


You know there are a few small tribes in Africa who will kill their own children if their top teeth don't come in before the bottom!
They believe that child to be damned, and any child born out of wedlock is damned as well.

My question is where is God at this juncture?
The father believes wholeheartedly that he is doing God's work when slaying his damned son.
Which one goes to heaven? The damned son or the damned father.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

SS, this has been a problem that the church readily admits to in regards to Africa. Despite all of their efforts, most of the ppl in Africa adamantly keep their voodoo/primitive beliefs even as they accept the Christian faith (so they can eat). 
despite the church's best efforts, they have not made a dent into the native myths which still hold sway.


----------



## lopezri (Oct 11, 2009)

Okay, I have to admit, I didn't read the whole thread, just some of the things to get an idea of what people were saying. But isn't Leviathan considered a dinosaur in the Bible? I always thought that was what it was referring to. Who knows?

Anyway, I thought I'd mention this book for y'all because it really tied things together for me - 
*The Secret History of the World: As Laid Down by the Secret Societies*

by Mark Booth

Anyway, just thought you might find it interesting.


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

No, a leviathan in biblical terms meant any large sea creature..... a whale would have been called a leviathan.


----------



## Green Cross (Oct 11, 2009)

I have to wonder if the anti-religious blogger's, who continue to pound the table... actually grow anything?


----------



## CrackerJax (Oct 11, 2009)

No one is pounding any table..... me thinks ye protest too much.

Feeling frustrated I see.


----------



## morgentaler (Oct 11, 2009)

We're not pounding the table.

We're looking under it to see if that's where religion hides the common sense.


----------



## Sure Shot (Oct 11, 2009)

Keep your heads down under the table.
Here comes the Inquisition!


----------



## Mauihund (Oct 11, 2009)

Good luck with that then.


----------



## Xeno420 (Oct 13, 2009)

Look into a video called "The naked truth". I believe it to be pretty accurate about religion.


----------

