# Religion, or lack of, open discussion/FRIENDLY debate.



## CaptnJack (May 11, 2009)

First and foremost this WILL be a civil discussion and or debate. i'd like to see other peoples points, opinions, discoveries.

was there a christ? or other deity?

or we the result of colliding meteors? 

(i know most veterans to the site will) be logical tho, and bring points to back up your statements. no dumb quick liners bashing either way. lets be graceful.


----------



## Akita420 (May 11, 2009)

or we the result of colliding meteors? 

15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Pt 1

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 12, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> First and foremost this WILL be a civil discussion and or debate. i'd like to see other peoples points, opinions, discoveries.
> 
> was there a christ? or other deity?
> 
> ...


I don't know. I don't believe humanity is at a point technologically or scientifically where we can actually determine if there was a God or not.

More experimentation would be required to confirm or disprove the existence of God, or a god, or of multiple gods.

Me, personally, I think there might be some force out there that can be described as God that we haven't recognized yet, and having not recognized it, can not possible manipulate, or calculate for.


----------



## godsgarden (May 12, 2009)

God is real


----------



## CaptnJack (May 12, 2009)

godsgarden said:


> God is real



sounds convincing to me, dude i said at the top, explain. thats the point of the thread, not ONE liners. 

i'm all for opinions, just explain.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 12, 2009)

Akita420 said:


> or we the result of colliding meteors?
> 
> 15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Pt 1
> 
> ...


the fact remains that those meteors came from somewhere, and nothing just appears, something creates it. something has to start life to something new, so where'd the rock come form?


----------



## godsgarden (May 13, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> the fact remains that those meteors came from somewhere, and nothing just appears, something creates it. something has to start life to something new, so where'd the rock come form?


 god can make some pretty cool things(earth)


----------



## CaptnJack (May 13, 2009)

godsgarden said:


> god can make some pretty cool things(earth)


Seriously dude, again im all for adverse opinions, but bring some kind of validation, explain, since this is suppose to be a discussion, like what makes you think youre god is the ONE god? what proof do you have to support it? you come off as another sheep led by the blind. just makes you look kinda...ill-informed or under educated on your own religion....


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

I believe faith is godsgarden validation......not all people are led by the "seeing is believing, bring me facts" etc. etc. philosophy.....as for me, I am still searching for answers ....... another thing, if you ask to keep things civil, be sure too follow your own advice peace out


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 13, 2009)

i have more belief that we came from aliens than a god created us. not even kidding...
the bible is a joke... of all the historians in jesus's day, not one wrote about him. the gospels were written centuries after jesus's supposed death. many religions mirror the bibles text to a T... it's sad people live every moment of their life to this book.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

.......or maybe the BIBLE and other religions is following something else..........


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 13, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> .......or maybe the BIBLE and other religions is following something else..........


thats why i said aliens... the farther religion goes back. the more astrological it gets (it seems). Is it because thats all they had to look at for thousands of years? Who knows for sure...

i don't believe we came from monkies. thats for sure. i believe in a little evolution... but not changing species


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

bro....I'm on the same page as you.....


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

we were supposedly created to serve our masters...to mine for precious GOLD... LOL


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 13, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> we were supposedly created to serve our masters...to mine for precious GOLD... LOL


lol exactly man. the precious metal that we all slave for.. it's so ridiculous if u think about it.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

taking a break from that other thread, huh  I was learning alot from that discussion though


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 13, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> taking a break from that other thread, huh  I was learning alot from that discussion though


lol what thread would that be ?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

well, I wish my journal had that many views and replies in such a short period of time LOL....


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

maybe I should re-title my grow journal politics 101 LOL !!


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 13, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> maybe I should re-title my grow journal politics 101 LOL !!


lol your all over the place tonight man

EDIT: sorry for thread jacking. i'll get us back on track.

There could possibly be a god, but it's not any modern religions or any religion at that matter. my mind works on logic. An invisible man in the sky doesn't seem logical to me.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 13, 2009)

yeah....I usually stay away from these threads and stick to the grow room.... I get schooled in here!!! LOL peace man


----------



## godsgarden (May 14, 2009)

yes dr greenhorn guessed right. FAITH
have FAITH in a better life after this one. Do good things, treat people with respect, if not for GOD do it for yourself and the feeling you get after helping someone out whether it be giving a few bucks away or sharing a few kind words of ecouragement.
God Bless


----------



## Bluelq (May 14, 2009)

I have been asking the same questions for a while. More so I had been trying to prove Gods existence, and a benevolent existence at that. I finally came across Zen. Zen asks probably one of the most important questions I have ever heard Who are you, the real you, can you show me?.
 Its tricky but gets the job done, we are talking about the real you, not the wannabe, changing, developing person etc.. The real you. Most would think its soul, yet the questions asks for a demonstration. It basically brings the question of God to your front door. Zen as Alan Watts said is concerned with the finger pointing at the moon. Quotes like The sword can cut everything but itself are a perfect point as to what it attempts to ask. We speak of belief, love, and all that jazz. Yet who is the one doing this? 
 After some consideration and a good smoke, I had an epiphany of an understanding. This is me, all of it. It is up to me to assume what me I wish to be, and this is only done in relationship to someone or something else. I am God, if you understand the definition of it. God the Creator separated in to separate matter to experience myself (Conversations with God- Donald Walsh) 

 The funny thing is I am human right now, but because I at some level have chosen that. If I chose or willed to be God, all I would have to do is lose the identity of the false self (The I am, what I am Not, thus I am) and understand the unity I have with All. If I did that though no more super highs, love, tears, drama and so on. Or maybe not, maybe I would be everything? 
 Would I be all the people in our lives? Since I know its only a role, an identity, that is the only way I can compare to being something more. In other words there is a self out there, a Me, that has done it. Defied space and time and became the universe and upon looking back said, hey I liked the ride, going to keep it. Its a loop anyways, the eternal loop of the Now. Every moment being re-created to eternity. 
 So from it you get various understandings about life. You realize first off you are who you are because of a relationship to something. Secondly, you control that relationship. You also realize that all the other yous out there, are you deciding to act as another person. Heck the future God You is here Now and we dont even see it. We cant see it because its us. The moment we ask who is God, it means that we consider God to be a separate force, separate from our own consciousness. How could that be, if that was the case how would God even know of us? How do we know of us?

 The whole thing leads to the process of freedom. The action of getting free will. For the most part we have sold our free will to an game console, a car, or even another human being to be happy (marriage). Most of us run away from something. Rarely do any of us run towards ourselves, or at least an understanding of. Its called attachment. Definition of self with something that appears to be external to our self. LSD points out that maybe we are not so separate, so do various modern theories of physics. But I find peace in knowing that: Hey if we didnt do this whole thing to begin with, I wouldnt be here right now. Would I?


 The argument is basically simple. How certain are you that this world you live in is real? Blue Pill -- Red Pill


----------



## fdd2blk (May 14, 2009)

the lord is a monkey ..................... 




[youtube]UFwf7gRiLYM[/youtube]


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 14, 2009)

I love this video!!!


----------



## moggggys (May 14, 2009)

sorry but its all bollox , there is no magical mystery here , its all man made to control and man is very simple to lead , i do believe in christian values but not the manipulation of the masses , its an irony that people here would question in a heart beat the slightest miss quote or incorrect posting and yet would not seek to question something thats ingrained into us all from before we have the smarts to be able to question it , all i can really bring to this is a fella called derran brown 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX5xMjfBDes

his use of the control techinques in religous contex is profound and yet hes kind enough to explain exactly whats happening , his religious belief is rather lacking lol


----------



## dynamitejack (May 16, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> i have more belief that we came from aliens than a god created us. not even kidding...
> the bible is a joke... of all the historians in jesus's day, not one wrote about him. the gospels were written centuries after jesus's supposed death. many religions mirror the bibles text to a T... it's sad people live every moment of their life to this book.


I took 1 class on greek mythology and learned how generic some of the bible's stories were. For instance the story of Noah's Ark was almost a direct copy of a part of the story of Gilgamesh and the story of Gilgamesh is the oldest known work of literature.

I was also taken back about how Christianity, Judaism and Islam shared many of the same stories.We studied the three different versions of the story of Joseph and they all told the same story just with different details. I think there were a few other stories that were more different than not but its been a few years since that class.

To me religion is a way for humans to describe what they don't understand and to make humans feel better about dying. The reason I believe this is because so many of the worlds ancient civilizations such as the egyptians, greeks, myans and aztecs (to name a few) all created their own gods. The greeks religion started as stories. Stories about things they couldn't understand and over the years these stories became dogma which controlled almost every one of the greek's decisions. Isn't the bible a book of stories? How many times do we know it has been revised? Sounds similar to the greeks huh?



godsgarden said:


> yes dr greenhorn guessed right. FAITH
> have FAITH in a better life after this one. Do good things, treat people with respect, if not for GOD do it for yourself and the feeling you get after helping someone out whether it be giving a few bucks away or sharing a few kind words of ecouragement.
> God Bless


People do act good in the name of god but they have also acted very, very bad in the name of god as well. Why do you have to hope for a better life after this one? Why not make the life your living the best you can?



Bluelq said:


> I have been asking the same questions for a while. More so I had been trying to prove Gods existence, and a benevolent existence at that. I finally came across Zen. Zen asks probably one of the most important questions I have ever heard Who are you, the real you, can you show me?.
> Its tricky but gets the job done, we are talking about the real you, not the wannabe, changing, developing person etc.. The real you. Most would think its soul, yet the questions asks for a demonstration. It basically brings the question of God to your front door. Zen as Alan Watts said is concerned with the finger pointing at the moon. Quotes like The sword can cut everything but itself are a perfect point as to what it attempts to ask. We speak of belief, love, and all that jazz. Yet who is the one doing this?
> After some consideration and a good smoke, I had an epiphany of an understanding. This is me, all of it. It is up to me to assume what me I wish to be, and this is only done in relationship to someone or something else. I am God, if you understand the definition of it. God the Creator separated in to separate matter to experience myself (Conversations with God- Donald Walsh)
> 
> ...


I think you have a Pantheistic view there


----------



## Dan Halen (May 16, 2009)

Well certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Only in the end will everyone know the truth. So I'm takin' bets!


----------



## wm2009 (May 17, 2009)

There's 2 types of atheists. 
The ones that just don't feel the need to believe in God, because they enjoy life as it is, and/or because they don't like the idea of God. 
These kind of "atheists" would not believe in God even if one day it's existence will be proven!
This kind of atheism is a dogma as well, because it refuse sciencentific research to keep beliefs.

There's the ones that prove that God does not exist (like me), because of scientific research.
One day I said myself I could accept the existence of God, as well as it's non existence. 
Agnosticism is a good start.

Now the same thing can be said for believers, there is the one that have been brainwashed and feel good to think that God exist. And the one that will believe in God after something happens in his life.
This kind of believers were atheists first, and when you ask them why you believe they say that God comes not from the intellect, from the outside, but from the inside. That they have been illuminated by God itself.


----------



## wm2009 (May 17, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> i don't believe we came from monkies. thats for sure. i believe in a little evolution... but not changing species


I don't get what you mean, if you believe in evolution you should believe that anything is possible. Why put limits ?

However, I want to say evolutionism still not a prove to atheism, to point this out, evolution may be considered creationism as well, not static but that changes, now your issue is if all has been predicted or not.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 17, 2009)

Dan Halen said:


> Well certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Only in the end will everyone know the truth. So I'm takin' bets!


I think in the end... no one will know the truth. That's the great trick of it all. It is all a canard.

The DESIRE to worship is a Darwinian hook up with the evolved brain. A survival mechanism of a sort. It has in its many forms (religion,worship) kept us going throughout our very brief history.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 19, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> I believe faith is godsgarden validation......not all people are led by the "seeing is believing, bring me facts" etc. etc. philosophy.....as for me, I am still searching for answers ....... another thing, if you ask to keep things civil, be sure too follow your own advice peace out


I do keep it friendly, but if ppl just do it again, anyway, then its needs to be corrected. 

k? peace out.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (May 19, 2009)

What someone else chooses to believe is largely irrelevant to me. In other words, it's none of my business. 

The First Amendment addresses the right to believe, or to be free from belief altogether. 

My problem is with those who would hold fast to the First Amendment in defense of their own beliefs, but refuse that same protection to people who believe differently, or not at all.

*In God We Trust* on our currency? *Bullshit!*

*Public subsidizing* of churches with property tax exemptions and non-profit status? *Bullshit!

*My state *Legislature* opens *every* session with a* prayer *offered by a different minister brought in each day *specifically* for that purpose.* Bullshit!

*When I served, a soldier who needed counseling had no choice but to go see the *Chaplain*. *Bullshit!

*And let's not forget the *Pledge of Allegiance* with the phrase 'under God' included. When it was added is not important. The fact is it was added - by *Congress*. *Bullshit!*


----------



## Splinter88 (May 19, 2009)

How can there not be a God? lol. Supposedly there is enough galaxies in the universe that if they were all marbles, they could fill up a football stadium. 

I'm pretty damn sure there is a Creator. But who created the creator and who created THAT creator? Crazy to think about. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BToUxSi-QwA

That's one of the many videos about the Annunaki. If your one to believe that we did come from aliens, or had significant HELP from aliens, then you should watch all videos on the annunaki. We were genetic creations of these "giant" beings to work and labor as their slaves. 

The Sumerians somehow had depicted our solar system in ways we didn't discover until a few decades ago, without telescopes. Also included was a 10th planet. Planet X, aka Nibiru. Look into planet x and the year 2012. 

Anyways, God exists. Benevolent? Probably not, otherwise he wouldn't let us go to "hell." Maybe God just thinks mankind has gone downhill so much recently, he stopped caring.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 20, 2009)

Johnnyorganic said:


> What someone else chooses to believe is largely irrelevant to me. In other words, it's none of my business.
> 
> The First Amendment addresses the right to believe, or to be free from belief altogether.
> 
> ...


and seeing as how every religion we know of, has a god, their term for god translated still means "god" so by having it in the pledge isn't hurting any one in any way, since translated it IS the same word. so even for atheists saying they dont like it cuz they have no god, then in turn infringes on those who do, so dont pledge your allegiance skip the words, you do make good points, but i mean by taking it away from everyone, the only ppl you havent havent taken away from is the atheists.


----------



## CanadianCoyote (May 20, 2009)

I don't doubt that Jesus (or someone like him) existed, but his divine origins I doubt highly. Pretty much everything connected to the Christian faith I find... well... abominable. More for the shit that people do in its name than anything else. Also, people who take the Bible literally ... I really can't stand those types. I wonder if they've read the whole Bible, I highly doubt they have. And if they HAVE read it, I doubt they understand it. 

I'm watching an interesting indie film on the Bio channel called 'Jesus Camp'. It's about a radical Evangelical summer camp for kids. It's... scary. It's scary to think that children in America are being brainwashed in this way. The indoctrination of children is one of the sickest wrongs committed by the religious zealots...


----------



## Johnnyorganic (May 20, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> and seeing as how every religion we know of, has a god, their term for god translated still means "god" so by having it in the pledge isn't hurting any one in any way, since translated it IS the same word. so even for atheists saying they dont like it cuz they have no god, then in turn infringes on those who do, so dont pledge your allegiance skip the words, you do make good points, but i mean by taking it away from everyone, the only ppl you havent havent taken away from is the atheists.


Interesting rebuttal. And kudos to you for encouraging a civil debate on a volatile subject.

One segment of the population you left out in your response are the agnostics. Those who do not presume to know. Personally, I fit that category and it perturbs me that those who assume they do know have no problem asserting their beliefs in the public square. 

I do not know. I have no idea if a deity exits. I figure I'll find out soon enough and I am in no hurry. The simple fact that *my money *makes a liar out of me is hard evidence that my *right to be free* of belief has been infringed.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 20, 2009)

It's not about taking away anything....it's about facing a reality and letting the fairy tale go.


----------



## CanadianCoyote (May 20, 2009)

Johnnyorganic said:


> The simple fact that *my money *makes a liar out of me is hard evidence that my *right to be free* of belief has been infringed.


That always troubled me, too. Canada has hockey players on their money, as well as a portrait of the living Monarch. ... Nothing about God, as far as I know. 

You ever see any shows about the conspiracy theories attached to the design of US money? ... Talk about nuts.... wowee...


----------



## Jimmy Luffnan (May 21, 2009)

This a very massive and deep topic to discuss, and is usually detonated by closed minds and ignorance to favor whichever side thinking you believe...but well done for most of you keeping this topic relatively open

I would just like to offer if I may, just a shaving of this matter as it crosses my thoughts

First of all Id like to say that I am not ignorant enough to believe that there is not a higher power simply because I could never know enough to even have the audacity of saying yes or no.

But I conclude...

In the times before the '10 Commandments' and the bible was a time that is rarely written about called the 'Dark Ages'.....

This was a time when man lived without rule.... rape, murder, theft and many other terrible things existed and violence was the supreme authority from which all other derive....

It was a world of chaos for lack of a better word....

When the 10 Commandments were put upon the world, they were questioned... as who had the right to give such orders....

But due to mans still primitive mind... the only thing feared was the unknown....

So a faceless entity, that knew all, saw all, controlled all was created to hold authoritative for all that could not be explained....

Lightning? God.
Pretty scary stuff... and makes sense why god is from the heavens.... but it scared the shit out of men.... and there lack of understanding led them to believe in such an entity, and control of the masses was successful.

The world now had order.

Fast forward a few thousand years to now.... and this still exists.
People do not have answers to thinks they do not understand, our minds (science) has come along way, just like we realized that lightning is not god... but a scientific creation of nature....

But religion has manifested its way through many cultures creating many different interpretations and beliefs surrounding a higher power.... yet the control method remains the same.....

The reason religions fight, is not because of the beliefs, but because of those who use the belief for their power like a weapon.... 

I believe that religion is simply an absolutely intricate and simply awe inspiring technique of control.

But for those of us who do not believe in a god... we have men... Presidents, Prime Ministers, Queens etc. to control them.....

Just the tip of the iceberg from me.... but you are all more than welcome to question me... by all means


----------



## Johnnyorganic (May 21, 2009)

The *Code of Hammurabi* was in place in Babylon close to 400 years before baby Moses was plucked out of the Nile. In other words, codified law existed long before the Ten Commandments were imagined. What is a monument to the Ten Commandments doing on the grounds of my state capitol?

To most scholars, the term *Dark Ages* may refer to several periods of societal upheaval or collapse, but most commonly references the span of time following the fall of the Roman Empire, roughly 500 A.D - 1000 A.D.


----------



## Jimmy Luffnan (May 21, 2009)

Johnnyorganic said:


> The *Code of Hammurabi* was in place in Babylon close to 400 years before baby Moses was plucked out of the Nile. In other words, codified law existed long before the Ten Commandments were imagined. What is a monument to the Ten Commandments doing on the grounds of my state capitol?
> 
> To most scholars, the term *Dark Ages* may refer to several periods of societal upheaval or collapse, but most commonly references the span of time following the fall of the Roman Empire, roughly 500 A.D - 1000 A.D.


Yes Johnny... you are true and correct about both of those facts

But being a light discussion, and this being a forum of stoners.. lol... I was not trying to be deadly accurate as much as I was simply sharing a though....

But yes.. you are correct


----------



## Johnnyorganic (May 21, 2009)

Jimmy Luffnan said:


> Yes Johnny... you are true and correct about both of those facts
> 
> But being a light discussion, and this being a forum of stoners.. lol... I was not trying to be deadly accurate as much as I was simply sharing a though....
> 
> But yes.. you are correct


My response refuted your statement that 10 Ten Commandments brought order out of chaos.


Jimmy Luffnan said:


> First of all Id like to say that I am not ignorant enough to believe that there is not a higher power simply because I could never know enough to even have the audacity of saying yes or no.
> 
> But I conclude...
> 
> ...


Order was established long before the 10C, as I pointed out.

The 10C were originally written for the Jews. The first three commandments demand allegiance to the Hebrew god. And that's fine as long as it stays in the synagogue.

The Ten Commandments have no business in the public square. Again I ask: Why is a *monument* to the 10 Commandments on the grounds of my *state capitol*?


----------



## Jimmy Luffnan (May 21, 2009)

Johnnyorganic said:


> My response refuted your statement that 10 Ten Commandments brought order out of chaos.
> 
> Order was established long before the 10C, as I pointed out.
> 
> ...


Yes, I believe I understand what your saying and it is a good point.

It seems that your capitol has taken usage of the commandments to suit their purpose and disregarded those that don't fit.... which kind of defeats the purpose in my eyes... lol

May I ask to hear your theory please Johnny?


----------



## Highhunter (May 21, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> i have more belief that we came from aliens than a god created us. not even kidding...
> the bible is a joke... of all the historians in jesus's day, not one wrote about him. the gospels were written centuries after jesus's supposed death. many religions mirror the bibles text to a T... it's sad people live every moment of their life to this book.


sounds like me a year or two ago...

I grew up with out much religious influence and there for am pretty open minded to peoples ideas and beliefs. So growing up I was a lazy christian I suppose. Then after learning about space and how many galaxies and other life forms are out there sort of became atheist. After a few months I kind of lost that idea... Now im taking a world religion class and its very interesting. Teaches you about the major religions around the world like hinduism, buddhism, christianity, Islam. Anyway I juts learned about Hinduism and there caste system and system of beliefs and it was pretty remarkable/logical- to the spiritual person. Anyways I would encourage anyone to read the Bhagavad-Gita it was a very interesting short translation of there beliefs and way of thinking. I was very impressed with it. I may seek to follow it one day. Anyway i went to the world religion class the other day stoned and it all made sense.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 21, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> It's not about taking away anything....it's about facing a reality and letting the fairy tale go.


but to so many that "fairy tale" is a hardcore truth. and it takes me back a couple posts, who does it really hurt? or offened? non believers? if they dont believe let them laugh cause its not being forced upon them,

and johnny true on the agnostics, absolutely, i've been there myself, i know how it feels, but as the def. of agnostic is knowing there is a higher source of life, but confused through all the chatter and differences of religions, but yet that source of higher life would still be labeled god no?


----------



## CrackerJax (May 22, 2009)

Who does it harm? have you read up on religion and geo=political conflicts. There is a parallel.

The problem with MOST religions is they are cult based. They NEED you to believe, not just themselves. Missionaries? Sure, to spread the WORD. Islam is in the same boat and it is no wonder that countries now are at odds today mostly because of religion.

No harm? How about GREAT harm...... it's no fairy tale...it's a nightmare based on made up stuff. What could be worse, or more foolish?


----------



## Johnnyorganic (May 22, 2009)

Jimmy Luffnan said:


> Yes, I believe I understand what your saying and it is a good point.
> 
> It seems that your capitol has taken usage of the commandments to suit their purpose and disregarded those that don't fit.... which kind of defeats the purpose in my eyes... lol
> 
> May I ask to hear your theory please Johnny?


Organized religion is a means of control.


CaptnJack said:


> but to so many that "fairy tale" is a hardcore truth. and it takes me back a couple posts, who does it really hurt? or offened? non believers? if they dont believe let them laugh cause its not being forced upon them,
> 
> and johnny true on the agnostics, absolutely, i've been there myself, i know how it feels, but as the def. of agnostic is knowing there is a higher source of life, but confused through all the chatter and differences of religions, but yet that source of higher life would still be labeled god no?


Agnostic as translated from the Greek is 'without knowledge.' Simply put, I do not know and I do not presume to know. I am unwilling to say *yes* or *no* on the question until presented with actual evidence.

I can say that what I have seen thus far is hokum. As far as I am concerned, religious texts are distilled from myths and legends. Fairy tales passed down and written by men.

It is *likely* there was a heretic who went by the name of Jesus of Nazareth and was executed by the Romans. It is *extremely unlikely* that he walked on water, raised the dead, turned water into wine, arose from the grave, and ascended into the clouds. The gospels were propaganda written almost a century after he was crucified.

Identifying myself as agnostic does *not* mean *I believe* in an as yet unnamed deity. Nor does it mean I rule one out altogether. 

Lack of belief is just that. I do not know. On the subject of the existence of a creator I am truly *without knowledge*.


----------



## Jimmy Luffnan (May 22, 2009)

Johnnyorganic said:


> Organized religion is a means of control.
> 
> Agnostic as translated from the Greek is 'without knowledge.' Simply put, I do not know and I do not presume to know. I am unwilling to say *yes* or *no* on the question until presented with actual evidence.
> 
> ...


Well said Johnny
+rep for you mate


----------



## CaptnJack (May 22, 2009)

well crackerjax, i have study religion actually, and its not most religions, in fact to my knowledge there is only one religion that is harmful if you refuse to believe, and that is a sect of muslims, noot even all, believe it or not there are two types of muslims, one is a very passive and keeps to themselves and thier family, then muslims extremists who are brainwashed into believing that killing the infidels will assure a place with allah, maybe in a place where there is no laws that could be inforced against religious persecution, if we were talkin taking particular deities out like Jesus, muhammad ect. i'd agree, but the term god, is no threat to anyone.

(ill find the documentary and share it, but its a doc on islamic extremist beliefs and the WWII nazis, its a trippy truth but the two are connected, more so than anyone thinks.)


----------



## CrackerJax (May 22, 2009)

Harmful if you refuse to believe....... listen to yourself.

Christianity is based on spreading the WORD...at all costs...just like Islam. Islam is just 400 years behind the Christian church in mediating its punishment to unbelievers and perceived violators. The Christian church is more reliant on bribery, extortion and subtlety than the Islam church, but the results are similar. 

In case you haven't noticed the world stage is now set up between the meme of the Christians and the Muslims.... we could do away with BOTH and come out on top of this mess. both are guilty, both are to blame, both are 100% wrong.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Harmful if you refuse to believe....... listen to yourself.
> 
> Christianity is based on spreading the WORD...at all costs...just like Islam. Islam is just 400 years behind the Christian church in mediating its punishment to unbelievers and perceived violators. The Christian church is more reliant on bribery, extortion and subtlety than the Islam church, but the results are similar.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed the world stage is now set up between the meme of the Christians and the Muslims.... we could do away with BOTH and come out on top of this mess. both are guilty, both are to blame, both are 100% wrong.



wow, glad to see this has turned to generalizations, by your thought process, where i live i should be dead shot by a crack head drunk black dude. wait, thats a stereotype thats right. so the extortion, bribery was catholicism, in case you didnt know, by sayin that all christian denoms are like that is a quite inaccurate and idiotic thing to say, considering the churches ive gone to all my life haven't forced tithing by any means, tho they may have had fundraisers. CATHOLISISM is to be under microscope not christians, who told ppl if they didnt give them their wives and daughters they;d go to hell? oh catholics, who said they can assure a place in heaven and out of purgatory with donations? oh catholics...hmm seems to be a trend there. you have a tunnel vision on it seems to me. blame the entire body for few's mistake. 

well hell lets think like you....lets kill all iranian and pakistani ppl men women and children, they are terrorist that will blindly kill. wait thats right its small percentage. 

oh how bout germans, or somalians, or chinese, or japanese, or vietnamese.

or how bout americans since they are strong arming extortionists, who are too controlling and get involved in too many peoples business by nature, and force their political views onto other countries.

see the point is, every body of PEOPLE have sects of bad, and failed.
and missionaries DIE (murdered) in hopes of spreading word, and they a joyous while doing so, they dont take a crowd into oblivion in hopes for pussy in another dimension. christians dont wanna kill non believers instead, pray, and are open to answer questions, those that FORCE which are SOME are wrong for doing so. really honestly know what you are talking about completely before making radical leaps of generalizations.

oh and just for clarification to any who misunderstood what i meant by the "Harmful if you refuse to believe" read it IN context, what i said was the the only to be violent against a person who does not believe was the extremist sect of muslims.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 22, 2009)

They are both simply cults, no need to get excited. Both are in battle with one another. Both REQUIRE everyone believes (for it to really work). Both insist they are right (not possible). That's a recipe for disaster.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 22, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> They are both simply cults, no need to get excited. Both are in battle with one another. Both REQUIRE everyone believes (for it to really work). Both insist they are right (not possible). That's a recipe for disaster.


and in what way does it depend or REQUIRE on everyone believing? its your choice to believe and thats how is is in christianity, very much so at that. 

im just sayin idk where you got your facts on christianity but they're wrong.


we dont depend on others to believe. and i've got a mass of ppl that can verify your views and facts...er opinions are quite wrong. so its either the books based on opinions of the religion, or the mass of said religion....i think i'd go with the people who live it rather than someones ideas of the matter. 

i just feel that if you're gonna blatantly call something a lie, have solid proof to back it.

hell there is historical documentation of christ's crucifiction. and also dont ya think that if you look closer into religions that came from israel and surrounding ground you would also realize that even the people trying to kill christians and jews (i.e. the radical muslims) recognize and also account for most of the bible but one small fact....that jesus wasnt the messiah yet a very gifted prophet. jews? same thing, yet by calling himself the son of god he was less of a prophet and more a blasphemer. 

in any case christianity has ground to hold up on. i know my religion, yet im able to think outside of it. as if it wasn't there. the point is, no matter how you want to put the beginning of our existence, something is NEVER created out of nothing, and if it could one of sciences biggest foundations would be null, matter can not be created nor destroyed. just turns to another type of matter at most. same amount at that. so where does it all root to? something created the universe, if its always expanding, that means its BEEN expanding which also means it started somewhere at a pinprick size and then expanded and expanded. 

started somewhere bub.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 23, 2009)

You seem to think that extortion and coercion only exist on the physical plane. They do not.

Like I said previously, the Christian church has changed its tactics but certainly employed physical torture and death to unbelievers when they could get away with it. Western society has evolved past burning folks at the stake and the church has shifted as well. This does not absolve them however. The Christian church uses their vast stolen wealth to manipulate everyone from the person in the pew to presidents of the US. 
Why???? To spread the GOOD word. Yes the Christian bayonet has been sheathed lately, but the mission is the same as Islam, world recruitment of myth followers. Islam is just where the Christians were a few centuries back.Sharia's law is a parallel to the Spanish inquisition. The Spanish inquisition was not some abhorrent event gone wrong, it was the Bible being carried out per instructions. 

Both religions are abhorrent in their goals, both religions are quite wrong. Both religions are myths (all religions are myths to be fair).

By the way .... "something is never created by nothing" is incorrect. You need to add... "as far as we know today" to that statement to be fully accurate.

Let's say your quote is correct however. What drives you to make up a story to explain "the beginning" when there is absolutely no evidence of it? Isn't that the true question? It is your DESIRE to worship which intrigues me. Perhaps it is hard wired into the darwinian brain as a survival technique, but the drive to worship is on full display everywhere. You can interchange the cultures and the made up belief systems, but the desire to worship fairy tales is very strong indeed. A curiosity to me and those like me that forge ahead of the pack.


----------



## crippledguy (May 23, 2009)

stop the new world order


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 23, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You seem to think that extortion and coercion only exist on the physical plane. They do not.
> 
> Like I said previously, the Christian church has changed its tactics but certainly employed physical torture and death to unbelievers when they could get away with it. Western society has evolved past burning folks at the stake and the church has shifted as well. This does not absolve them however. The Christian church uses their vast stolen wealth to manipulate everyone from the person in the pew to presidents of the US.
> Why???? To spread the GOOD word. Yes the Christian bayonet has been sheathed lately, but the mission is the same as Islam, world recruitment of myth followers. Islam is just where the Christians were a few centuries back.Sharia's law is a parallel to the Spanish inquisition. The Spanish inquisition was not some abhorrent event gone wrong, it was the Bible being carried out per instructions.
> ...


No offense CJ but this is the kind of thinking that lead to the Holocaust.

Why not take it one step further and say that Humanity is the problem and we should all kill ourselves? I'll be polite, you can go first.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 23, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> No offense CJ but this is the kind of thinking that lead to the Holocaust.
> 
> Why not take it one step further and say that Humanity is the problem and we should all kill ourselves? I'll be polite, you can go first.


oorah tdt oorah.

absolutely.

the fact is everyone feels they are right. believe what you want to CJ, but the most dangerous weapon we have is knowledge.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 24, 2009)

Hi...just want to interject...there is NO verifiable historical proof of the crucifixion by ANY contemporaries of Christ.


CaptnJack said:


> hell there is historical documentation of christ's crucifiction. and also dont ya think that if you look closer into religions that came from israel and surrounding ground you would also realize that even the people trying to kill christians and jews (i.e. the radical muslims) recognize and also account for most of the bible but one small fact....that jesus wasnt the messiah yet a very gifted prophet. jews? same thing, yet by calling himself the son of god he was less of a prophet and more a blasphemer.


But...that argument nullifies the argument for a god.Who created this god,if something cannot come from nothing?


CaptnJack said:


> in any case christianity has ground to hold up on. i know my religion, yet im able to think outside of it. as if it wasn't there. the point is, no matter how you want to put the beginning of our existence, something is NEVER created out of nothing, and if it could one of sciences biggest foundations would be null, matter can not be created nor destroyed. just turns to another type of matter at most. same amount at that. so where does it all root to? something created the universe, if its always expanding, that means its BEEN expanding which also means it started somewhere at a pinprick size and then expanded and expanded.
> 
> started somewhere bub.


I disagree.The Suppression of knowledge is dangerous.Which is what the Catholic church has done time and again.Imagine how much further along science might be if the church had not burned so many wise men as heretics for seeking the way things ACTUALLY worked instead of taking the bible's version of events at face value? Are you saying it's better to remain ignorant of something,that too much knowledge is dangerous?Knowledge is never dangerous.It's the method of application of said knowledge that can be.


CaptnJack said:


> oorah tdt oorah.
> 
> absolutely.
> 
> the fact is everyone feels they are right. believe what you want to CJ, but the most dangerous weapon we have is knowledge.


----------



## 420forever1289 (May 24, 2009)

no god....


----------



## 420forever1289 (May 24, 2009)

420forever1289 said:


> no god....


 
christ was just the son of a slut...she couldnt admit she slept around so she said a ghost did it..everyone loves "god" for different reasons.....some people honestly believe because of generations of fear.....some people do it just for the tradition but most people "believe" in "god" because they fear him.....or say fear what will happen if you dont believe..... but honestly.....sit down and think about it.....when i die the spirit inside me either floats up to live in the clowds or sink to the center......well iv got news for you.....were all goin to the center....the jewish dont even believe christ was anything special and he was one of them.... im sorry....im stoned as fuck and im still not a believer


----------



## 420forever1289 (May 24, 2009)

theres my opinion......take it as u wish........but for me........no god


----------



## PadawanBater (May 24, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> No offense CJ but this is the kind of thinking that lead to the Holocaust.
> 
> Why not take it one step further and say that Humanity is the problem and we should all kill ourselves? I'll be polite, you can go first.


 
Explain yourself man. How does that lead to the Holocaust? 

Hitler was a believer...


----------



## PadawanBater (May 24, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> No offense CJ but this is the kind of thinking that lead to the Holocaust.
> 
> Why not take it one step further and say that Humanity is the problem and we should all kill ourselves? I'll be polite, you can go first.


 
Explain yourself man. How does that lead to the Holocaust? 

Hitler was a believer...


----------



## Rob Roy (May 24, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> well crackerjax, i have study religion actually, and its not most religions, in fact to my knowledge there is only one religion that is harmful if you refuse to believe, and that is a sect of muslims, noot even all, believe it or not there are two types of muslims, one is a very passive and keeps to themselves and thier family, then muslims extremists who are brainwashed into believing that killing the infidels will assure a place with allah, maybe in a place where there is no laws that could be inforced against religious persecution, if we were talkin taking particular deities out like Jesus, muhammad ect. i'd agree, but the term god, is no threat to anyone.
> 
> (ill find the documentary and share it, but its a doc on islamic extremist beliefs and the WWII nazis, its a trippy truth but the two are connected, more so than anyone thinks.)


You need to study some more.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 24, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> No offense CJ but this is the kind of thinking that lead to the Holocaust.
> 
> Why not take it one step further and say that Humanity is the problem and we should all kill ourselves? I'll be polite, you can go first.


You have that EXACTLY backwards. Who killed the jews? Why Hitler of course is the standard fare answer. But not without the tacit approval of the Vatican. Hitler was a Catholic by the way. He died a "good" catholic. To this day the church has not excommunicated Hitler......strange, very. Not contained to Germany,Poland, etc. the Vatican allowed the germans to cart the jews of Italy away as well. 

The holocaust was not perpetrated by athiests, but by a silent agreement of religious horror which has been repeated MANY times, thuis was the most far reaching and efficient SO FAR.....

Exactly backwards.....


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You have that EXACTLY backwards. Who killed the jews? Why Hitler of course is the standard fare answer. But not without the tacit approval of the Vatican. Hitler was a Catholic by the way. He died a "good" catholic. To this day the church has not excommunicated Hitler......strange, very. Not contained to Germany,Poland, etc. the Vatican allowed the germans to cart the jews of Italy away as well.
> 
> The holocaust was not perpetrated by athiests, but by a silent agreement of religious horror which has been repeated MANY times, thuis was the most far reaching and efficient SO FAR.....
> 
> Exactly backwards.....


Yes, but the point isn't what Religion Hitler was. The point is the fact that he was of an opinion that a group of people should be killed for their religion or their ethnicity.

Intolerance, whether it be practiced by people like you against Christians or Muslims, or practiced by Muslims or Christians against others is still intolerance.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Harmful if you refuse to believe....... listen to yourself.
> 
> Christianity is based on spreading the WORD...at all costs...just like Islam. Islam is just 400 years behind the Christian church in mediating its punishment to unbelievers and perceived violators. The Christian church is more reliant on bribery, extortion and subtlety than the Islam church, but the results are similar.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed the world stage is now set up between the meme of the Christians and the Muslims.... we could do away with BOTH and come out on top of this mess. both are guilty, both are to blame, both are 100% wrong.



Just thought I'd requote the post in question to illustrate the point that you are in fact talking about killing well over 2 Billion people (1 Billion + Christians, 1 Billion + Muslims)

I was wrong, you make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao look like amateurs. 

Been reading Mein Kampf lately CJ?


----------



## CrackerJax (May 24, 2009)

Well, you obviously misinterpreted my post. Pointing out the horrific effects of religion doesn't mean I condone killing 2 billion ppl. Without the spark of two cult religions, the world would be a far far SAFER place.


----------



## Brazko (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Well, you obviously misinterpreted my post. Pointing out the horrific effects of religion doesn't mean I condone killing 2 billion ppl. Without the spark of two cult religions, the world would be a far far SAFER place.


 
No it Wouldn't, Religion has nothing to do with Man's Selfish Desires.......

That has nothing to do with God's Wish, he doesn't exist........

I think it's linked to Darwinnie Da pooh Survival Hardwired Brain Tho, no pun 2 evolution either, Right?


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You have that EXACTLY backwards. Who killed the jews? Why Hitler of course is the standard fare answer. But not without the tacit approval of the Vatican. Hitler was a Catholic by the way. He died a "good" catholic. To this day the church has not excommunicated Hitler......strange, very. Not contained to Germany,Poland, etc. the Vatican allowed the germans to cart the jews of Italy away as well.
> 
> The holocaust was not perpetrated by athiests, but by a silent agreement of religious horror which has been repeated MANY times, thuis was the most far reaching and efficient SO FAR.....
> 
> Exactly backwards.....



No, but atheists, more specifically communists perpetuated far greater horrors.

Soviet Union - 20 - 30 Million dead of starvation, specifically in the Ukraine

China - ~40 Million dead of starvation during their "Great Leap Forward"



Though if we are just speaking of organizations that worship some entity how about the Environmental movement who can be said to worship Gaia, their actions lead to 35 - 50 Million dying of Malaria as a result of their ban of DDT.


To say that it is just a problem with certain religion ignores the fact that it is not a problem with religion.

It is a problem with letting any two bit hack who wants power actually have the power they crave.

Holodomor (Ukrainian Holocaust by Soviets) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Great Chinese Famine (Chinese Starvation under Communism) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine


----------



## PadawanBater (May 24, 2009)

TheBrutalTruth said:


> No, but atheists, more specifically communists perpetuated far greater horrors.
> 
> Soviet Union - 20 - 30 Million dead of starvation, specifically in the Ukraine
> 
> ...


 
::facepalm::


----------



## CrackerJax (May 24, 2009)

Religion is a point of friction globally. Are there OTHER evils in the world? Certainly. No excuse for religion though, on the other hand it shows religion is not something special at all. Just another control mechanism in which man is crushed and controlled. No excuse.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 24, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> Hi...just want to interject...there is NO verifiable historical proof of the crucifixion by ANY contemporaries of Christ.


Actually as i said, there IS historical documentation of it, check out cornelius tacitus's annals.

"Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44 Christus (Christ)...was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.

Lucian of Samosata: (Christ) the man who was crucified in Palestine"

 these men were professional historians. They researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ's crucifixion.



> But...that argument nullifies the argument for a god.Who created this god,if something cannot come from nothing?


Glad someone decided to ask that, was kinda waitin for it, this is where i say i do not know, because our "GOD" could just be another race, species, or somethin of a population we just have no conception of, that could mean just as we are on the brink of understanding genetics to the point of creating other people, the script created in his likeness" could be cloned, sounds gay i know, but think of it, if we could why couldnt anyone else. 




> I disagree.The Suppression of knowledge is dangerous.Which is what the Catholic church has done time and again.Imagine how much further along science might be if the church had not burned so many wise men as heretics for seeking the way things ACTUALLY worked instead of taking the bible's version of events at face value? Are you saying it's better to remain ignorant of something,that too much knowledge is dangerous?Knowledge is never dangerous.It's the method of application of said knowledge that can be.


actually no, im not sayin we should remain ignorant, just that man is very much corruptable, and too much knowledge in the average persons hand, will result in them using that knowledge to gain better for themselves. so in THAT respect, yea knowledge will lead to danger innevitably but its somethin that cant be helped nor stopped.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 24, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Religion is a point of friction globally. Are there OTHER evils in the world? Certainly. No excuse for religion though, on the other hand it shows religion is not something special at all. Just another control mechanism in which man is crushed and controlled. No excuse.


or perhaps maybe its just simply part of mankind. instead of admitting that humanity has vast variants of good, decent, shady, bad, and fuckin evil ppl lets blame religion? because apparently the same problems happen even when religion isn't present.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 25, 2009)

Yes, man is behind everything, but that was part of my point. If we are going to fight over something, lets's at least make it over something REAL. Warring and destroying lives for a myth is primitive. Religion is a reflection of just how primitive we still are. The way ahead is sans religion.


----------



## solistics (May 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, man is behind everything, but that was part of my point. If we are going to fight over something, lets's at least make it over something REAL. Warring and destroying lives for a myth is primitive. Religion is a reflection of just how primitive we still are. The way ahead is sans religion.


I tend to agree. I'd like to think that we as a species have evolved sufficiently to no longer require the crutch that is religion.

It's time o move on...evolve if you like...past this and on to a higher plane of consciousness that will allow us to better the world we live in today. Not desperately cling on to the belief that a "higher power" is at work while we watch millions die in the name of religion in order to serve it's own agenda. An agenda I might add that has become unfathomably warped through time from it's original incarnation.

And yes, I've read the Bible and I like to believe that I understood the majority. I'm not a Christian but I'm open-minded enough to checkout something which has so many others convinced. I've also read the Koran for the same reasons.

For me personally, I base my beliefs on quantifiable facts, not the grandiose interpretation of what, at best, can only be described as a traditional story passed down through the generations. The fact that the Bible was not written for hundreds of years after the supposed time of Jesus would imply that a degree of "chinese whisper"-like loss of content and context is most likely to have taken place. 

I for one cannot blindly follow the Bible's teachings....."just because".


----------



## LiEBE420 (May 25, 2009)

i think ....................................


----------



## Jimmy Luffnan (May 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Religion is a point of friction globally. Are there OTHER evils in the world? Certainly. No excuse for religion though, on the other hand it shows religion is not something special at all. Just another control mechanism in which man is crushed and controlled. No excuse.


I think likewise, but as much as control can be used for evil, it can also for good

I don't murder, steal or rape... but not because I'm religious, but because these are my morale's and even though they may have spawned from a religious cue in time, I can use these through life.... 

How many stories do you hear about a person who was in a bad way, doing bad things.. drugs, theft, violence etc. and then they found god and changed their ways and became better people...?

If you believe that there is a higher power watching over you and helping guide you through life giving you faith and helping you be a good person, then it is a good thing... not a bad

But when it isolates you to your own fraternity and you turn your back on all others that don't share you faith... this is a terrible thing for mankind and the world....


----------



## Brazko (May 25, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Yes, man is behind everything, but that was part of my point. If we are going to fight over something, lets's at least make it over something REAL. Warring and destroying lives for a myth is primitive. Religion is a reflection of just how primitive we still are. The way ahead is sans religion.


Yeah CJ, I know Ur up on Game, but I wanted to make it clear since I see so many posts stating religion is for the weak, ignorant, & fearful......

They are not describing Religious People, They are describing Man and it's short comings to not being able to Evolve.... 

Let's Say everyone is Atheist, Will the weak, ignorant, & fearful......NO longer exist, Would Peace finally Reign?

Religion is a tool, Money is a tool, People are tools, ad infinitum

I Hate Religion about as Much as I Hate Credit Cards,

Credit CArds are for the weak, Ignorant, & fearful, Who owns 1?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 25, 2009)

Not I......


----------



## CaptnJack (May 25, 2009)

solistics said:


> I tend to agree. I'd like to think that we as a species have evolved sufficiently to no longer require the crutch that is religion.
> 
> It's time o move on...evolve if you like...past this and on to a higher plane of consciousness that will allow us to better the world we live in today. Not desperately cling on to the belief that a "higher power" is at work while we watch millions die in the name of religion in order to serve it's own agenda. An agenda I might add that has become unfathomably warped through time from it's original incarnation.
> 
> ...


i disagree, seeing as how the old disintegrating scripts and scrolls, now idc WHO you are, have an atheist scientist test em, i guarantee they arent faked, but i know that doesnt PROVE religion. and im sorry dude but i tend to not believe you read the entire bible and koran. of the manny ppl i know veryy few have read the entire bible. not sayin you havent, i just have a disbelief you have.


----------



## solistics (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> . and im sorry dude but i tend to not believe you read the entire bible and koran. of the manny ppl i know veryy few have read the entire bible. not sayin you havent, i just have a disbelief you have.


Hey look...that's fair. Look we're all strangers here brought together by our interest in growing. I don't expect people here to "know" me, my ethics, views, morals etc. based on a couple of posts. So no offense taken.

That said, I'm married to an Irish Catholic and let's just say I like to know what I'm getting into  That's what lead me to read the Bible in the first place. That and having spent 6 years living in Ireland where I've seen first hand what religion can do to people I wanted to know what caused the fundamental divide between Catholics and Protestants .

As for the Koran, you hear so much about what it does and does not purport to teach in the popular media that when I took a year off work to travel a Muslim friend who knows my interest in religion as a whole gifted me a copy.

Now again, I don't "expect" you to believe everything I write here but how about you give me the same credit you give to your religious beliefs and grant me the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

im not sayin im not crediting you at all, if someone has sources and experiences i'll listen but i know personally how hard it is to read the whole bible, much less the koran as well, and i mean ALOT of ppl say they've read the bible, and i know they havent, especially if you bait them a little bit some will admit it, and others will be stubborn and look stupid. 

again im not saying you havent, its just my personal experience with ppl. religious beliefs is one thing, saying you accomplished something and someones word is a totally different thing. ESPECIALLY today.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> especially if you bait them a little bit


 
personally, I don't care for baitng nor do I care when I am trying to be baited against.....thats borderline trolling in my book....have a good day capn.


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> i disagree, seeing as how the old disintegrating scripts and scrolls, now idc WHO you are, have an atheist scientist test em, i guarantee they arent faked, but i know that doesnt PROVE religion. and im sorry dude but i tend to not believe you read the entire bible and koran. of the manny ppl i know veryy few have read the entire bible. not sayin you havent, i just have a disbelief you have.



Only, there's one slighty problem with holding that up as a test of religious knowledge, as the Bible is incomplete (both the Old and the New Testaments) and there are many books missing. Books that were removed at the Council of Nicea by the College of Bishops.

Some of these books of course are the Gnostic Texts, and others are other texts such as those that might be amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In an effort to trick people into following Christianity the Priests routinely altered the information with in.

A giant case of Fraud, but that's just a problem with religion. Of course, when any group is preaching sacrifice it follows that they are going to be the ones collecting the sacrificial offerings. The ommissions by Organized Religion, or the actions that they commit, can not be held up as proof or lack of that there is a God.

In truth Organized Religion is a construct of man.

As far as God...

Insufficient Information to work with.

Though there are some interesting stories in the Bible that might lead one to believe that God is an Alien... or an extra-dimensional being...


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 26, 2009)

Sorry, Tacitus was NOT a contemporary, and there was evidence that those writings were tampered with by the church.Every Christian brings him up, and the stuff they say he wrote about christ is fake.In any event, he was NOT alive at the time of Christ. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/review_EVOCC.htm
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html


CaptnJack said:


> Actually as i said, there IS historical documentation of it, check out cornelius tacitus's annals.


"Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44 Christus (Christ)...was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.

Lucian of Samosata: (Christ) the man who was crucified in Palestine"

 I'm sorry, simply not a true account of it.The Romans were very meticulous about such things, and they don't mention him.


CaptnJack said:


> these men were professional historians. They researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ's crucifixion.




But that doesn't mesh with the Bible.God is supposed to be omnipotent.And it still doesn't answer the question...who created this god?If something cannot come from nothing,where did this god come from?If these rules are applied to evolution,then they must be applied to creation as well.If we are clones as you say, then there is no reason to worship him.It would be like worshipping ourselves.


CaptnJack said:


> Glad someone decided to ask that, was kinda waitin for it, this is where i say i do not know, because our "GOD" could just be another race, species, or somethin of a population we just have no conception of, that could mean just as we are on the brink of understanding genetics to the point of creating other people, the script created in his likeness" could be cloned, sounds gay i know, but think of it, if we could why couldnt anyone else.





I disagree.Not everyone is motivated by the same desires.Knowledge can also be used to better mankind.Even the knowledge of something terrible that has happened,like the holocaust.Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.


CaptnJack said:


> actually no, im not sayin we should remain ignorant, just that man is very much corruptable, and too much knowledge in the average persons hand, will result in them using that knowledge to gain better for themselves. so in THAT respect, yea knowledge will lead to danger innevitably but its somethin that cant be helped nor stopped.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> I disagree.Not everyone is motivated by the same desires.Knowledge can also be used to better mankind.Even the knowledge of something terrible that has happened,like the holocaust.Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.



no one said everyone was motivated by the same selfish desires, (although im willin to bet you along with everyone else on this site, is selfish to a point, whether it be money on the street or manipulation, if situation was dire enough, you'd do what you can to save your own ass, or obtain money if necessary) i agree with the fact it can better mankind, there is a difference between knowledge and historical recognition, and i dont see why you are applying it here. My point was connected to historical recognance. im talking about knowledge in fision, or anything that CAN be used harmfully, i know it'll never stop, because wether or not EVERY body is selfish, but more how EVERYBODY is corruptable, just appeal to whats most important to them, "your mothers sick dying? we'll get her the best medical care if ...." deny if you wish, but if we are as you say a piece of evolution at most, then we all have the same basic instincts. 

And as for historical documentation, or credibility. wikipedia (and i dont want to hear the argument that its an unstable source since anyone can create one, thats null and void seeing as how since around 06-07 they have been scrutinous to people being byast and partial in notations and started to verify citations) cites "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

as far as looking into history of even just A man named jesus being crucified, ctrl+f hist.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 26, 2009)

I've been pretty low.Never hurt anyone else to get by.Not everyone is corruptable.Because not everyone is motivated by the same things.
I'm sorry that source is not reliable..and I'm not talking about wiki,I'm talking tacitus.But it's the same argument over and over with Christian types, it feels like an endless loop to me.NONE of these sources were contemporaries of jesus.There is NOBODY from his lifetime that speaks of him.It all comes after.That's not proof to me, sorry.But in my last post I gave two very good links which explain why The testimonium flavium is suspect.And even your own wiki article explains that they are disputed.Here's an excerpt from the article...it's numbered 11, right next to the "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history" which cites tacitus and josephus as a reference TO this "fact",even though both are disputed, and once again, NOT contemporaries of Jesus.(*^* Crossan, John Dominic (1995). _Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography_. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0060616628. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.")


CaptnJack said:


> no one said everyone was motivated by the same selfish desires, (although im willin to bet you along with everyone else on this site, is selfish to a point, whether it be money on the street or manipulation, if situation was dire enough, you'd do what you can to save your own ass, or obtain money if necessary) i agree with the fact it can better mankind, there is a difference between knowledge and historical recognition, and i dont see why you are applying it here. My point was connected to historical recognance. im talking about knowledge in fision, or anything that CAN be used harmfully, i know it'll never stop, because wether or not EVERY body is selfish, but more how EVERYBODY is corruptable, just appeal to whats most important to them, "your mothers sick dying? we'll get her the best medical care if ...." deny if you wish, but if we are as you say a piece of evolution at most, then we all have the same basic instincts.
> 
> And as for historical documentation, or credibility. wikipedia (and i dont want to hear the argument that its an unstable source since anyone can create one, thats null and void seeing as how since around 06-07 they have been scrutinous to people being byast and partial in notations and started to verify citations) cites "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus
> 
> as far as looking into history of even just A man named jesus being crucified, ctrl+f hist.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> I've been pretty low.Never hurt anyone else to get by.Not everyone is corruptable.Because not everyone is motivated by the same things.
> I'm sorry that source is not reliable..and I'm not talking about wiki,I'm talking tacitus.But it's the same argument over and over with Christian types, it feels like an endless loop to me.NONE of these sources were contemporaries of jesus.There is NOBODY from his lifetime that speaks of him.It all comes after.That's not proof to me, sorry.But in my last post I gave two very good links which explain why The testimonium flavium is suspect.And even your own wiki article explains that they are disputed.Here's an excerpt from the article...it's numbered 11, right next to the "That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history" which cites tacitus and josephus as a reference TO this "fact",even though both are disputed, and once again, NOT contemporaries of Jesus.(*^* Crossan, John Dominic (1995). _Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography_. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0060616628. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.")


t

the fact its disputed doesnt mean that its been discredited, much less proven otherwise some ppl tend to lean towards thinkin it has based on thier personal belief, _"christian types"_ lean towards a positive while _atheist types_ lean towards negatives, the fact that archeoligists have uncovered crusified bodies in the same fashion as christ, and a big debate of the actual crucifixtion was that nobody's body could withstand the stakes nailed where they were, and the body weight, but finding another in the fashion closely similar to that of the bibles description is a step. 

and another thing, are we saying that christ never existed, or christ was no messiah nor son of god?


----------



## BakedinBC (May 26, 2009)

Now, i dont want to offend anyone here, just voicing my opinion on religions.

I believe that thousands of years ago, when religions were started, people looked around and only saw a dark and greed filled future. Religions were created to keep everyone in line. Also, these beliefs could explain all the things that sciences (or lack of!) never could. However, today, i think it's about time we dropped it. I don't believe in god, heaven or hell. Although i believe in the happy and loving lifestyle the bible tells people to live, I think we should stop "praying" to these make belief beings that were imagined so long ago to explain natural phenomenon. Is it really too hard for the human race to exist as a kind, loving world without having to fear of a mighty being smiting us for not doing so? Besides, as an adult of the 21st century, can you honestly believe, with all the knowledge of sciences, that there is a hell, heaven and god?

Also, all the effort that goes into religion could be going towards sciences to further our knowledge about the world around us, and BEYOND! ( example, probably not a great one  : instead of praying for someone with cancer, help find the cure)

that is my belief. by saying that im sure there are a lot of people hating me right now, but i feel its necessary to explain to people WHY i believe religion should end.

thank you, and peace


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 26, 2009)

I say he never existed.He's a ripoff of earlier "avatars".One you've probably heard of is Mithras.But I'm planning on hitting the hay soon.....you can see in those earlier links I posted that not only are they disputed, they're picked apart completely.I have an interesting link as well to leave you with...the link to this book...points out that the gospel of Mark is just really a plagiarism of the homeric epics.http://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFqMXX6WAC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=gospel+of+mark++really+jason+and+the+argonauts&source=bl&ots=L7VOhUTqKu&sig=qJb10ii4kk89TJylp13FIWX7zoo&hl=en&ei=UZ4cSuykN5XMMfXe6ZsP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1 IMO, it's all just stories.But Christians seem to need to believe, they simply must have a purpose to keep them going.I prefer to rely on me.


CaptnJack said:


> t
> 
> the fact its disputed doesnt mean that its been discredited, much less proven otherwise some ppl tend to lean towards thinkin it has based on thier personal belief, _"christian types"_ lean towards a positive while _atheist types_ lean towards negatives, the fact that archeoligists have uncovered crusified bodies in the same fashion as christ, and a big debate of the actual crucifixtion was that nobody's body could withstand the stakes nailed where they were, and the body weight, but finding another in the fashion closely similar to that of the bibles description is a step.
> 
> and another thing, are we saying that christ never existed, or christ was no messiah nor son of god?


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 26, 2009)

One more point to make: This is a big glaring example of why religion is dying.Anyone who believes in this stuff should NOT breed.
[youtube]IiSta--f_Lc[/youtube]


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 26, 2009)

i agree stoney. i dont know why people have so much belief in religion. Are they that scared to die? they scared of what happens?or doesn't happen? it really wouldn't matter to me what people believed if it didn't influence politics.. but sadly.. it does.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> One more point to make: This is a big glaring example of why religion is dying.Anyone who believes in this stuff should NOT breed.
> [youtube]IiSta--f_Lc[/youtube]



that is a completely low blow to the christian religion, seeing as how only a a small percentage of christians believe in "speaking in tongues" in modern day. you know i read your post and as they are composed in a civil manner you cut quite a bit, which im sorry is bull shit, and im not gettin worked up, nor angry, but its not necessary, logic should tell you what it tells most all christians, gifts cannot be taught, but way to take a stab.

just as there are ppl who can pick apart christianity that are respected, there are so in the opposite, both discredit each other, and both lead by personal opinion, as it will be for quite sometime, however there are some non believers who still research to find an un biased truth, i mean i could sit here and google for my argument, but i choose to go based off of what i've gathered and learned. and to be quite honest, yea i was a self proclaimed christian for quite sometime in my life, however the past year or so, ive been more so inquisitive of god, and have my own personal theory of life, one without a particular god, but i still believe there was a man named jesus and spoke of good morals, check out a book called "the real jesus" because there are discoveries that are brushed aside, by media, and colleges. discoveries that could say there was a possible true person, a man named jesus. and your comments that the bible was written 100 yrs after "supposed" christ lived, well is just as common of an argument from "atheist" types. and its untrue, think about how long it would take to write the bible, ok? i mean really that large of a book, in that time, would have taken quite some time? no? i mean, first you have to have materials to write with, and i mean its not like they had ink pens or pencils and sharpeners on hand, but yet people are notably quoting the new testament as early as 100 a.d., do the math involved with that. 1198 pages on a larger sized book with average sized font, so that would take some considerable time to write. and to already to have been quoted and being read, doesnt add up, its one of the most common comments that atheists use. and in its way discredited as well.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

oh and one other thing, watch this, and actually take some time to watch, even if you have discrepencies cuz it'll show and explain some things



[youtube]JC_ofs5jC7U&hl=en&fs=1[/youtube]


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> that is a completely low blow to the christian religion, seeing as how only a a small percentage of christians believe in "speaking in tongues" in modern day. you know i read your post and as they are composed in a civil manner you cut quite a bit, which im sorry is bull shit, and im not gettin worked up, nor angry, but its not necessary, logic should tell you what it tells most all christians, gifts cannot be taught, but way to take a stab.
> 
> just as there are ppl who can pick apart christianity that are respected, there are so in the opposite, both discredit each other, and both lead by personal opinion, as it will be for quite sometime, however there are some non believers who still research to find an un biased truth, i mean i could sit here and google for my argument, but i choose to go based off of what i've gathered and learned. and to be quite honest, yea i was a self proclaimed christian for quite sometime in my life, however the past year or so, ive been more so inquisitive of god, and have my own personal theory of life, one without a particular god, but i still believe there was a man named jesus and spoke of good morals, check out a book called "the real jesus" because there are discoveries that are brushed aside, by media, and colleges. discoveries that could say there was a possible true person, a man named jesus. and your comments that the bible was written 100 yrs after "supposed" christ lived, well is just as common of an argument from "atheist" types. and its untrue, think about how long it would take to write the bible, ok? i mean really that large of a book, in that time, would have taken quite some time? no? i mean, first you have to have materials to write with, and i mean its not like they had ink pens or pencils and sharpeners on hand, but yet people are notably quoting the new testament as early as 100 a.d., do the math involved with that. 1198 pages on a larger binded book with average sized font, so that would take some considerable time to write. and to already to have been quoted and being read, doesnt add up, its one of the most common comments that atheists use. and in its way discredited as well.


ur right... the gospels were writen at least a hundred years after jesus lived. according to my recent religion class.. it was 2-3 centuries afterwards. it's just amazing to me that the main historians that actually lived during "jesus's" time didn't write anything about him. i mean.. if the son of god walked the earth while you were alive, i would probably mention it in my notes... but thats just me. never existed n my book


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> ur right... the gospels were writen at least a hundred years after jesus lived. according to my recent religion class.. it was 2-3 centuries afterwards. it's just amazing to me that the main historians that actually lived during "jesus's" time didn't write anything about him. i mean.. if the son of god walked the earth while you were alive, i would probably mention it in my notes... but thats just me. never existed n my book



no that wasnt my point what so ever greenhorn, nor what i said, and if you watch that vid i posted, if i can get it to work, then you'll see what im talkin about, the fact is, jesus was crucified and "he arose from the dead" i know thats in question, but the fact is there was no need in their mind to write of his account because to them he was a crazy, a liar, which was somewhat common in those days, why write of him, do we write and make a big deal out of every person who calls themselves god? no, why? no need. we assume they're nutty. im not sayin this video will make anyone believe, but it will argue what stoney and most religion classes have to say about it.


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> well in any way since i cant post MY video, here is the link at least.
> 
> if you have a rebuttal to my post with this in it, i wont even read it nor acknowledge your post less you watched what you're arguing.
> (this is to anyone, and no one in particular)
> ...


this is how you put it in...

[ y o u t u b e ]watever is after v=[ / y o u t u b e ]

no spaces at all


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> no that wasnt my point what so ever greenhorn, nor what i said, and if you watch that vid i posted, if i can get it to work, then you'll see what im talkin about, the fact is, jesus was crucified and "he arose from the dead" i know thats in question, but the fact is there was no need in their mind to write of his account because to them he was a crazy, a liar, which was somewhat common in those days, why write of him, *do we write and make a big deal out of every person who calls themselves god?* no, why? no need. we assume they're nutty. im not sayin this video will make anyone believe, but it will argue what stoney and most religion classes have to say about it.


we do if they kill someone "in the name of god". and i'm sure we have a lot of written material on people who have thought they are god. i'm sure i could google and get a long long list. if jesus did indeed arose from the dead... that would convince a lot of people.. he would be thought of a magician similar to david blain to say the least. he would definitely be written about.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> this is how you put it in...
> 
> [ y o u t u b e ]watever is after v=[ / y o u t u b e ]
> 
> no spaces at all



much appreciated BROseph, you know, you've been the most courteous to me since i've joined man, you seem like a cool guy, too bad we never met, haha. any way thnx fer the tip man.


----------



## jfgordon1 (May 26, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> much appreciated BROseph, you know, you've been the most courtious to me since i've joined man, *you seem like a cool guy*, too bad we never met, haha. any way thnx fer the tip man.


lol not the first time ive heard that dude. but hey man.. i'd like to meet a lot of people on here. but when it comes down to it... its pretty sketchy . but who knows.. might meet up one of these days


----------



## mystic of oak st. (May 26, 2009)

help I'm trying to post myself and can't figure it out


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> we do if they kill someone "in the name of god". and i'm sure we have a lot of written material on people who have thought they are god. i'm sure i could google and get a long long list. if jesus did indeed arose from the dead... that would convince a lot of people.. he would be thought of a magician similar to david blain to say the least. he would definitely be written about.


this is a good point, only thing is jesus and his apostles didnt kill in the name of god, and plus we can google anything, we have vast amounts of resources now, as apposed to then when paper was a rarity and used by scholors and in empires, not common citizens, plus if the bible IS accurate, then only two witnessed christ arise, who'd believe them? no one, in fact the romans believed it to be grave robbers.


----------



## Tagh (May 26, 2009)

I do not believe a god exists or ever has.

A couple reasons

How many gods are there? Not everyone can be right.
In modern society, we have many sciences. Many of which can prove Religious stories wrong. 
For example in the Bible, I believe when Moses is around, The red sea thing. Scientists have come up with explanations to many stories.

I believe religion has it ups and downs. 
People have been killed over Religion. People have seem their ways through Religion. People have used Religion.
Cities have probably fallen and risen over Religion.

For as long as human's have been on the earth, We've wanted to find an understanding to life. Like English glass 5W's (What,When,Who,Where,Why) and of course How. I don't any of those questions will ever be answered.

In the end I dont believe in anything ( There is a word for that but just sounds like a new religion of not believing to me )
I'm neutral I guess. If you believe go ahead, If you don't go ahead. Pretty much I don't care.
I could argue the goods and bad all day, but in the end who is right?
Whoever thinks they are.

Btw. I am baptized,did communion,and reconciliation. I have been to church many times as a kid. My family is catholic I'd guess. My grandma still goes to church as often as she can. But after what I have learned over time, I just can't believe in one god/religion.


----------



## northerntights (May 26, 2009)

Check this out, you guys may find it interesting

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


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> we do if they kill someone "in the name of god". and i'm sure we have a lot of written material on people who have thought they are god. i'm sure i could google and get a long long list. if jesus did indeed arose from the dead... that would convince a lot of people.. he would be thought of a magician similar to david blain to say the least. he would definitely be written about.


this is a good point, only thing is jesus and his apostles didnt kill in the name of god, and plus we can google anything, we have vast amounts of resources now, as opposed to then when paper was a rarity and used by scholors and in empires, not common citizens, plus if the bible IS accurate, then only two witnessed christ arise, who'd believe them? no one, in fact the romans believed it to be grave robbers.

you should watch this docu. (this is just a clip couldnt find the whole thing)
but if you go to this vids page on youtube, it gives an impressive description on the leading sceptic scientist who was dead set on disproving the shroud of turins authenticity, then before he died, flipped and after further examining says it very well could be the shroud for the historic jesus.

[youtube]vACRZTHX8Iw[/youtube]


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

and also watch this video, its a little old and some of the skepticism of the cloth switching i can is explained in part two of the vid above, based of these vids, tell me how its fake, or debatable. 

trust me, you probably wont say anything i havent heard or already debunked. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8KLjxFCpXw

this aught to be good. i love debates.


----------



## northerntights (May 26, 2009)

Pieces of the shroud that were originally taken for carbon dating were not entirely destroyed in the process. The bulk remains in cold storage and there is currently a movement to have them re-tested with the most modern equipment. Carbon dating has come a long way since them, but in terms of detailed accuracy. Over 5 independent labs tested the samples, the consensus was it was from the middle ages, and thus a forgery. For all the independent labs to be off by more than a thousand years and yet give highly overlapping dates... it would be an astronomical coincidence that such a thing could occur.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

northerntights said:


> Pieces of the shroud that were originally taken for carbon dating were not entirely destroyed in the process. The bulk remains in cold storage and there is currently a movement to have them re-tested with the most modern equipment. Carbon dating has come a long way since them, but in terms of detailed accuracy. Over 5 independent labs tested the samples, the consensus was it was from the middle ages, and thus a forgery. For all the independent labs to be off by more than a thousand years and yet give highly overlapping dates... it would be an astronomical coincidence that such a thing could occur.



they HAVE retested and it was a docu on discovery channel, they piece they took from the older documentary is actually from whenever it was almost destroyed by fire, and the wove together new tapestry when the templar knights were holding it. so the pieces they snipped from the corners WERE from middle ages, how ever recent examination shows that there is newer (middle ages) fabric woven with the original cloth to give it back its full shape to the shroud.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 26, 2009)

northerntights said:


> Pieces of the shroud that were originally taken for carbon dating were not entirely destroyed in the process. The bulk remains in cold storage and there is currently a movement to have them re-tested with the most modern equipment. Carbon dating has come a long way since them, but in terms of detailed accuracy. Over 5 independent labs tested the samples, the consensus was it was from the middle ages, and thus a forgery. For all the independent labs to be off by more than a thousand years and yet give highly overlapping dates... it would be an astronomical coincidence that such a thing could occur.



they HAVE retested and it was a docu on discovery channel, they piece they took from the older documentary is actually from whenever it was almost destroyed by fire, and the wove together new tapestry when the templar knights were holding it. so the pieces they snipped from the corners WERE from middle ages, how ever recent examination shows that there is newer (middle ages) fabric woven with the original cloth to give it back its full shape to the shroud.

they took 5 samples and of those some retested AS being original cloth

http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/carbon-dating-news-in-2008/(below article)

*LOS ALAMOS FINDINGS RELEASED AUG 15, 2008* 
"Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shrouds fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that the shroud might indeed be the burial cloth of Jesus."


----------



## northerntights (May 26, 2009)

I noticed a while back that some people started, but didn't really follow through, on including evolution in the mix. The scientific community is behind darwinian evolution by natural selection by 99.99%, the "controversy" is a fabrication. Our modern crops being an example of artificial selection (cucumbers were once purple, bananas were a mutation from plantains and those were bread from a barely edible wild fruit, corn was a grass, dogs from wolfs, etc), marijuana is also such an example. Strains that benefitted man were those that would be seeded the next year. 

Marijuana is part of this natural history and most likely owes it's current safety and effectiveness to our influences on it's evolution. When a beneficial trait emerged, it was capitalized upon. Plants with harmful traits would have been left to rot and not pass on their genes. This is artificial selection and, along with the other examples, proves that trait selection (artificial or natural) can create new, drastically different species.

Then where does that leave us on the topic of religion? Well, this video may be of some relevance... and yes, it is of an atheist conference, but the science is sound and the arguments interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

I can't get it to embed correctly


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

northerntights said:


> I noticed a while back that some people started, but didn't really follow through, on including evolution in the mix. The scientific community is behind darwinian evolution by natural selection by 99.99%, the "controversy" is a fabrication. Our modern crops being an example of artificial selection (cucumbers were once purple, bananas were a mutation from plantains and those were bread from a barely edible wild fruit, corn was a grass, dogs from wolfs, etc), marijuana is also such an example. Strains that benefitted man were those that would be seeded the next year.
> 
> Marijuana is part of this natural history and most likely owes it's current safety and effectiveness to our influences on it's evolution. When a beneficial trait emerged, it was capitalized upon. Plants with harmful traits would have been left to rot and not pass on their genes. This is artificial selection and, along with the other examples, proves that trait selection (artificial or natural) can create new, drastically different species.
> 
> ...


but what exactly does that have to do with the shroud? and the evidence that it is backdated to when christ was supposedly around? also the shroud shows all of christ's specific wounds he endured and to falsify the cloth is impossible for the time it came into public eye much less the time of christ.


----------



## northerntights (May 27, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> *LOS ALAMOS FINDINGS RELEASED AUG 15, 2008*
> "Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shroud&#8217;s fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that the shroud might indeed be the burial cloth of Jesus."


Sorry I didn't post very quickly. The fact is that a date, isn't a red flag, Nor indisputable proof. We are still talking about a figure with no proof he existed outside the bible... and an image can be of anyone. The story of jesus was told many times before, recycled from the gods before him. In the end, a shroud is not proof of divinity, regardless of it being from the correct time period or resembling iconic images. The shroud is an interesting tool of debate, but in the end less relevant than the larger questions of who we are and why we are here.

Oh and that second post, wasn't meant to be related to the shroud.


----------



## hom36rown (May 27, 2009)

northerntights said:


> I noticed a while back that some people started, but didn't really follow through, on including evolution in the mix. The scientific community is behind darwinian evolution by natural selection by 99.99%, the "controversy" is a fabrication. Our modern crops being an example of artificial selection (cucumbers were once purple, bananas were a mutation from plantains and those were bread from a barely edible wild fruit, corn was a grass, dogs from wolfs, etc), marijuana is also such an example. Strains that benefitted man were those that would be seeded the next year.
> 
> Marijuana is part of this natural history and most likely owes it's current safety and effectiveness to our influences on it's evolution. When a beneficial trait emerged, it was capitalized upon. Plants with harmful traits would have been left to rot and not pass on their genes. This is artificial selection and, along with the other examples, proves that trait selection (artificial or natural) can create new, drastically different species.
> 
> ...


[youtube]1iMmvu9eMrg[/youtube]


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

northerntights said:


> Sorry I didn't post very quickly. The fact is that a date, isn't a red flag, Nor indisputable proof. We are still talking about a figure with no proof he existed outside the bible... and an image can be of anyone. The story of jesus was told many times before, recycled from the gods before him. In the end, a shroud is not proof of divinity, regardless of it being from the correct time period or resembling iconic images. The shroud is an interesting tool of debate, but in the end less relevant than the larger questions of who we are and why we are here.
> 
> Oh and that second post, wasn't meant to be related to the shroud.


thats true, however at this point in time, what other evidence are we going to find?

we've found john's grave (mary's second son)

and the iconic figure shown in the cloth is again, an identical match to the description givin in the bible, blood from the forehead (crown of thorns), hundreds of holes from lashes, bludgeoned, and ultimately the only recorded to be stabbed in the kidney to my knowledge and research. and above all, the amount of energy needed to embed the imprint into the cloth is massive, but only instantaneous, any longer and it would burn the cloth, and for its time of public show casing, to be faked would've required tech that that wasn't yet created in its time, that is substantial evidence idc who or what you believe in.


----------



## PadawanBater (May 27, 2009)

That's not evidence of Christ's divinity.

All the shroud is is a piece of cloth that may or may not be from the period of Jesus Christ with a suspiciously coincidental image of what looks like what the Bible describes Jesus Christ as... that's it. What exactly is that proof of?


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> That's not evidence of Christ's divinity.
> 
> All the shroud is is a piece of cloth that may or may not be from the period of Jesus Christ with a suspiciously coincidental image of what looks like what the Bible describes Jesus Christ as... that's it. What exactly is that proof of?


scientifically quite a bit, the skulls of cromagnums and Neanderthals are similar to ours coincidentally, but what exactly is that proof of?


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 27, 2009)

Don't see how I "cut"quite a bit, I'm only speaking the truth.Papyrus was invented about 3000 or so years B.C. by the Egyptians.Ink was about 5000 years ago by the chinese.They had the writing utensils for a long time.Since the bible also appears to have many authors, it isn't at all inconceivable that it could be done in a short amount of time.Basically, the bible is a bunch of different books put together, by different authors, promoting the same belief.Not at all unheard of.Far more improbable would be god dictating that same bible to moses on mt. sinai word for word in a short time, which is what a lot of christians argue.Logic tells me that this book is a work of fiction.I am not a christian.I rejected that long ago.I never said the entire bible was written after christ lived.I said the testimonium flavium was. And the people who wrote of christ in a personal manner were all born AFTER he had been dead at least 70 years.(eg.josephus,tacitus).However, the books of the bible have been heavily edited and revised,and mistakes were made as soon as they began translating it from one language to another.The christian religion borrows most of it's rites and holidays from older religions.It is obvious if you look.
But if you need to believe, go ahead.I don't.I'm not afraid of death.I know in some way,I will go on.Not necessarily spiritually-I don't know that and anyone who says they do is most likely misguided.But my body returns to the earth and is recycled-and that is good enough for me.


CaptnJack said:


> that is a completely low blow to the christian religion, seeing as how only a a small percentage of christians believe in "speaking in tongues" in modern day. you know i read your post and as they are composed in a civil manner you cut quite a bit, which im sorry is bull shit, and im not gettin worked up, nor angry, but its not necessary, logic should tell you what it tells most all christians, gifts cannot be taught, but way to take a stab.
> 
> just as there are ppl who can pick apart christianity that are respected, there are so in the opposite, both discredit each other, and both lead by personal opinion, as it will be for quite sometime, however there are some non believers who still research to find an un biased truth, i mean i could sit here and google for my argument, but i choose to go based off of what i've gathered and learned. and to be quite honest, yea i was a self proclaimed christian for quite sometime in my life, however the past year or so, ive been more so inquisitive of god, and have my own personal theory of life, one without a particular god, but i still believe there was a man named jesus and spoke of good morals, check out a book called "the real jesus" because there are discoveries that are brushed aside, by media, and colleges. discoveries that could say there was a possible true person, a man named jesus. and your comments that the bible was written 100 yrs after "supposed" christ lived, well is just as common of an argument from "atheist" types. and its untrue, think about how long it would take to write the bible, ok? i mean really that large of a book, in that time, would have taken quite some time? no? i mean, first you have to have materials to write with, and i mean its not like they had ink pens or pencils and sharpeners on hand, but yet people are notably quoting the new testament as early as 100 a.d., do the math involved with that. 1198 pages on a larger sized book with average sized font, so that would take some considerable time to write. and to already to have been quoted and being read, doesnt add up, its one of the most common comments that atheists use. and in its way discredited as well.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 27, 2009)

And the shroud was radiocarbon dated to the 14th century, incidentally.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

well stoney, in the areas i misunderstood what you were sayin, i apologise, how ever for you to say that there was no jesus, is still just as illogical, because so far, everything that science supports can fall into the same thing, the skulls as i have posted on above, how can they say they were our ancestors, what evidence do they truly have? i mean do they have a frozen body of a cromagnum? how do they know it was a species of monkey that just died off? seeing as how there has been thousands of species that have died off, but what makes them homo? what evidence? if they had a preserved body, i'd retract my statement, but they dont as far as i know, theory of evolution is just that a theory, the question of the existence of jesus, if we talking logical, as a man named jesus, His Jewish opponents had the most to gain by denying Jesus&#8217; existence. But the evidence points in the opposite direction. Several Jewish writings also tell of His flesh-and-blood existence. Both Gemaras of the Jewish Talmud refer to Jesus. Although these consist of only a few brief, bitter passages intended to discount Jesus&#8217; deity, these very early Jewish writings don&#8217;t begin to hint that he was not a historical person, 

And as for flavius, Flavius Josephus was a noted Jewish historian who began writing under Roman authority in a.d. 67. Josephus, who was born just a few years after Jesus died, would have been keenly aware of Jesus&#8217; reputation among both Romans and Jews. In his famous Antiquities of the Jews (a.d. 93), Josephus wrote of Jesus as a real person. &#8220;At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah.&#8221;6 Although there is dispute about some of the wording in the account, especially the reference to Jesus being the Messiah (scholars are skeptical, thinking that Christians inserted this phrase), certainly Josephus confirmed his existence. The insertion of him being the MESSIAH is the tamperment which you're talking of, not the message. If you want historical proof watch the videos i've posted especially the first and the other parts to it.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

Stoney McFried said:


> And the shroud was radiocarbon dated to the 14th century, incidentally.


wrong, actually they were dated to the 14th century in 1988 with carbon 14 tests and recently voided with the los alamos tests done in 08 with micro-chemical and other analytical tests dating it back around the 1st century....incidentally.


oh and also, historically, romans used a.d. and b.c. which are both in reference to christ (anno domini, before christ), imagine that, using a reference to something/someone made up later on....


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

also noting this exceprt "If we rely only on *peer-reviewed science journals* we know this: The Shroud of Turin is at LEAST 1300 years old. The images are a darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating thinner than most bacteria. The Shroud of Turin is not medieval." 
- http://www.factsplusfacts.com/

Images of coins, minted by Pontius Pilate for use by the Jewish population in Palestine (1st century), have been _tentatively_ identified over both eyes of the man whose image is seen on the Shroud.

"* A Second Face* image has been discovered on the reverse side of the cloth. The image is in registry with the facial image on the front of the cloth. The image is superficial meaning nothing soaked through to form the image. This discovery supports a hypothesis that the images were produced by bodily amine vapor/saccharides reaction. The second face picture makes faked images implausible."
- http://www.factsplusfacts.com/

also go to that link and read everything in the center in the thin red lined box.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 27, 2009)

I find it curious that a Christian nation like the US doesn't allow "heresay" evidence in the court room.


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 27, 2009)

I'm responding to all of your posts in this one paragraph.I'm sorry, but if you look at most of your sources, they are ALL in some way affiliated with the church, either through funding, or personal belief, etc.If you are citing the discovery channel's documentary on the shroud as evidence, you should know none of those people were actual scientists.One is a preacher.Many things were left out.http://archaeoporn.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/discovery-channel-teaching-the-debate/ Of course the church has a LOT of money.Of course they're going to make sure there are findings in their favor.But if you really dig, you will find the real evidence of fakery.But you will believe what you want to believe.And so will I.So....I'm done with this discussion.I've proved my point, and I've done it in several threads,over and over again.To sum it all up...I even made a sig about it.


CaptnJack said:


> well stoney, in the areas i misunderstood what you were sayin, i apologise, how ever for you to say that there was no jesus, is still just as illogical, because so far, everything that science supports can fall into the same thing, the skulls as i have posted on above, how can they say they were our ancestors, what evidence do they truly have? i mean do they have a frozen body of a cromagnum? how do they know it was a species of monkey that just died off? seeing as how there has been thousands of species that have died off, but what makes them homo? what evidence? if they had a preserved body, i'd retract my statement, but they dont as far as i know, theory of evolution is just that a theory, the question of the existence of jesus, if we talking logical, as a man named jesus, His Jewish opponents had the most to gain by denying Jesus existence. But the evidence points in the opposite direction. Several Jewish writings also tell of His flesh-and-blood existence. Both Gemaras of the Jewish Talmud refer to Jesus. Although these consist of only a few brief, bitter passages intended to discount Jesus deity, these very early Jewish writings dont begin to hint that he was not a historical person,
> 
> And as for flavius, Flavius Josephus was a noted Jewish historian who began writing under Roman authority in a.d. 67. Josephus, who was born just a few years after Jesus died, would have been keenly aware of Jesus reputation among both Romans and Jews. In his famous Antiquities of the Jews (a.d. 93), Josephus wrote of Jesus as a real person. At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah.6 Although there is dispute about some of the wording in the account, especially the reference to Jesus being the Messiah (scholars are skeptical, thinking that Christians inserted this phrase), certainly Josephus confirmed his existence. The insertion of him being the MESSIAH is the tamperment which you're talking of, not the message. If you want historical proof watch the videos i've posted especially the first and the other parts to it.





CaptnJack said:


> wrong, actually they were dated to the 14th century in 1988 with carbon 14 tests and recently voided with the los alamos tests done in 08 with micro-chemical and other analytical tests dating it back around the 1st century....incidentally.
> 
> 
> oh and also, historically, romans used a.d. and b.c. which are both in reference to christ (anno domini, before christ), imagine that, using a reference to something/someone made up later on....





CaptnJack said:


> also noting this exceprt "If we rely only on *peer-reviewed science journals* we know this: The Shroud of Turin is at LEAST 1300 years old. The images are a darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating thinner than most bacteria. The Shroud of Turin is not medieval."
> - http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
> 
> Images of coins, minted by Pontius Pilate for use by the Jewish population in Palestine (1st century), have been _tentatively_ identified over both eyes of the man whose image is seen on the Shroud.
> ...




No they didn't.They were on a completely different calender.




CaptnJack said:


> oh and also, historically, romans used a.d. and b.c. which are both in reference to christ (anno domini, before christ), imagine that, using a reference to something/someone made up later on....


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 27, 2009)

remember stoney, he is on a plane a few notches above us....why he said he read the whole entire bible and even the koran! now there's a man with intelligence...why the good capn is a prophet too, he is certain that HE and only HE alone has done such an amazing feat....I am truly stupified!!!


----------



## Stoney McFried (May 27, 2009)

Like I said,I'm done.Most of my arguments have been misread.I never mentioned flavius, I mentioned the testimonium falvium,for example.I know what I believe, and I don't know why I continue to debate in these threads,lol.Have fun, all.


Dr. Greenhorn said:


> remember stoney, he is on a plane a few notches above us....why he said he read the whole entire bible and even the koran! now there's a man with intelligence...why the good capn is a prophet too, he is certain that HE and only HE alone has done such an amazing feat....I am truly stupified!!!


----------



## PadawanBater (May 27, 2009)

Captn, show me some proof the shroud is from the 1st century.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 27, 2009)

No matter the date (I & the science world don't believe it to be 1st century) as no other scientists either), it doesn't prove a single thing. Could be anybody.


----------



## Brazko (May 27, 2009)

I've been doing some extensive REsearch with some friends and we happened to stumble across one of the excluded books of the OT Bible......It was originally the story of Cane / Able / the illigetiment Son and How they were tempted by Satan...It's been re written several times by the Catholic Church, and passed off as a fairy tale, to get the young'uns while they were still ripe for the pickins...So I know it's kinda hard to believe in talking animals and all, but you gotta think outside the box.... behold one on the Missing books from the Old Testament


3 lil pigs, I couldn't believe it at first but imo, its the TRUTH


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> remember stoney, he is on a plane a few notches above us....why he said he read the whole entire bible and even the koran! now there's a man with intelligence...why the good capn is a prophet too, he is certain that HE and only HE alone has done such an amazing feat....I am truly stupified!!!


wow greenhorn, maybe you're post would be insulting if it made sense, seeing as how i never said i read the bible and koran, someone else did, and i brought their statement into question. it'd be great if ppl actually read.

and stoney whether you're done with this thread or not isn't my concern nor care, cuz the fact remains that you are wrong about "all" of my sources, raymond rogers a LEADING scientist skeptic (during his first examination of the cloth) who passed in 05 is one of the original 24 man team in 78, and before he died HIS documentary aired on the discovery channel. so you show me how he was swayed by the church, and along with him where other scientists in the documentary without bias the LEADING scientist/skeptic, after examining the fibres taken from an earlier investigation in 1978, Ray was shocked to find cotton present too.

He said: 'The cotton fibres were fairly heavily coated with dye, suggesting they were changed to match the linen during a repair. 'I concluded that area of the shroud was manipulated by someone with great skill. 'Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken. 
'It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate.'

so you can say you've proven your point to me and everyone here, but if you read and try to verify your sources as factual, like the tacitus subject, which has never been concluded his writings were tampered with, just suspected and never confirmed. yet you speak as if its concrete evidence, so if thats how you define being right then sure whatever is in your head.

one of the videos WERE church related, but it still had information that can be verified from secular non church sources. 

i've given science secular sources as well as third party, so im not trying to say he is the son of god at this point nor for awhile now, just the fact there is evidence that points to there bein a good chance of a historical jesus.

you will lean towards the atheist community and most sources that discredit there ever being a historic jesus are atheist researchers, and scientists, and relying on that is just as wrong as relying on the church for ones entire argument which i've been more or less accused of, (but show me how all of my sources are reliant on the church, much less most of my sources.) really show me how you concluded that.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 27, 2009)

my post should make sense to you.... use your intellegence and figure it out


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 27, 2009)

this is fun  your like a little chihuahua! lots of bark!! no bite I'm liking this


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

as you see here im not the one who said i read the bible AND koran



solistics said:


> And yes, I've read the Bible and I like to believe that I understood the majority. I'm not a Christian but I'm open-minded enough to checkout something which has so many others convinced. I've also read the Koran for the same reasons.
> 
> .



and if it was my baiting comment you're refering to, i dont have to know the koran to bait ppl into telling the truth, a liar can be off set and made uncomfortable easily, so if we all are going to continue to post things illogically then i'll stop being serious and literal and be more like stoney, post all my sources that are still in researching, or undecided and speak it as truth and absolute and make blind accusations like has happened to me on here.




Dr. Greenhorn said:


> personally, I don't care for baitng nor do I care when I am trying to be baited against.....thats borderline trolling in my book....have a good day capn.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 27, 2009)

ohhhh....I was wrong.... so I admit it...now what? want a cookie? still doesn't change anything....nice try bro....come harder next time G'day capn haha


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 27, 2009)

If being smart means being like you.....I pass, I rather just stay stupid LOL


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> this is fun  your like a little chihuahua! lots of bark!! no bite I'm liking this


if you wanna take it to that maturity level ill let you sit and play by yourself down there.


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (May 27, 2009)

* uhhh* nah, thats allright, I'm done anyway......unsubscribed.... see ya around capn, have a nice day LOL


this is a lame thread anyway......stop trying to keep it alive..... this is just shit that is in other threads and just reworded, thats, all

thats real ingenuity right there buddy


----------



## CaptnJack (May 27, 2009)

didnt feel like sifting other threads, rather start a new one, and you must be a big man, i mean no one was talkin to/about you, what got you to the point of randomly talkin shit idk, sounds pretty stupid to me.

unsubscribe, i really dont care, i dont strive on attention, i started this thread to have good conversation, and it was civil for quite sometime, very civil in fact for a debate. but i can trace it back to a particular poster in which it became more and more hostile, so im not to blame here, i admit, when pushed i get worked up, but if civil im as chill as can be.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 28, 2009)

Brazko said:


> I've been doing some extensive REsearch with some friends and we happened to stumble across one of the excluded books of the OT Bible......It was originally the story of Cane / Able / the illigetiment Son and How they were tempted by Satan...It's been re written several times by the Catholic Church, and passed off as a fairy tale, to get the young'uns while they were still ripe for the pickins...So I know it's kinda hard to believe in talking animals and all, but you gotta think outside the box.... behold one on the Missing books from the Old Testament
> 
> 
> 3 lil pigs, I couldn't believe it at first but imo, its the TRUTH



I dunno...Old testament? Doesn't sound KOSHER to me.


----------



## bicycle racer (May 28, 2009)

the shroud of turin has been proven to be a fake time and time again the only people who argue its real are religious people and there pseudo scientists. i mean really? have you seen pics of that thing it even looks obviously fake. its 2010 we can explain most things now and things we cant we use logic and reason to attempt to do so. it amazes me in an industrialized society people are still taking the bible and other 'holy books' word for word some people should be sterilized for the sake of mankind. i wish i had audio of conversations i have had with religious types in person where they have to immediately answer questions when asked. comical absolutely comical its like beating up a retard.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 28, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> the shroud of turin has been proven to be a fake time and time again the only people who argue its real are religious people and there pseudo scientists. i mean really? have you seen pics of that thing it even looks obviously fake. its 2010 we can explain most things now and things we cant we use logic and reason to attempt to do so. it amazes me in an industrialized society people are still taking the bible and other 'holy books' word for word some people should be sterilized for the sake of mankind. i wish i had audio of conversations i have had with religious types in person where they have to immediately answer questions when asked. comical absolutely comical its like beating up a retard.


again scientist not having connection with the church ray rogers and his team in 08, are the ones who have seemed to confirm its authenticity, if ppl arent gonna know what their talkin about whats the point of debating? this is a common problem in america today, its a becomming a common trait in ppl, taking what little they know and assume they are experts, i've backed my theory and opinions with facts and evidence, multiple secular sources. all information is verifiable. the only ones still fighting this, like true atheists, are starting to look like children, no matter what you lay at their feet, they still claim to be right. go back some pages bub and check the sources, 


oh by the way, its only 2009. if you dont even know the year how can i expect you to be up on your research?


----------



## bicycle racer (May 28, 2009)

your living in your own bubble of truth as most religious people do you miss construe what you read or hear to suit your beliefs. how much of the rest of the fairy tales in the bible do you believe are reality based? p.s. i forgot to type almost 2010 youre right about the year thats it though. any self respecting man or woman who is a credible respected scientist seeing the evidence or lack there of has deemed the shroud a fake wake up to reality this is old news.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

see you all are hypocrites to your own philosophy, you say i misconstrue what i read or hear to suit my beliefs, as opposed to you right? you live an un bias life? no actually atheist do the same thing, and on top of it all i dont refuse evidence, show me current verifiable and reliable sources of the shroud STILL being deemed a fake, because i promise you will find nothing but ongoing research, and if it has been deemed a fake as an absolute then there wouldn't still be tests by SCIENTISTS, both religious and non. you say i live in my own bubble of truth, but rather i take time to research and verify my own and oppositions evidence. can you honestly say the same?


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

religion is eveil and the root of almost all mans problems and wars or murders.Avoid religion and just believe in what you do alone


----------



## TheBrutalTruth (May 29, 2009)

FilthyFletch said:


> religion is eveil and the root of almost all mans problems and wars or murders.Avoid religion and just believe in what you do alone


Power, and those who seek it, are the root of humanity's problems. 

Religion is just one of the several paths people use to get power, or make excuses for themselves to have power or to keep it.

"I am holier than thou and thus thou must obey" is a similar excuse to "I am mightier than thou and thus thou must obey" and just as logically flawed.

Both ignore the fact that the adjectives Holier and Mightier are all relative to whoever hears them or thinks them.


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

which supports my statement religion is the root of all problems


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

no it doesn't support it, its not religion its the PRACTITIONERS of it the LEADERS not religion itself.


----------



## bicycle racer (May 29, 2009)

religion makes the killings of others of another faith easy because both sides can de-humanize the other as both feel the other is inferior and wrong. people kill each other for various reasons but religious conflicts are almost always the most hateful prolonged and bloody. throughout history religion has resulted in millions of deaths there is no denying this simple fact. we are in a holy war right now and there are lots more of them going on at any given time. its so stupid and a waste of human life.


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

yes it does and very clearly. If the christians who have thier god didn't think the muslims god was a falkse goid there would have been no crusades, no land battles and no division in the middle east. Now theose beliefs make one faction feel superior and correct while thinking other groups are wrong and worshiping the wrong god. Now all of that is based on religious beliefs. take all religion away and look back to most early and current wars no religion no disagreement no killing no killing no slaughter no evil no religion no evil direct and very clear


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

FilthyFletch said:


> yes it does and very clearly. If the christians who have thier god didn't think the muslims god was a falkse goid there would have been no crusades, no land battles and no division in the middle east. Now theose beliefs make one faction feel superior and correct while thinking other groups are wrong and worshiping the wrong god. Now all of that is based on religious beliefs. take all religion away and look back to most early and current wars no religion no disagreement no killing no killing no slaughter no evil no religion no evil direct and very clear


actually i believe it was the league of nations which split up the land in the middle east after WWII after the germans had taken control over the land because there was bickering on what land should rightfully belong to who (if there was some division before hand THAT idk), and as for the god, muslims and christians believe in the SAME god only they differ on who was the messiah, christ, or muhammad. just like jews and christians believe the same god but jews dont believe christ was the messiah. its all fine print stuff.


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

way way way before the european war where the holy wars or crusades which involved division of Church and gods. Yoiu can go back further to ancient eygypt and rome with battles waged and people treated as lesser for thier beliefs. The differences in beliefs and foundation lead to the battle for who is right and who is correctly serving gods wishes best. So the boil down is remove religion that doesnt happen and wouldnt have happened the last few thousand years


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

then again america would have never been founded and you would've been stuck in a oppressive Britain, point is, religion will never be abolished nor removed from the world, no matter how hard liberals and atheist wish. as for the roman wars like many others, troy, greece, ect their wars were mostly waged because some warlord wanted control, and set out on dominating all, to be the ultimate ruler, THAT is what most ancient wars were about, anything religious involved was simply praying to their god to protect them while they protect their home, land, and families. standing up for what THEY deemed right and just. 

its rarely TRULY been about religious belief, at times yes, but mostly its been a man using religion to attain his agenda, i.e. radical muslims, being told that all who oppose are infidels and impure allah wishes them to die, and rewarded with 72 virgins (which ISN'T even a part to their religion)or persecuted for their beliefs and ethnicity such as the hallocaust, hitler deemed the jews a lesser of people and they wern't worthy to be on this earth. point is ITS MAN'S corrupt agenda which will twist ANY information to better his own advance to his ultimate goals.


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

guess you do not know much of ancient history or you would know the bases of ancient cultural foundations was religion. ask the mayans and incas what the spainards did to them since they were considered godless hethens. Religion will only go away when humane have enough pointless murder, child molestation,war, and general craziness but right now to many people need to believe in something in order to validate thier existance so they can function but hopefully it will all falter and be gone before it destroys this world


----------



## bicycle racer (May 29, 2009)

most emperors rulers etc.. in those times believed they were ordained by god making any of there actions justified in there eyes. therefore believing the killing or oppression of non believers was gods will.


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

which was evil and wrong. If they didnt have this god that made them avenge his beliefs no murder or war ie religion is evil


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

well this is a discussion that will never resolve, i dont contest what you are sayin, just stating that it falls on MANS shoulders, every organization is corrupt, or corruptible, if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else, like maybe dominance and greed? these feeling and others as well, both positive ans negative are the base of all human actions. and the myans did worship gods, every walk of life believed in god, or gods in the beginning. but i guarantee human nature and urges is what fueled the fire, either directly or not.


----------



## FilthyFletch (May 29, 2009)

yes tyhey worshipped the sun god who was not part of spains cathalitism beliefs so they were murder and almost irradicated for their religious views by another group who had different religious views. It is a never ending cycle until those sheep who follow and based thier lives on an imaginary power stop realize how insane that is and start basing thier life on thier own actions and reprecussions.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

fact is buddy, you or anyone else is gonna sway me or any others from our beliefs. and by your logic, holding me and fellow christians and other religions still accountable of terrible acts of old, is the same as saying white ppl are still to blame for slavery of black ppl, which is ignorant. its not our faults that the day of old, had ideas and logic that has been since surpassed just as its not religious ppls hands that are stained with blood for acts commited loong ago.

no matter how much anyone says religion is stupid, me nor majority of the religious will stray, nor change our beliefs.


----------



## PadawanBater (May 29, 2009)

Howbout lookin' at the evidence then, eh Captn?


----------



## CaptnJack (May 29, 2009)

what part doesn't make it past the skull? wont? or, change my mind?

i've seen the evidence placed in front of me and im still asking for when they absolutely concluded that god doesn't exist. because that evidence DOESN'T exist. you cant prove god doesn't exist. 

why dont you just read what people write cuz apparently you either choose not to, or forget how, NOTHING you can say will ever change my mind, nor will it break down the christian religion. you and others may not believe or agree, but dont think you can make others disbelieve. no one has that power of persuasion on me. 

sorry to say.


----------



## PadawanBater (May 30, 2009)

Don't you think that's kind of a bad thing, that you can hold something so high like that? Basing your entire life on something seems a bit extreme right? Imagine that something you based your entire life on turned out to be a lie! Could you handle it? Think that has anything to do with this situation?

All of this is simple hypothetical, I'm not trying to offend anyone...


----------



## CaptnJack (May 30, 2009)

simple fact is, me being religious doesnt hurt anyone, absolutely no one, and if there is no god, and if im wrong, then how am i gonna be sad? if what you and science and atheists say is true and when you die, its just curtains close fade to black, not like im going to know anyway. however i dont believe thats the case anyway. religion is a part of my life. and always will be.


----------



## CrackerJax (May 30, 2009)

Religion will fade when man finally grows up.


----------



## CaptnJack (May 30, 2009)

all in perspective.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 1, 2009)

Yup wont change your mind but your comparison of slavery and religion are so far off even being anywhere close. Slavery as refered to by you was abolished and outlawed and has stopped in relation to the United States and most other countries but not all. religion and its evils continues stioll today. All the evil that churchs and priest do still is active and going strong so your compariosns are the furthest from even being relevant but it is in america your right to worship as you please so if thats what you need then Im fine with that everyone needs a good story sometimes


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 1, 2009)

im beginning to worship c.jax avatar.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 1, 2009)

Now that *IS* something to believe in...


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 1, 2009)

do you not see your slights, and intolerances? completely rude, after i've tried to say have your beliefs and allow mw mine, i'll respect yours but let me have mine.

i guess i dont understand the continued slights, and intolerance


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 1, 2009)

i have one question i often ask christians do you believe that non believers or people of other beliefs go to hell automatically regardless of if they were good people or not.


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 1, 2009)

no, not necessarily. 
and even if so, we're not to be judgemental, i dont base opinions off whether or not someone believes, but if we/i can help someone i will, and if they wanna talk ill talk. 



because the vast similarities to other religions could mean that it had the telephone effect, most was relayed orally, you take a all that info and spread it in diff directions, its gonna change, have differences, and similarities, but i dont think god will send them to hell, because they only knew what they knew and believed still.

non believers, that im not sure, those who strive to be good ppl and not harm others i believe will prob wont go to hell.

why do you ask?


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 1, 2009)

just because i feel that anyone who feels that good moral people atheist or other go to hell for not worshiping jesus is totally lost and have a sick hateful mentality and dont understand what jesus was trying to teach in the first place. i of course dont believe any of that hellfire crap but nonetheless i find it offensive that some religious people regardless of who i am as a person think i will burn in hell but a molesting priest or murderer can repent and be 'saved'. i just dont see how any logical rational person can be involved with such obvious madness.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 1, 2009)

It doesn't matter what your "personal" beliefs are. Only the OFFICIAL doctrine (bible) is the word of G*D for Christians. Thus, all non believers suffer eternal damnation. It's not your choice. This is the glaring fallacy of the modern day church.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 1, 2009)

I think the bible was a book written by someone who was smoked out and then he was like"Man you need to read this book its real deep and stuff" to his buddy who lit up read it and it blew his mind with all the stories and he shared it and they shared it and it became the number bestr seller of its time.There is no heaven or hell. Those terms refer to how you live your life while here on earth you can think your choices and actions and how you live makes it your own heaven or your miserable and live your own personal hell life meaning you make heaven or hell yourself by you own choices.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 1, 2009)

the more im learning the more i dislike christianity currently im watching a series of documentaries about the crusades wow absolute evil doings i had no idea. the more history i learn the more disdain i have.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 1, 2009)

oh the more history you watch or learn and study you will wonder how any sensible person can support the horrors associated with religion and its cause


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 1, 2009)

your just taught growing up in the us that the muslims are the nasty ones but particularly back then the christians were the murderers and invaders for no real reason beyond greed.


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 1, 2009)

how about those who tried to persecute christians, or murder christians? how about all the good christianity has done, and continues to do, not the people who use the name to get money, the non profits who daily feed the homeless and lost. again, i will say it,no matter what you TRY to do, you will not sway me, nor abolish christianity, how many ppl do you think have tried? and you're special how?

are you the chosen ones, special above all others? no

you will not, sorry to inform you.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 1, 2009)

yeah that has happened to im sure. im not trying to sway anyone. all im saying is when you learn the history of christianity from an unbiased source you will find that the christian faith as a whole is the most violent of all throughout history and has the most blood on its hands. christianity contradicts itself constantly with regards to what its supposed to be about and its actual actions around the world.


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 1, 2009)

FilthyFletch said:


> I think the bible was a book written by someone who was smoked out and then he was like"Man you need to read this book its real deep and stuff" to his buddy who lit up read it and it blew his mind with all the stories and he shared it and they shared it and it became the number bestr seller of its time.There is no heaven or hell. Those terms refer to how you live your life while here on earth you can think your choices and actions and how you live makes it your own heaven or your miserable and live your own personal hell life meaning you make heaven or hell yourself by you own choices.


Magic mushroomss are plentiful in Israel


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 1, 2009)

CaptnJack said:


> how about those who tried to persecute christians, or murder christians? how about all the good christianity has done, and continues to do, not the people who use the name to get money, the non profits who daily feed the homeless and lost. again, i will say it,no matter what you TRY to do, you will not sway me, nor abolish christianity, how many ppl do you think have tried? and you're special how?
> 
> are you the chosen ones, special above all others? no
> 
> you will not, sorry to inform you.


No one is trying to sway you. Breaking free from the myth would be one of the hardest things you'd ever do. Most cannot.......


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 1, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> No one is trying to sway you. Breaking free from the myth would be one of the hardest things you'd ever do. Most cannot.......


 
Seriously, it's only a matter of time, and time is on the side of reality. 

Christianity and indeed all religions will one day become extinct, exactly how the Neo-con republican ideology is these days. 

It'll become embarrassing to believe in a religion, eventually a social taboo that nobody will take seriously. 

Reason, logic...REALITY will provail.


----------



## aceshigh69 (Jun 1, 2009)

I have no problem in the belief that jesus did walk. I do however start to wonder about things like, Most religions say the earth is only 10000 to 15000 years old. Also there are no scriptures in the bible that say anything about dinosuars. If i was writing a book to tell people of the past present and future. I think i would have to tell them to be carefull around the twenty foot tall lizards running around or the giant ones flying. Ya know. I need proof. Im not saying anything bad about beleavers. I have read the bible front to back. I didnt memorize it but there are many stories that stuck out. People today are basing their beliefs on a book that was written more than 2000 years ago. then rewritten again because certain Kings didnt like the way some things sounded. Hince New King James version. I want there to be something else after this. But odds are, I gonna end up like plant food. I challenge any one to prove me wrong based on facts. I could talk about this for days.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 1, 2009)

Well speaking from the prespective of an quote unquote "Christian". Its' hard and difficult at best for a Christian or any Religion to break away from God, or gods they worship b/c the essence of what their God, or gods maybe is very REal.

Those in the know use that knowledge to manipulate people for whatever purpose it maybe....

It only works as long as the person is content with the given doctrine, and care not for the TRUTH, so they accept it because they either lost the Will, never had it, or is presently living a falsehood, wich is more often the usual case.....

the same can be said vice versa for the same harden atheist who chooses that path as well..... 

No matter, All will succumb Peewizzeed 


Relgion & Atheist Alike


----------



## Brazko (Jun 1, 2009)

aceshigh69 said:


> But odds are, I gonna end up like plant food. I challenge any one to prove me wrong based on facts. I could talk about this for days.


Wishful thinking, I would've guessed more along the lines of Maggot Food ,  j/k

good to see mo naybors around


----------



## Brazko (Jun 1, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Seriously, it's only a matter of time, and time is on the side of reality.
> 
> Christianity and indeed all religions will one day become extinct, exactly how the Neo-con republican ideology is these days.
> 
> ...


Do Star Wars & Star Trek fall into that REality as Well? Because it's presently being called Science Fiction, but Reason and Logic compels it to be Non Fictional.

Is it a denial of the Truth? Complacency? or Simply Science Fiction...


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jun 1, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Do Star Wars & Star Trek fall into that REality as Well? Because it's presently being called Science Fiction, but Reason and Logic compels it to be Non Fictional.
> 
> Is it a denial of the Truth? Complacency? or Simply Science Fiction...


Science fiction is merely a *genre* of fiction.

Kindly explain how the two examples you cite could be construed as non-fiction.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 2, 2009)

Johnnyorganic said:


> Science fiction is merely a *genre* of fiction.
> 
> Kindly explain how the two examples you cite could be construed as non-fiction.


Well, Not Speaking in the Literal Sense, but the basis of the Examples is that Man will one Day Colonize / Explore Space, the dialogue is merely lagniappe, entertainment....

But it could stand as fiction as Well, Who says Man will be around that long Anyway, Right? But if we are, what's the plan, go down with the Ship, Is that what we are planning for.....

It may be all theoretical science, but I believe that our planet / solar system, will die out like all the other planets / solar systems and our children / Man if still alive will have to leave, theoretically speaking that is.....

That was my meaning, Kind Sir


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 2, 2009)

Put down that pipe.......


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Jun 2, 2009)

Brazko said:


> Well, Not Speaking in the Literal Sense, but the basis of the Examples is that Man will one Day Colonize / Explore Space, the dialogue is merely lagniappe, entertainment....
> 
> But it could stand as fiction as Well, Who says Man will be around that long Anyway, Right? But if we are, what's the plan, go down with the Ship, Is that what we are planning for.....
> 
> ...


I see. In that case, the subject of expanded colonization in space is in the realm of reality (non-fiction) as evidenced mankind's ventures into habitation in space (See MIR and the ISS). 

In addition, speculation on the existence of life outside our atmosphere is very quickly moving into the realm of possibility. As example, see the ever increasing number of planets discovered outside our solar system as our technology increases. Both of those topics are discussed in non-fiction and science fiction alike.


----------



## Brazko (Jun 2, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Put down that pipe.......


.....Sure.............


----------



## CanadianGrowMan (Jun 11, 2009)

CanadianCoyote said:


> That always troubled me, too. Canada has hockey players on their money, as well as a portrait of the living Monarch. ... Nothing about God, as far as I know.
> 
> You ever see any shows about the conspiracy theories attached to the design of US money? ... Talk about nuts.... wowee...


Yeah! I'm from Canada and nothing about god on our currency. AND we're not allowed to have Christmas celebrations at school, even if the majority celebrates it, just because the minority will get offended. I do think that our country was founded on Christian beliefs and practices (although I am not christian) and think that some of the tradition can at least continue without having someone with much less Canadian heritage taking offense to it. I apologize if all of this has been said already, I was too lazy to read the whole thread 
But seriously, how can you doubt that there is a creator, if not a god (although they would be the same, i guess)? if not more than one? Look around! there is so much out there that can't be explained by purely science. Again, I'm not a christian, but to deny the obvious existence of some level of at least one supernatural being is ignorant. (in my opinion)
But, it all comes down to faith, and if you are strong in your faith than nothing I say or someone else can say that will change it, and that is what makes the human race so interesting.

Thanks for reading 

~CGM~


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 11, 2009)

Only reason we have in god we trust now is that we do not actually have enough gold in the vaults to back the circulation or currency so really your trusting in god that shit will spend since it has no real backed value anymore...would rather it not be on there and that we stopped adding color to our money making it look like monopoly cash. the old small faced currency was the best but as long as we do not go to coin cash Im ok. the day we try to go european with coin only cash Im makin my own lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

In fiat we trust?


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 11, 2009)

if we leave our trust in fiat we are screwed.I put those on my feet like roller skates..glad Im a ford guy lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

heh, I meant a "fiat" currency, which is what we have. It is based on....nothing.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 11, 2009)

lol thought you nmeant the cars that bought chevy lol


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

Oh, don't get me started on that abortion.....


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 11, 2009)

whether there is something beyond our limited ability to understand the universe or not is of little importance. religion only causes problems and should be separate from schools etc.. let your parents teach you what they want but religion should be private in all applications and forced on no one.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 11, 2009)

we should beat religion with a stick til it gives up


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 11, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> whether there is something beyond our limited ability to understand the universe or not is of little importance. religion only causes problems and should be separate from schools etc.. let your parents teach you what they want but religion should be private in all applications and forced on no one.


  i think this says it all


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

One of my fav movies.....


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 11, 2009)

how about a mint


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 11, 2009)

yeah if you want to be atheist great if you want religion great if you have your own feelings on something greater great but leave everyone else the fuck alone. then again only the religious want to force there wills onto others in doing so it seems they weaken there point. it seems like there disturbed by anyone who thinks differently. my point is if your easily shaken or angered by others feelings different than your own then how strong do you really believe in your religion? religion is outdated and only divides people. why cant people believe in something without seeing others as deserving punishment for different views even if there as moral as the group who wants them persecuted ridiculous.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

The reason is because both Islam and Christianity are cult religions.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 11, 2009)

yeah im no fan of any religion but the ones that actively try to convert anger me. i know some exist where you have to want to join thats less irritating 'to each his own' fine by me leave me be and i will likewise.


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 11, 2009)

the same can be said about ALOT of atheists, if the subject is brought up, an atheist will alot of times argue how we are wrong and make us try to see our errors, isn't that tryin to press beliefs?

i'll discuss the matter, even debate, but on a regular, idc if you believe or not, not my problem, so "then again only the religious want to force there wills onto others in doing so it seems they weaken there point." is an inaccurate statement, more so of a generalization.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

Atheism isn't a belief system.

As for "forcing the will", you don't seem to know the history of the christian religion.


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 11, 2009)

seriously? this again? i left because it was like arguing to a child, yes i do know its history, however it isn't the same today, i dont understand what that has anything to do with my post, and actually atheism is a belief, a belief that there is nothing but man, and because it cant be proven as fact as of now, it stands as a belief, not religion, but it IS a belief. 


maybe this time i wont get the same reply that i've gotten so often here. 

"oh duhr you must not know christianity's history"

ok christians killed at some point, show me a group of followers (religious/gov't/villiage) that hasn't or hasn't been involved in so, also, what christians do you see today killing in the name of god?

oh wait, thats right its muslims this time.


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 11, 2009)

and btw, you bringing up "history" has no bearing on what individuals TODAY do.

i dont force my belief, i discuss, debate if its mutual, otherwise i dont care what you believe. again, days of old are not the actions of today.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

The methodologies have changed, the goal has not...total world conversion. look it up....it's church doctrine.


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 11, 2009)

i bet there is doctrine of the big conspiracy, in any way, none of this is addressing my post, so since there is no response then i'll be on my way.

thanks for the OH SO stimulating convo.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 11, 2009)

MMmm checkmate...as usual.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 12, 2009)

Captn I dont really see you asking any questions just making your statement so nothing to answer. Im athestist and don't push it to anyone. I will state my opinion on religion and why i think so but religion as of today just from the outside not a good thing to me as there is so much sexual abuse, child molestation, and declared war between different beliefs to me basically its a child molestors hide out run by those who like war...Those who are into that being todays religion are welcome to enjoy as long as they can sit an admit thats what they are apart of as that is the fact of what the church and religion have evolved into currently.


----------



## CanadianGrowMan (Jun 12, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> whether there is something beyond our limited ability to understand the universe or not is of little importance. religion only causes problems and should be separate from schools etc.. let your parents teach you what they want but religion should be private in all applications and forced on no one.


I agree, religion should be kept separate from schools and whatever, but not so harshly that we can't even have a christmas concert at a high school becasue of the word christmas. It's gotten to the point that it's not even a religious holiday anymore.
And for religion being forced on people, I really think that parents are the number one reason for forcing religion on children. It has nothing to do with children being educated in religion, it's what they're told to believe so they never question it. My girlfriend has this problem. She is the daughter of a baptist pastor and has trouble with her family daily because of my beliefs. They won't even allow her to be with someone who isn't christian... to me that's fucking ridiculous.


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 12, 2009)

christmass technoly isnt a christian holiday but a pagen holiday that has been transformed and then formed to fit the christan view. It actually has no date importance to christianity but is important to the pageans.I personally think of it as just asomething we as people like and use for our winter break up and is great family fun if kept as just christmass and not pertaing to anything but the humane spirit if giving and family


----------



## Brazko (Jun 12, 2009)

FilthyFletch said:


> Captn I dont really see you asking any questions just making your statement so nothing to answer. Im athestist and don't push it to anyone. I will state my opinion on religion and why i think so but religion as of today just from the outside not a good thing to me as there is so much sexual abuse, child molestation, and declared war between different beliefs to me basically its a child molestors hide out run by those who like war...Those who are into that being todays religion are welcome to enjoy as long as they can sit an admit thats what they are apart of as that is the fact of what the church and religion have evolved into currently.


This post is redundant....but I agree, we should start doing background checks on family households, and if there are members of that family who have committed immoral/unlawful crimes...the entire lot should executed.
It has nothing to do with the individual, their bred that way imo...but I guess that's just my opinion as well


----------



## CanadianGrowMan (Jun 12, 2009)

I don't overly care what type of holiday Christmas is, lol I just care that it's a holiday that MOST people (in North America at least) celebrate and it has been removed why? because it's a religious thing? pff, fuck that, why not just get rid of easter and anything else with ties to religion too.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 12, 2009)

If there is another level for man to reach, it won't happen as long as we remain superstitious.


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 12, 2009)

great answer..thank you CJ ...rob


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 12, 2009)

yeah i hate how religious people often wont date or marry outside of there religion to me it is no different than racism. this just creates division amongst different faiths and allows the people of the opposing faith to be easily dehumanized.


----------



## weedguru (Jun 12, 2009)

COnstraints forced upon children when they are in a country which adopts religious law as society law as a whole, is one thing...which I generally despise. But when I see people moving to secular countries, then forcing their children to stick to the Old Ways, that the parents themselves were forced to adopt in their motherland, it is more than worthy of contempt, it is worthy of kicking them out of the country or having them sterilized. 

A close friend of mine, a white british spaniard, was dating a kenyan muslim lass many years ago...it had to be done in secret. Because the parents would simply not stand for it...yet, they had put her in a mixed school, then a mixed university, in Britain...yes they found out, later down the line, and threatened to exile her, from the family, completely, cutting off not just parental connexions but also bonds to her cousins and sisters, which would never be allowed to become repaired...fucking scum, i said...send them back to where they came from...which may seem racist, and ignorant...but when a girl loves a boy, a decent boy at that, with amazingly superb prospects, in terms of career and finance, one of the most coveted minds in the country, for the intellectual property community...and they still react so draconianally, yes, i think they are scum. and i dont think that they deserve to reside in the UK...i say Fuck off back to kenya...


----------



## CanadianGrowMan (Jun 13, 2009)

weedguru said:


> COnstraints forced upon children when they are in a country which adopts religious law as society law as a whole, is one thing...which I generally despise. But when I see people moving to secular countries, then forcing their children to stick to the Old Ways, that the parents themselves were forced to adopt in their motherland, it is more than worthy of contempt, it is worthy of kicking them out of the country or having them sterilized.
> 
> A close friend of mine, a white british spaniard, was dating a kenyan muslim lass many years ago...it had to be done in secret. Because the parents would simply not stand for it...yet, they had put her in a mixed school, then a mixed university, in Britain...yes they found out, later down the line, and threatened to exile her, from the family, completely, cutting off not just parental connexions but also bonds to her cousins and sisters, which would never be allowed to become repaired...fucking scum, i said...send them back to where they came from...which may seem racist, and ignorant...but when a girl loves a boy, a decent boy at that, with amazingly superb prospects, in terms of career and finance, one of the most coveted minds in the country, for the intellectual property community...and they still react so draconianally, yes, i think they are scum. and i dont think that they deserve to reside in the UK...i say Fuck off back to kenya...


here here


----------



## CaptnJack (Jun 14, 2009)

FilthyFletch said:


> christmass technoly isnt a christian holiday but a pagen holiday that has been transformed and then formed to fit the christan view. It actually has no date importance to christianity but is important to the pageans.I personally think of it as just asomething we as people like and use for our winter break up and is great family fun if kept as just christmass and not pertaing to anything but the humane spirit if giving and family



That is seriously a fucking stupid statement, its always been a christian holiday to celebrate OUR messiah's birth, tho we have no exact date to go by, we use the 25th, and also the pagans later instilled the St. Nick, then transitions to santa clause, 

same with easter, our day of celebrating the day of his rise from death.
pagans tacked the easter bunny to that one too.

maybe you should learn about what you post about.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 14, 2009)

well what is true is that many of the christian traditions and stories are based of egyptian mythology and are not original.


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> i have more belief that we came from aliens than a god created us. not even kidding...
> the bible is a joke... of all the historians in jesus's day, not one wrote about him. the gospels were written centuries after jesus's supposed death. many religions mirror the bibles text to a T... it's sad people live every moment of their life to this book.


Where did the aliens come from? Did they evolve? If so, why do you need to believe that aliens created us? Why couldn't we evolve?


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> i have more belief that we came from aliens than a god created us. not even kidding...
> the bible is a joke... of all the historians in jesus's day, not one wrote about him. the gospels were written centuries after jesus's supposed death. many religions mirror the bibles text to a T... it's sad people live every moment of their life to this book.


 Why would historians of his day write about him? He was a weirdo who was put to death. Doesn't seem too important to write down. And which historians are you talking about anyway?


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

weedguru said:


> A close friend of mine, a white british spaniard, was dating a kenyan muslim lass many years ago...


OK. So a white british spaniard and a kenyan muslim lass go into a bar.....


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

robert 14617 said:


> i think this says it all


I wish he would the metric system. Miles per hour!??? wtf? Eh, what are you going to do. He's English. Hey, that reminds me of a joke about a brit and a kenyan...


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

One of the biggest problems I have with the 'smashing asteroid' theory is that chance and natural selection can't account for the information stored in DNA. As a matter of fact, and this blew me away when I learned about it, natural selection is DESTRUCTIVE to information content in DNA. Classical Darwinism can't explain the origin of the information content (irreducible complexity) in DNA AND now we know that natural selection is harmful to information content. Darwin was a good scientist for his day, but now we know waaaaaayyy more than he ever dreamed of. And we now know he was way off, as far as natural selection being responsible for new kinds of life. At least that is how I see it.


----------



## MediMary (Jun 14, 2009)

jfgordon1 said:


> i have more belief that we came from aliens than a god created us. not even kidding...
> the bible is a joke... of all the historians in jesus's day, not one wrote about him. the gospels were written centuries after jesus's supposed death. many religions mirror the bibles text to a T... it's sad people live every moment of their life to this book.



I think historically it has been proven a fellow named jesus christ walked the earth... but yah I agree with you on this JF, cause most historians believe mark was written first, and I have heard anywhere from 60-100 years after christs death, also there is much debate if any of jesus disciples actually wrote any of the gospels.. 
If anyone has read siddartha, I think its a great example of what probably happened, Im sure jesus had some great thoughts and ideas, but 70 years later what was an insight spoken about with friends, was written down and now all of a sudden is a set of rules.

and jesus only gave 2 commandements, Love the lord your god, and love your neighbor as yourself.
I dont think God would send Ghandi to Hell to suffer eternally, but Chester the molester goes with the last minute repentance, and whammy eternal salvation..


as bart simpson said 
"I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by the last-minute, presto-change-o, deathbed repentance." 

love u guys


----------



## CanadianGrowMan (Jun 14, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> OK. So a white british spaniard and a kenyan muslim lass go into a bar.....





shroomer33 said:


> Why would historians of his day write about him? He was a weirdo who was put to death. Doesn't seem too important to write down. And which historians are you talking about anyway?


 
Seriously dude, are you that thick? I appreciate the story, it's a great example of how religion fucks people over, and is obviously the point for telling it.

And don't go calling jesus a weirdo. that's a dick move dude, I'm not christian but you should still respect him for what he did and the good that he spread. If not for being the "son of god", then just for being a good person.

This is supposed to be a respectful discussion, so be fucking respectful.


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

CanadianGrowMan said:


> Seriously dude, are you that thick? I appreciate the story, it's a great example of how religion fucks people over, and is obviously the point for telling it.
> 
> And don't go calling jesus a weirdo. that's a dick move dude, I'm not christian but you should still respect him for what he did and the good that he spread. If not for being the "son of god", then just for being a good person.
> 
> This is supposed to be a respectful discussion, so be fucking respectful.


I think you are missing my point. I was speaking from the point of view of a historian in 30AD.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> One of the biggest problems I have with the 'smashing asteroid' theory is that chance and natural selection can't account for the information stored in DNA. As a matter of fact, and this blew me away when I learned about it, natural selection is DESTRUCTIVE to information content in DNA. Classical Darwinism can't explain the origin of the information content (irreducible complexity) in DNA AND now we know that natural selection is harmful to information content. Darwin was a good scientist for his day, but now we know waaaaaayyy more than he ever dreamed of. And we now know he was way off, as far as natural selection being responsible for new kinds of life. At least that is how I see it.



You are surprised because you think nature is moving towards perfection... it is not.

Darwin was a great MIND. He however, was just one of many. If he hadn't come out with it, others were close behind. This was not a shot in the dark by any stretch.


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> You are surprised because you think nature is moving towards perfection... it is not.
> 
> Darwin was a great MIND. He however, was just one of many. If he hadn't come out with it, others were close behind. This was not a shot in the dark by any stretch.


I am surprised because this shows how natural selection can't be the answer to the origin of life, not that I ever thought that nature is moving towards perfection. 
Natural selection is insufficient to form the complex message system in DNA, especially since it DESTROYS information. That is what I am saying. That is what I found shocking. What is more shocking is that people still buy classical Darwinism. Oh well, science moves slow sometimes.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

Gosh, and yet all the reputable science in the world disagrees with you. They must all be wrong....


----------



## MediMary (Jun 14, 2009)

hey cracker jack.. I think their are nut job scientist on both sides of the debate = )

peace n luv


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

I don't, since only one side stands up to real scrutiny......for over 150 years no less.


----------



## MediMary (Jun 14, 2009)

ohyah .. which side? sorry I dont want to back read to find out who has been lying = 0


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

Heheheh...if you have to ask....


----------



## MediMary (Jun 14, 2009)

well I didnt know of ANY science that has PROVED or DISPROVED GOD. Maybe they teach more up to date stuff at the college you graduated from, than the one I did.??


I was just asking if the science ur talking about is creationism..? chill man

"I don't, since only one side stands up to real scrutiny......for over 150 years no less"
I mean didnt you want a debate.. LMAO 
thats some 6th grade debate status shit right there man...

You should write a book.. "every scientist that doesnt believe what I beleive is dumb"

Ill buy it 

I love you 

peace in


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

Science isn't trying to disprove G*D. There is no evidence to disprove.....


----------



## MediMary (Jun 14, 2009)

Im sorry buddy.. its hard to disern tounge and cheek over the net.. 
Ill wish you the best.. just comments like 
" under any real examination, only one side could be correct" 
equals WHY do you want to have a debate. anyways.. im going to stick to the growing forums where nobody has conflicting views on growing.. and everyone can agree their is Only one correct way to grow cannabis.. 

lov ya


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

That might be best....


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Gosh, and yet all the reputable science in the world disagrees with you. They must all be wrong....


It wont be the first time in history, and I am not alone in such ideas of biology and physics.

What makes science reputable anyway? Government grants? Peer review? 

Ever really question the structures of power at work in this world? Including scientific structures of power? If you haven't, I doubt you'd be on this site. But I mean really really question the structures of power. I am sure you have questioned the structures of power with respect to the media and religion, but I am now talking about questioning the scientific citadel of inquisition. Ever do that, or do you believe everything the 'scientific' world spoonfeeds you?

I don't mean to be too offensive, but I used to believe everything I was taught by 'science.' My friends used to too. 

Everything needs to be questioned. IMHO


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 14, 2009)

MediMary said:


> Im sorry buddy.. its hard to disern tounge and cheek over the net..
> Ill wish you the best.. just comments like
> " under any real examination, only one side could be correct"
> equals WHY do you want to have a debate. anyways.. im going to stick to the growing forums where nobody has conflicting views on growing.. and everyone can agree their is Only one correct way to grow cannabis..
> ...


The way CrackerJax grows (if he does) is completely wrong, by the way. My way is better (not that I grow either).


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 14, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> The way CrackerJax grows (if he does) is completely wrong, by the way. My way is better (not that I grow either).


And he bases that on .....completely nothing. Again.



shroomer33 said:


> It wont be the first time in history, and I am not alone in such ideas of biology and physics.
> 
> What makes science reputable anyway? Government grants? Peer review?
> 
> Ever really question the structures of power at work in this world? Including scientific structures of power? If you haven't, I doubt you'd be on this site. But I mean really really question the structures of power. I am sure you have questioned the structures of power with respect to the media and religion, but I am now talking about questioning the scientific citadel of inquisition. Ever do that, or do you believe everything the 'scientific' world spoonfeeds you?


What makes science reputable? That question right there disqualifies you from the discussion (intelligent discussion that is).


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 15, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> It wont be the first time in history, and I am not alone in such ideas of biology and physics.
> 
> What makes science reputable anyway? Government grants? Peer review?
> 
> ...


 
Name one biologist who doesn't agree with the theory of evolution... one.

99.9% of people actively working in the field of biology accept the theory of evolution as fact. That is not up for debate, the scientific community isn't trying to pass this off as some false theory. It's real, it happened, it still happens, it explains our origins, it explains the complexity of life on this planet and it's considered the backbone OF biology. 

What would be the motivation shroomer? Why would scientists try to trick everyone into believing this if it was completely false?


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 15, 2009)

it amuses me that bible thumpers denounce science but dont mind using there microwave or going to the doctor or using pretty much anything involving technology. which was developed by the people that they think are wrong thats quite a contradiction. to allow yourself to have a better quality of life because of science but then denounce it is funny to me and only makes religious types look more confused.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 15, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> it amuses me that bible thumpers denounce science but dont mind using there microwave or going to the doctor or using pretty much anything involving technology. which was developed by the people that they think are wrong thats quite a contradiction. to allow yourself to have a better quality of life because of science but then denounce it is funny to me and only makes religious types look more confused.



One of the reasons why you cannot fault the Amish.....at least they have kept their principles. I have to respect that.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> One of the reasons why you cannot fault the Amish.....at least they have kept their principles. I have to respect that.


Come to think of it... Amish people are one of the only religious groups I don't have a problem with, and I can't think of any more off the top of my head right now, maybe a couple of the east asian religions... 

Maybe the other fundies should take a page from the Amish about how to preach their message...


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 15, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Name one biologist who doesn't agree with the theory of evolution... one.
> 
> 99.9% of people actively working in the field of biology accept the theory of evolution as fact. That is not up for debate, the scientific community isn't trying to pass this off as some false theory. It's real, it happened, it still happens, it explains our origins, it explains the complexity of life on this planet and it's considered the backbone OF biology.
> 
> What would be the motivation shroomer? Why would scientists try to trick everyone into believing this if it was completely false?


This really illustrates one of the biggest problems with the whole 'evolution' debate. The very term 'evolution' is a loaded term. What is meant by 'evolution'? Change? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. Adaptation to environments? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. When you start defining 'evolution' as the mechanism by which, through natural selection, new forms of life arise, the disagreements start. 
Ok. You want a biologist who doesn't buy mainstream Darwinism? 
Dean Kenyon
There. You want more? Dr. Kenyon wrote the book on evolutionary theory (literally. The textbook he wrote (Biochemical Predestination)is a classic in evolutionary theory.) He doesn't buy it anymore. And you want to know why? Because his students didn't buy natural selection driven 'evolution' either. They asked him questions he couldn't answer with classical Darwinian arguements. There. That is a whole bunch of biologists who don't buy classical Darwinism. Satisfied?

And you can't say that 'evolution' is the backbone of biology. Biology and genetics and biochemistry do not need 'evolution' in order to stand....at all. So don't think that 'evolution' is even necessary for scientific research to proceed.
When you say that 'evolution' explains the origin of life and its complexity, so do ancient Egyptian creation stories. Explaining things doesn't matter. The question is: IS THERE PROOF? Just as there is no proof that there is a goddess called Nut that holds up the sky, there is no proof that natural selection driven Darwinian evolution is responsible for the origin of life. Actually, natural selection driven Darwinian evolution doesn't even talk about the origin of life. It discusses the evolution of life, given that it already exists in some form. Darwin's work was not on the origin of life. He mentioned stuff about primordial soup once or twice, but that was not his focus. In any case, natural selection driven Darwinian evolution has little to no evidence to support its claims, especially in terms of macroevolution, which is what we are really talking about anyway when we speak of Darwin. Actually, with all the technical discoveries of the last century such as quantum mechanics (for electron microscopes) and DNA, there is a bunch of evidence that goes against natural selection driven Darwinian evolution.

And I never said, or even implied, that scientists were trying to trick anyone. The physicists who gave DeBroglie shit for saying crazy shit like 'particles are waves', and there were many who did, were wrong. They weren't trying to trick anyone. They were just wrong! Einstein didn't even buy quantum theory. Was Einstein trying to trick everyone?


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 15, 2009)

The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. Sure, there is no single piece of evidence that conclusively *proves* evolution...but there is much evidence to support it. ToE is what, 150 years old...and every new scientific development supports the ToE...and nothing has dis proven it. There is absolutely no better theory out there. Intelligent Design, certainly has no evidence whatsoever.

You know whats odd, is that everyone who disbelive evolution is religious...hmm, could there be any connection there.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 15, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> This really illustrates one of the biggest problems with the whole 'evolution' debate. The very term 'evolution' is a loaded term. What is meant by 'evolution'? Change? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. Adaptation to environments? Sure. Nobody would disagree with that. When you start defining 'evolution' as the mechanism by which, through natural selection, new forms of life arise, the disagreements start.
> Ok. You want a biologist who doesn't buy mainstream Darwinism?
> Dean Kenyon
> There. You want more? Dr. Kenyon wrote the book on evolutionary theory (literally. The textbook he wrote (Biochemical Predestination)is a classic in evolutionary theory.) He doesn't buy it anymore. And you want to know why? Because his students didn't buy natural selection driven 'evolution' either. They asked him questions he couldn't answer with classical Darwinian arguements. There. That is a whole bunch of biologists who don't buy classical Darwinism. Satisfied?
> ...


 
Natural Selection;

-the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, it works, it's a fact, and I would have honestly thought it'd be pretty common sense. You and me hunt bugs together, I'm white, you're black, our environment is a cave or some other dark area, the predators in our cave don't have great vision, but they can see my white body a lot easier than your black body, I get eaten, I don't reproduce... seems simple enough right... that's natural selection. Nature (the predators, the cave we live in) is selecting which organisms live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genetic code to their offspring. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

Nuff said about that guy... What has he contributed to the field of biology???

The book Of Pandas and People is the intelligent design handbook and was deemed unconstitutional to teach in public schools in America... what's that say about that book?

Every single thing in biology comes down to the theory of evolution, everything. Do you know what biology means? 

Biology;

-the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

Pretty sure that's talking about evolution...

Give me one scientific theory, just one, in biology that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Genetics -- genetics deals with heredity and differences in related organisms, yep, that's evolution... Biochemistry -- chemical substances and vital processes in living organisms... yep, evolution there too. 

I never said the theory of evolution explains the origin of life. I said it explains our origins, as in how we got to where we are today. There is so much proof to support the theory it's laughable anyone still says there is an absense of data, when someone brings up that argument it shows their incredible ignorance on the entire thing. What do you need, fossils, there's hundreds of thousands of them, howbout a transitional species? Pick the era and I'll find you one. Geological data that confirms without any doubt the age of fossils. Carbon dating, radio dating, evolution in the medical field that creates new vaccines that defeat new viruses and bacteria that evolove faster than we do. Not to mention we've SEEN EVOLUTION happen with our own eyes in labs! One good example I can think of is flies. They got a population of red flies and a population of white flies of the same species, breeded them and guess what their offspring came out looking like... seriously guess. The fact that you just guessed pink clearly shows even YOU know the theory of evolution is real and it works. That right there is a clear case of NATURAL SELECTION, the mechanism for evolution that for some reason you're so against... 

Name one technical discovery over the last 150 years that goes against Natural Selection.

Einstein has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 15, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> Natural Selection;
> 
> -the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.
> 
> ...


Holy Strawman, Batman. You are saying that I stated things that I didn't state, in order to easily knock them down.

I know how natural selection works. I am not against natural selection. The point I am making is that there is NO scientific evidence that natural selection has ever produced a new kind of animal. Try and show me some. You can't. It doesn't exist. (again, in the macroevolutionary sense) And as previously stated on this thread, natural selection is HARMFUL to information content in DNA. So building new systems that have increasingly complex systems of information can not result from natural selection.

Again, I never said anything against natural selection. 

You bring up Dean Kenyon's (that was just one biologist you asked for that doesn't buy classical Darwinsim anymore, and he wrote the book on biochemical predestination. Dont forget his students didn't buy it either) book about pandas when I mentioned the textbook, Biochemical Predestination, that was used in mainstream colleges.
Bringing that up to knock down what I have previously written, which has nothing to do with the panda book, is way fallacious, and it's also an Ad Hominem attack on Dr. Kenyon. Nice try though. Try actually challenging what I wrote by not building strawman arguments to win your case. Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't seem that you did.

And let me guess what happened with your flies. At the end...let me guess what they had.....FLIES?! Am I right???
That doesn't prove anything about the origin of new kinds of animals. It is just variation within a kind, which is not the creation of a new kind.


----------



## shroomer33 (Jun 15, 2009)

PadawanBater said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon
> 
> Nuff said about that guy... What has he contributed to the field of biology???




You don't get Professor Emeritus status at San Francisco State by not contributing to your field.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 15, 2009)

You need only look in the mirror for a representation of natural selection....


----------



## hom36rown (Jun 15, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> Holy Strawman, Batman. You are saying that I stated things that I didn't state, in order to easily knock them down.
> 
> I know how natural selection works. I am not against natural selection. The point I am making is that there is NO scientific evidence that natural selection has ever produced a new kind of animal. Try and show me some. You can't. It doesn't exist. (again, in the macroevolutionary sense) And as previously stated on this thread, natural selection is HARMFUL to information content in DNA. So building new systems that have increasingly complex systems of information can not result from natural selection.
> 
> ...


So do you believe humans have been around forever, and that we coexisted with dinosaurs...or did god just create us a couple million years ago


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 15, 2009)

shroomer33 said:


> Holy Strawman, Batman. You are saying that I stated things that I didn't state, in order to easily knock them down.
> 
> I know how natural selection works. I am not against natural selection. The point I am making is that there is NO scientific evidence that natural selection has ever produced a new kind of animal. Try and show me some. You can't. It doesn't exist. (again, in the macroevolutionary sense) And as previously stated on this thread, natural selection is HARMFUL to information content in DNA. So building new systems that have increasingly complex systems of information can not result from natural selection.
> 
> ...


Dude, you obviously do not understand natural selection if you harp on it like this, it doesn't make any sense. NS is just a mechanism for evolution to work, it's a word that describes a process, that's it. There are six processes involved in the theory of evolution; adaptation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, speciation, and natural selection... all equally as important to the theory, and all have more than enough evidence to prove they exist and work how they're described to work.

I'd suggest checking out some videos on youtube, specifically the ones by DonExodus2 and AronRa. Go check both of those guys' channels out, DE2 is an evolutionary biology student at Chappel Hill in NC, his vids are top quality.

Natural selection is not the only thing involved in changing one species one generation into a completely different species a thousand generations later. Do you know what makes one species seperate from another? The ability to create fertile offspring. That's why some species can look very similar to eachother. There's five other processes involved in the entire process.

Natural selection is not harmful to information inside DNA. Explain that. Why do you think it's harmful? 

It seems reasonable that a theory that produces the best organs, appendages, features, characteristics, abilities, improvements, etc. would continually succeed at what it does...doesn't it?? The theory says "this is the stuff that will survive the longest because it's best suited for the environment that it's in"... and damn, that's exactly what we see! Evolution is blind and guided by the environment the organism is in... the environment gets warmer, the organisms will have to develope better features to adapt to the warmer climate, like how reptiles have scales... the ones that don't, die, the ones that do, survive and reproduce.

Mutations are what change one species into a new one. 

I said give me one biologist who questions the theory of evolution. That guy is as much a biologist as Kent Hovind. No real, credible scientist believes in intelligent design, that's seriously embarrassing! And he's the guy who wrote the book on it. Show's you how credible he is. Got anyone else?

How do you explain one generation of flies being one color, then their offspring being a completley new color? The only way is through evolution. 

What theory do you believe? Do you believe in intelligent design?


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 15, 2009)

Only one caveat Paddy, I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the process is trying for long term. Just what fits at the moment. 

Nature does not seek perfection, just "good enough". There is no plan. I think that is what drives the thumpers nuts..... no lead to perfection and no overall plan, just what is.


----------



## PadawanBater (Jun 15, 2009)

CrackerJax said:


> Only one caveat Paddy, I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the process is trying for long term. Just what fits at the moment.
> 
> Nature does not seek perfection, just "good enough". There is no plan. I think that is what drives the thumpers nuts..... no lead to perfection and no overall plan, just what is.


 
Agree with you on that one CJ.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 15, 2009)

We're simply one small cog in a very very large wheel. One day the cog will be replaced, no favoritism.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jun 15, 2009)

yeah i agree about the religions who live true to there beliefs most do not they pick and choose what they will accept and not accept based on the benefits offered.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 15, 2009)

Yeah right, whether were monkeys or not, noone should be held higher in some regard than others. Its morals, right and wrong. 

Its like this..... Were all going someplace in the sky right, or somethin. It's your choice whatever kind of "Airplane" you wanna ride I guess. It could be a "Hot Air Balloon" as well, but damnit, Im not lookin for no cheap ass flight to where Im goin brother, Oh NOES HALLELUJAH MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS THIS RIDE, AWWW YESSA, YESSA, THIS RIDE HALLELUJAH LORD HAW, BAM, BOOM, This Ride We Takin ALLLL THE WAYY WOOOOOOO. Can I get an AMEN.......

Can I get an Amen. 

Im kidding, but I hope we find fulfillment in and of ourselves and others, and hopefully continue a good way of life for everybody in some way while we are together. 

In marijuana I trust haha. It has never failed me yet. j/k.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 16, 2009)

This is the last stop as far as anyone KNOWS. Throw that luggage out the window folks, you won't need it!


----------



## FilthyFletch (Jun 16, 2009)

I will be dirt and someone will grow in my reamains and maybe smoke me up and thats it done son one and done.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Jun 17, 2009)

Haha, 

Do you think as one of my last wishes someone could plant some seeds for me near me lol? Do you think that would be illegal? hahah. Or do you think they would be sympathetic? hehe. 

If it got too overpopulated, I think my body would make great ferts, maybe some day, even though Im not here, I will have money growing out of my ass. haha.


----------



## CrackerJax (Jun 17, 2009)

snowmanexpress said:


> Haha,
> 
> Do you think as one of my last wishes someone could plant some seeds for me near me lol? Do you think that would be illegal? hahah. Or do you think they would be sympathetic? hehe.
> 
> If it got too overpopulated, I think my body would make great ferts, maybe some day, even though Im not here, I will have money growing out of my ass. haha.



So when they cremate me, I'll just have my wife ask .... "uh, Can I have about 40 pounds of my husbands ashes"?


----------



## iloveit (Jul 6, 2009)

Watch a internet documentary called "The Arrivals" Im sure you guys will find something you never knew existed.


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 8, 2009)

i doubt it whats the premise of it. i dont like to waste time.


----------



## iloveit (Jul 9, 2009)

bicycle racer said:


> i doubt it whats the premise of it. i dont like to waste time.


The doc is split in to 50 part each in 10min segments, try watching the first couple of part.


----------



## cbtwohundread (Jul 12, 2009)

we are from pussy and cocky god lives thru us to create so we cant die u cant take life from the life giver sum beleive we come from monkeys either way have sex


----------



## CrackerJax (Jul 13, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> we are from pussy and cocky god lives thru us to create so we cant die u cant take life from the life giver sum beleive we come from monkeys either way have sex


Why do you bother posting?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2009)

iloveit said:


> The doc is split in to 50 part each in 10min segments, try watching the first couple of part.


I watched it a couple days ago...very profound and interesting, it took me a while to find a fully complete one with audio, Luckily I found one that was complete with audio, and someone combined all the episodes into 1, They must really have some people scared shitless with the many attempts to take it off the Net, Thanks 4 sharing


----------



## bicycle racer (Jul 13, 2009)

to post 272 if you have something to contribute great but so far you just use poor grammar and make no sense while at the same time thinking you know the truth please stop wasting peoples time your making yourself look very uninformed to the ways of the world in general. if you feel you know of what you speak explain in proper english if you cant go away there are grown people on here trying to have a discussion thanks.


----------



## wm2009 (Jul 13, 2009)

cbtwohundread said:


> we are from pussy and cocky god lives thru us to create so we cant die u cant take life from the life giver sum beleive we come from monkeys either way have sex


ahahah verba volant...


----------

