# Another pointless religious/atheist thread.



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

Hey guys guess what?
What?
When we die we will find out who is right so for now everyone should chill. Hey you know what else? My friend gave me a 1/2 of sour diesel from his indoor grow, whoo.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

no ......................in every other aspect of life we can come to logical reasons yet somehow you think we have to be dead to know wether there is an after life ? do we have to suffer a stroke to know what happens to us after a stroke ?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> no ......................in every other aspect of life we can come to logical reasons yet somehow you think we have to be dead to know wether there is an after life ? do we have to suffer a stroke to know what happens to us after a stroke ?


Umm I don't what you want me to say so I guess I will say yup.  you're funny.


----------



## woodsusa (Sep 9, 2011)

The universe came from somewhere.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

its nice that you hang on to the notion that no one knows what happens after death , but my idea is as trustworthy as yours , i believe after death we become earth worms with the ability to turn into anything we like , i believe after death we become objects and can morph into anything we like ............prove me wrong .........you cant coz you have to die first lolo lol lol lol


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

i believe that we turn into marsh mellows after death , prove me wrong .otherwise its true


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 9, 2011)

woodsusa said:


> The universe came from somewhere.


And sometime. Wanna hang out? If ya do meet ya at 7pm. Doesn't work.

Wanna hang out? If so meet ya at joe's bar. Doesn't work. 

The two go together so well.


----------



## Sunbiz1 (Sep 9, 2011)

Someone created the perfect plant, then managed to allow humans to fuck the rest up...draw your own conclusions...lol


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 9, 2011)

why do you assume someone created the plant ? so many asumptions on your behalf .


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 9, 2011)

[video=youtube;bOpva_iit-8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8[/video]

Watch how this woman reacts to being exposed to a different belief system than her own. She was not asked to participate in anything, but to simply listen to the ideas of a non christian view. Obviously this woman is an extreme case, but if you watch the full episode you will see a luncheon among the christian ladies where they express the exact same sentiments as her, only without the added batshit craziness.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> its nice that you hang on to the notion that no one knows what happens after death , but my idea is as trustworthy as yours , i believe after death we become earth worms with the ability to turn into anything we like , i believe after death we become objects and can morph into anything we like ............prove me wrong .........you cant coz you have to die first lolo lol lol lol


Well that's cool.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 9, 2011)

You guys are using this thread wrong, we are supposed to realize you atheists can't prove us wrong hahaha.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 9, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> [video=youtube;bOpva_iit-8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8[/video]
> 
> Watch how this woman reacts to being exposed to a different belief system than her own. She was not asked to participate in anything, but to simply listen to the ideas of a non christian view. Obviously this woman is an extreme case, but if you watch the full episode you will see a luncheon among the christian ladies where they express the exact same sentiments as her, only without the added batshit craziness.


Wow. When I started to watch, I wanted to find it funny but I didn't (except when she decided to accept the dark-sided cash, hypocrite). I felt especially sick when the camera kept cutting to the young girl, she was horrified and traumatized. I wish they would have taken her out of the room so she wouldn't have to witness such insanity. But I suppose she will see much more of this type of thing in that family, sickening...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Wow. When I started to watch, I wanted to find it funny but I didn't (except when she decided to accept the dark-sided cash, hypocrite). I felt especially sick when the camera kept cutting to the young girl, she was horrified and traumatized. I wish they would have taken her out of the room so she wouldn't have to witness such insanity. But I suppose she will see much more of this type of thing in that family, sickening...


 Yeah just keep in mind that is not how all religious people act.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah just keep in mind that is not how all religious people act.


Very true, she does not represent all Christians. What she does represent is the danger of following a religion without applying critical thought. She is demonstrating intolerance, prejudice, and outright discrimination. These traits are all too typical of religious people, particularly Christians. They may not manifest as intensely as this woman, but finding a Christian who loves his enemies and repays evil with kindness is rare, despite that being a direct teaching of Jesus.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Very true, she does not represent all Christians. What she does represent is the danger of following a religion without applying critical thought. She is demonstrating intolerance, prejudice, and outright discrimination. These traits are all too typical of religious people, particularly Christians. They may not manifest as intensely as this woman, but finding a Christian who loves his enemies and repays evil with kindness is rare, despite that being a direct teaching of Jesus.


Well that's why I avoid those hypocrites. And it's hard to never show anger bro. Any Christian that has ever said he follows the word of god completely is a liar and a hypocrite. Jesus tells us we are not perfect but we must try to love each other. I personally don't hate anyone. Can you explain what happens in the video to me? I can't see it from my iPod.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Well that's why I avoid those hypocrites. And it's hard to never show anger bro. Any Christian that has ever said he follows the word of god completely is a liar and a hypocrite. Jesus tells us we are not perfect but we must try to love each other. I personally don't hate anyone. Can you explain what happens in the video to me? I can't see it from my iPod.


The premise of the show is that two families exchange mom's for a week. The moms live in the new house and try to fit into the new families. In the end both families are given 50k but the new moms decide how the money is spent.

This Christian woman was sent to a house that is centered on new age thinking. They believe in astrology, reincarnation, and hypnosis. They observe some pagan ideas such a celebrating the summer solstice. This woman was not asked to participate in any rituals or worship. She was simply exposed to the ideas of this family and couldn't handle it. She would not even listen to them explain their beliefs, however she demanded each of the children listen to her ideas about Christ. She applied none of the standards she imposed upon their beliefs to her own. In the end she left each member of the family a bible for them to study.

Upon returning home she enters a fit of rage and rants about all the things she was exposed to. She screams about the other families children not being Christians or going to church. She then proceeds to blame her family for the ordeal because they did not pray hard enough for her. She frantically declares anything not of Christ to be dark-sided, and orders anyone who doesn't believe in Christ out of her home.

Meanwhile we were shown the other mom, the new age thinker, trying to live among the Christian family. She participates in a small party intended to introduce her to the friends of the family, but it just ends up being a judgement session for the other Christian ladies. She is made to feel inferior and unwelcome.

Again this does not represent all Christians. It represents the potential for Christianity and any dogmatic adherence to religion to spawn hate and intolerance, a potential that is all too often realized. When we criticize religion, and you say those people are crazy people and not the Christians you know, you are missing the point. We are speaking of the potential and giving examples of that potential manifested. Almost anything can be used for evil intent, all technology is double sided, all ideas can be misconstrued, but religion offers and arguably fosters a unique path to evil not found elsewhere. These teachings make this evil seductive to even good hearted people, and once realized, the teachings offer complete justification for it. These are the consequences of this type of thinking, and the cherry on top is that religion has built in discouragement of critical analysis of these consequences.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 10, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah just keep in mind that is not how all religious people act.


Like Heis stated, it is not how all religious people act. But it is religion that makes this behavior possible...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 11, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> You guys are using this thread wrong, we are supposed to realize you atheists can't prove us wrong hahaha.


you cant prove us wrong because we are not claiming anything(unless you have evidence of god i guess). we are simply saying we dont believe in a god, because there is no evidence for it. you are claiming there IS a god, therefore YOU must prove you are right. so if you have some evidence, id like to see it.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 11, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Like Heis stated, it is not how all religious people act. But it is religion that makes this behavior possible...


For her to act like that there must be something more wrong with her. She would have been a crazed person with or without religion. Besides christianity doesn't teach people to act this way so it's not religion that caused this, IMO.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 11, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> you cant prove us wrong because we are not claiming anything(unless you have evidence of god i guess). we are simply saying we dont believe in a god, because there is no evidence for it. you are claiming there IS a god, therefore YOU must prove you are right. so if you have some evidence, id like to see it.


 I also never said it was fact I said that I believe and have faith in god. Once again we are going in circles, so how about you come up with beneficial statements instead of your pointless repetitive statements/questions?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 11, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The premise of the show is that two families exchange mom's for a week. The moms live in the new house and try to fit into the new families. In the end both families are given 50k but the new moms decide how the money is spent.
> 
> This Christian woman was sent to a house that is centered on new age thinking. They believe in astrology, reincarnation, and hypnosis. They observe some pagan ideas such a celebrating the summer solstice. This woman was not asked to participate in any rituals or worship. She was simply exposed to the ideas of this family and couldn't handle it. She would not even listen to them explain their beliefs, however she demanded each of the children listen to her ideas about Christ. She applied none of the standards she imposed upon their beliefs to her own. In the end she left each member of the family a bible for them to study.
> 
> ...


Heis everything has the potential to cause a negative impact. some examples:
Music- it can cause depression or influence people into acting in a negative way.
Movies- has the same potential as music.
School- a kid may be bullied and shoot up the place.
Those are just from the top of my head, my point is that it can be beneficial but it depends on how you use it. People don't want to eradicate music, movies, or school just because of the negative impact it can have on a person. So IMO religion shouldn't be hated to this degree either unless you want to start making threads to get rid of everything else in this world that has the potential to cause negativity.


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 11, 2011)

I got a question.

Can snakes talk?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 11, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I also never said it was fact I said that I believe and have faith in god. Once again we are going in circles, so how about you come up with beneficial statements instead of your pointless repetitive statements/questions?


what is the reason you have faith though? do you just believe for no reason? what is it about christianity that makes you feel it is correct? there must be something. out of all the times ive asked, all youve come up with is 'I have faith", and that doesnt mean anything. 
*Faith*:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, *based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.* 

see where im going with this?

what i said wasnt pointless. you said we cant prove you wrong. you cannot prove a claim of untestable evidence wrong. this is how religion scapegoats these questions. by saying god is supernatural and cannot be seen, you are somehow allowed to claim he exists without any form of evidence. how convenient... 
in order to make a claim, you must provide supportive evidence for why it is right. otherwise you are just making shit up and expecting others to either believe it too, or leave you alone about it.

basically im wondering why the hell you believe it if you know there is no evidence to support it and it does bad things in the world.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 11, 2011)

also, how could one man build an ark big enough to fit two of every animal on earth? if he really did get EVERY creature, that would be quite a task. and if he didnt get every creature(just got the ones in his general area), how can the bible claim he repopulated the earth after the flood? how did all these new creatures appear within a few thousand years?


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 11, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> also, how could one man build an ark big enough to fit two of every animal on earth? if he really did get EVERY creature, that would be quite a task. and if he didnt get every creature(just got the ones in his general area), how can the bible claim he repopulated the earth after the flood? how did all these new creatures appear within a few thousand years?


Good point. I like to throw out the talking snake, and the fact that a human lived in a whale for three days. I mean, come on now...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 11, 2011)

Bwpz said:


> Good point. I like to throw out the talking snake, and the fact that a human lived in a whale for three days. I mean, come on now...


yeah you gotta be crazy to think that shits real lol


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/05/07/the-problem-with-atheism-why-atheists-are-so-pompous.htm
Hey look at this. I just found it and it kinda shows a little of what I think too (just a little).


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 12, 2011)

Maybe the universe didn't come from anywhere. Maybe you're not real. Maybe none of this is real. =)


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm Agnostic, I want nothing to do with any religion.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/05/07/the-problem-with-atheism-why-atheists-are-so-pompous.htm
> Hey look at this. I just found it and it kinda shows a little of what I think too (just a little).


You realize that entire post is intended to be sarcasm, right?


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> When we die we ...


I stopped reading there. Knowledge of your existence after your existence expires isnt possible. Did you fear the year 1800? No reason to. You werent around, why would you fear the year 1800? Do you fear year 2200? Same situation.


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 12, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Maybe the universe didn't come from anywhere. Maybe you're not real. Maybe none of this is real. =)


This is true, our Universe came from nowhere in particular. Space didnt exist before matter was present, and space only exists when matter is present. One of the common misunderstandings in cosmology is that the big bang didnt happen in any central point. Just stoned chit chat today, no real reason to be typing.


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The premise of the show is that two families exchange mom's for a week. The moms live in the new house and try to fit into the new families. In the end both families are given 50k but the new moms decide how the money is spent.
> 
> This Christian woman was sent to a house that is centered on new age thinking. They believe in astrology, reincarnation, and hypnosis. They observe some pagan ideas such a celebrating the summer solstice. This woman was not asked to participate in any rituals or worship. She was simply exposed to the ideas of this family and couldn't handle it. She would not even listen to them explain their beliefs, however she demanded each of the children listen to her ideas about Christ. She applied none of the standards she imposed upon their beliefs to her own. In the end she left each member of the family a bible for them to study.
> 
> ...


That's a funny incident. I'm curious, how did each family have their $50k spent for them in the end? I would have bought them hugs and cupcakes.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/05/07/the-problem-with-atheism-why-atheists-are-so-pompous.htm
> Hey look at this. I just found it and it kinda shows a little of what I think too (just a little).


So you're not familiar with satire?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> That's a funny incident. I'm curious, how did each family have their $50k spent for them in the end? I would have bought them hugs and cupcakes.


you could probably find the whole episode online. it was a real good one.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You realize that entire post is intended to be sarcasm, right?


I agreed with what the person he was quoting was speaking about. He may use satire to combat what she said but still he didn't take the question head on so I didn't really pay attention to him. I mostly just agreed with her statement where she said that religion is part of culture. That's about it, the comments hold a good debate too.


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I agreed with what the person he was quoting was speaking about. He may use satire to combat what she said but still he didn't take the question head on so I didn't really pay attention to him. I mostly just agreed with her statement where she said that religion is part of culture. That's about it, the comments hold a good debate too.


Suicide bombing is a part of the Jihad culture


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> That's a funny incident. I'm curious, how did each family have their $50k spent for them in the end? I would have bought them hugs and cupcakes.


The new-age mom gave 5000 for the daughter to get certified in dance. And 10,000 for the daughter and granddaughter to move out. The rest went to the crazy christian mom to pay for a gastric bypass she wanted.

The crazy mom bought the whole family bibles. She gave $400 to the daughter to buy a new clothes dryer, and 3000 to each of the boys. The rest went to the father to be used for 'sustaining' the family.


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The new-age mom gave 5000 for the daughter to get certified in dance. And 10,000 for the daughter and granddaughter to move out. The rest went to the crazy christian mom to pay for a gastric bypass she wanted.
> 
> The crazy mom bought the whole family bibles. She gave $400 to the daughter to buy a new clothes dryer, and 3000 to each of the boys. The rest went to the father to be used for 'sustaining' the family.


Awesome. So to summarize, the religious family tried to impress their beliefs on others forcefully, while the new-age mom looked out for their health and better interests. As expected.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> For her to act like that there must be something more wrong with her. She would have been a crazed person with or without religion. Besides christianity doesn't teach people to act this way so it's not religion that caused this, IMO.


True, she may have been unstable without religion, but religion seems to really attract these kinds of people, and provides an accepting platform on which they can justify their insanity . I mean, when is the last time we've seen one of these nuts on the side of science? What would that even look like? "They didn't even FOLLOW THE STANDARD MODEL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS!!! They were all String Theorists, STRINGS THEORISTS!!! Why didn't you tell me? YOU LET THIS HAPPEN!!! Everyone not of the Standard Model, GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!" I can't even imagine it...


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> True, she may have been unstable without religion, but religion seems to really attract these kinds of people, and provides an accepting platform on which they can justify their insanity . I mean, when is the last time we've seen one of these nuts on the side of science? What would that even look like? "They didn't even FOLLOW THE STANDARD MODEL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS!!! They were all String Theorists, STRINGS THEORISTS!!! Why didn't you tell me? YOU LET THIS HAPPEN!!! Everyone not of the Standard Model, GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!" I can't even imagine it...


lol they call their sinners aristotelians


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Awesome. So to summarize, the religious family tried to impress their beliefs on others forcefully, while the new-age mom looked out for their health and better interests. As expected.


And this was after the christian crazy mom tore up the check given to her on camera, denouncing it as dark-sided money  Also to be expected...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2011)

[video=youtube;YhYf742_Si0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhYf742_Si0[/video]

This reminds me of something Master Shake would listen to.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> True, she may have been unstable without religion, but religion seems to really attract these kinds of people, and provides an accepting platform on which they can justify their insanity . I mean, when is the last time we've seen one of these nuts on the side of science? What would that even look like? "They didn't even FOLLOW THE STANDARD MODEL OF QUANTUM PHYSICS!!! They were all String Theorists, STRINGS THEORISTS!!! Why didn't you tell me? YOU LET THIS HAPPEN!!! Everyone not of the Standard Model, GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!" I can't even imagine it...


Well Tyler just look around and you will see plenty of people who side with science. I'm one of them, I'm always trying to learn more about science. Science is very beneficial to humans, which I'm sure you know.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 12, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Awesome. So to summarize, the religious family tried to impress their beliefs on others forcefully, while the new-age mom looked out for their health and better interests. As expected.


 Please explain to me how this is awesome?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

i had to post this. its hilarious

[video=youtube;j_BzWUuZN5w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w[/video]
[video=youtube;XLr5vl-n0Bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2011)

Best line --

Do you think I give a damn about a bee sting when Ive got to plan a year on a wooden boat with 4,000 species of termites on board?

lots of lolz.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 12, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Best line --
> 
> &#8220;Do you think I give a damn about a bee sting when I&#8217;ve got to plan a year on a wooden boat with 4,000 species of termites on board?&#8221;
> 
> lots of lolz.


hahaha but wait, that bee is going to die! now you need another one!


----------



## Underthelight (Sep 12, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/05/07/the-problem-with-atheism-why-atheists-are-so-pompous.htm
> Hey look at this. I just found it and it kinda shows a little of what I think too (just a little).


Ah isn't that article just an Atheist mocking what Christians think of them? Seemed like it was making fun of Charles Lumia for being ignorant?


----------



## billy4479 (Sep 13, 2011)

so im not a beliver or anything but i heard about the ancient sumerian text ..from you guess it aceint aleins but any way the story of a flood ... makes me wonder why the story is so old and why it has stuck with us for so long....Somtimes with storys like that u got to read between the lines like maybe not a flood but a plage or virues or somthing ...The idea of a ark reminds me of like A Seed Bank ...Id feel safer knowing we had honey Bee DNA and others plus food plants stored away if somthing we to lower are numbers ...storys like that make me wonder to about if we did have a Ice Age 10,000 years ago did all the amazing eco seystems mange to restart that fast yeah know or the cambrian explosion i belive in evloution dont get me wrong hear but i think it can somtimes occur very fast the very fabric of life is a very addapted thing.. All cells come from other cellls ..Can you imagine that maybe one cell hear on earth was the beging of all this dont you just want to start like sending bactria from earth and spread it all over are solar seystem in hope that it one dad terfoms or learns to live on that planet ..if is not there already ...you ever wonder if maybe life sent its self to this planet ...Sorry guys just a brain storm of utter nothingness


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 13, 2011)

billy4479 said:


> so im not a beliver or anything but i heard about the ancient sumerian text ..from you guess it aceint aleins but any way the story of a flood ... makes me wonder why the story is so old and why it has stuck with us for so long....Somtimes with storys like that u got to read between the lines like maybe not a flood but a plage or virues or somthing ...The idea of a ark reminds me of like A Seed Bank ...Id feel safer knowing we had honey Bee DNA and others plus food plants stored away if somthing we to lower are numbers ...storys like that make me wonder to about if we did have a Ice Age 10,000 years ago did all the amazing eco seystems mange to restart that fast yeah know or the cambrian explosion i belive in evloution dont get me wrong hear but i think it can somtimes occur very fast the very fabric of life is a very addapted thing.. All cells come from other cellls ..Can you imagine that maybe one cell hear on earth was the beging of all this dont you just want to start like sending bactria from earth and spread it all over are solar seystem in hope that it one dad terfoms or learns to live on that planet ..if is not there already ...you ever wonder if maybe life sent its self to this planet ...Sorry guys just a brain storm of utter nothingness


i dont think it would be worth it for us to send life to other planets, unless we were that life. we would have to find a suitable planet for life first, which we have been trying to do for years. then we would have to build a ship that can travel to it, which would be one of the greatest engineering feats ever lol. just the trajectory alone would have to be so precise to hit that planet. also you would have to have a system on the ship that keeps the bacteria alive for the years in space. you need to carry fuel in order to keep the ship warm for the bacteria, since space is VERY cold. then once the planet gets there, it needs to land the bacteria safely. hopefully near water or whatever conditions the bacteria thrive it. so you see, it would be very difficult. 
but if the time came where the earth was going to end, and we couldnt build a ship big enough for humans to survive on, maybe we would do that to try to continue life in the universe.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey oly when was the last time you killed someone in the name of god, ha. Because apparently that's what we do.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey oly when was the last time you killed someone in the name of god, ha. Because apparently that's what we do.


When was the last time I killed someone in the name of Atheism? Because apparently that's what I do.

Don't appeal to fairness when your very sentiment is grounded in partiality.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> When was the last time I killed someone in the name of Atheism? Because apparently that's what I do.
> 
> Don't appeal to fairness when your very sentiment is grounded in partiality.


 I didn't say atheist kill in the name of atheism.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

So atheism is a lack of belief in a god or diety. Religious people claim there is a god, therefore atheists believe we have to prove it to them. Atheists do a good on not stating what they do follow to control their morals. If we found that out then we would be able to point out everyone's flaws. But they did not state their beliefs so we can't point out any if their flaws. Just to clarify us religious people can point out the flaws of science or society. Which is what I assume you atheists believe and follow.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So atheism is a lack of belief in a god or diety. Religious people claim there is a god, therefore atheists believe we have to prove it to them. Atheists do a good on not stating what they do follow to control their morals. If we found that out then we would be able to point out everyone's flaws. But they did not state their beliefs so we can't point out any if their flaws. Just to clarify us religious people can point out the flaws of science or society. Which is what I assume you atheists believe and follow.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You can't assume we follow anything, science or anything like that. I believe there is no God, end of story. I live life how I want, do what I want, and no "God" has any control over that.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So atheism is a lack of belief in a god or diety. Religious people claim there is a god, therefore atheists believe we have to prove it to them.


yes, but you dont have to PROVE it all to us really. i would accept reasonable evidence that showed something to do with your beliefs. im trying to think of what an example would be like but i cant right now. i hope you understand what im sayin.
but what i find strange is that people believe it even when they know there is no evidence. i just cant understand that haha



> Atheists do a good on not stating what they do follow to control their morals.


im not sure exactly what your saying, but it seems you are saying you dont know what controls our(atheist) morals. 
it depends on the society we live in. we also are born with certain morals like dont kill another human for example. this of course can be over ridden by our lives. sometimes things in our lives happen that allow us to justify those actions in our minds.
i believe that religion is a big justifier in the world. people can rely on it to allow themselves to commit negative acts. i also believe that religion does more of this negative than the positive that it does.



> If we found that out then we would be able to point out everyone's flaws.


yes of course, but that would have nothing to do with atheism. it would be more about biological factors and life events



> But they did not state their beliefs so we can't point out any if their flaws.


beliefs about what? god? i have zero beliefs about god. when i say i dont think he exists, its another way of saying i dont believe you when you say god does exist. i am unconvinced by your argument, to put it simply.
i do however have beliefs about other subjects, but thats for another thread i guess



> Just to clarify us religious people can point out the flaws of science or society.


just to clarify, science welcomes this pointing out of flaws. that is what science does to itself, actually. if you can prove a scientific theory wrong, by all means id like to see it.
i can point out flaws in society also. some have nothing to do with religion, but others do. pointing out the ones that dont, probably doesnt help to back up your claims.



> Which is what I assume you atheists believe and follow.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.


you are correct when you say religious people can point out the flaws of science or society. anybody can do that, religious or not


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 13, 2011)

Bwpz said:


> You can't assume we follow anything, science or anything like that. I believe there is no God, end of story. I live life how I want, do what I want, and no "God" has any control over that.


exactly. someone can be an atheist and be against science. although their reasoning may be flawed because they wouldnt use science to back it up. like if a guy was born on an island with just a few people that didnt believe in god, and also didnt have science. thats just an example to show that atheism and science are disconnected, however atheists also tend to use science to refute claims of a deity.


----------



## beardo (Sep 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Very true, she does not represent all Christians. What she does represent is the danger of following a religion without applying critical thought. She is demonstrating intolerance, prejudice, and outright discrimination. These traits are all too typical of religious people, particularly Christians. They may not manifest as intensely as this woman, but finding a Christian who loves his enemies and repays evil with kindness is rare, despite that being a direct teaching of Jesus.


Are you pointing out that they're many false Christians and that those who follow his teachings are few, and are you addmiting the lagitimacy of the teachings of Jesus- Live your life according to Jesus, It is Gods wish. If God were not real you would not be here. You can not disprove God and wasting the life he has given you trying to denounce his greatness is a waste of the gift you have been given.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So atheism is a lack of belief in a god or diety. Religious people claim there is a god, therefore atheists believe we have to prove it to them.


Many atheists wouldn't care if you had proof or not. You are talking about skeptics. Skeptics subscribe to the accepted standards of burden of proof. We have said this before to you, but perhaps you think it's a phrase we just throw around. 'Burden of proof' is explained here; I encourage you to read the short description and tell me what you feel is unfair about it.



> Atheists do a good on not stating what they do follow to control their morals. If we found that out then we would be able to point out everyone's flaws. But they did not state their beliefs so we can't point out any if their flaws.


This is exactly right! You can not infer anything about a person based on them being an atheist. You can't say they have become demoralized without god. You can't say they are likely to murder. You can't say anything other than that they are unconvinced of a deity. 

Now, if you could point out some negative or amoral aspects that arrive solely and uniquely from the position of Atheism, then you _could_ infer something about a person just by knowing they are atheist, and you would be justified in doing so. We honestly tried (in another thread) to pick each others brains and try to find examples of this, because we genuinely wanted to know and be aware of it. What we got was attacked and hassled by believers for asking this question. For being critical of atheism and not religion. For simply trying to examine our own position. We made no attempts to discredit religion, even made appeals to keep religion out of it, and yet believers still came in, demanded the thread be about comparing the two, and then got mad when that comparison made religion look bad. This effectively prevented us from actually examining atheism and looking for errors. Why do you suppose it happened that way?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> yes, but you dont have to PROVE it all to us really. i would accept reasonable evidence that showed something to do with your beliefs. im trying to think of what an example would be like but i cant right now. i hope you understand what im sayin.
> but what i find strange is that people believe it even when they know there is no evidence. i just cant understand that haha
> 
> 
> ...


That post was to say that religious people aren't the only bad peopple in this world (not saying that's what you guys said). I'm saying that alot of these atheists complain about religion because it causes so much negativity but who's knows how much negativity the person who is arguing with the religious person causes. 
And for the belief statement I was saying that if you were to say you believe in science then we can point out countless flaws with science. I didn't mean for it to sound like you believe in god.

It was more of me saying I guess it's my fault for stating my beliefs without evidence, which I thought was fine, and wasn't aware of all the arguing that would come along with defending my beliefs.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> If God were not real you would not be here.


And If baloney were an academic you'd have a degree.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Many atheists wouldn't care if you had proof or not. You are talking about skeptics. Skeptics subscribe to the accepted standards of burden of proof. We have said this before to you, but perhaps you think it's a phrase we just throw around. 'Burden of proof' is explained here; I encourage you to read the short description and tell me what you feel is unfair about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know heis, I was saying that there are no flaws with atheism because that is simply the lack of belief in a god or deity. But you can find problems with atheist alone (which doesn't stem from atheism). I'm saying that many atheists talk about religion like it is the worst thing ever when I'm sure the person making that argument has many flaws themselves. It was me saying that yeah sure religion has flaws but so do you (no offense).


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> That post was to say that religious people aren't the only bad peopple in this world (not saying that's what you guys said). I'm saying that alot of these atheists complain about religion because it causes so much negativity but who's knows how much negativity the person who is arguing with the religious person causes.
> And for the belief statement I was saying that if you were to say you believe in science then we can point out countless flaws with science. I didn't mean for it to sound like you believe in god.
> 
> It was more of me saying I guess it's my fault for stating my beliefs without evidence, which I thought was fine, and wasn't aware of all the arguing that would come along with defending my beliefs.


I find it more oppressive that the religious people are always shitting on athiests. Religious people, in general not everyone specifically, always tend to try and spread their beliefs. Its part of human nature to do that too, such as our spreading of growing weed beliefs! I just dislike that a majority of the religious society seems to dislike science as their enemy, when science isnt trying to prove or disprove any god or religion. All we want is a model of the world around us and to learn what has naturally already occurred.

Besides, when was the last thread about religion and prove this prove that blah blah, started by someone who respects science? Generally, it's the religious people here asking us, the scientists, to prove them wrong or right when we have no means nor right to try. Its kinda fun to watch, though.


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> And If baloney were an academic you'd have degree.


Someone doesn't know the Oscar Mayer song


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I know heis, I was saying that there are no flaws with atheism because that is simply the lack of belief in a god or deity. But you can find problems with atheist alone (which doesn't stem from atheism). I'm saying that many atheists talk about religion like it is the worst thing ever when I'm sure the person making that argument has many flaws themselves. It was me saying that yeah sure religion has flaws but so do you (no offense).


Everyone, including atheists, has flaws. The difference is no flawed person is asking anyone to follow them and that they are the perfect word of god, it is religion that does this...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2011)

Bwpz said:


> Someone doesn't know the Oscar Mayer song


I wasn't referring to the lunchmeat, but to the rhetoric.



> ba·lo·ney 2 also bo·lo·ney (b-ln) Slang
> n.
> Nonsense.
> interj.
> Used to express disagreement or exasperation.


But I did have to look up that song, little before my time I think.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 13, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Everyone, including atheists, has flaws. The difference is no flawed person is asking anyone to follow them and that they are the perfect word of god, it is religion that does this...


If someone believes in science and has full faith that what that scientist taught them, then that person probably goes around telling people this is how this is and if you disagree then you're wrong. Then the scientist finds out it is wrong but the guy has already spread the false word of truth. So yes flawed people (religious or other) try to gather followers.


----------



## beardo (Sep 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> And If baloney were an academic you'd have degree.


If their is no God why are you alive? can you bring something dead to life?


----------



## beardo (Sep 13, 2011)

Athesim is a form of mental illness


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> Athesim is a form of mental illness


Religion is a form of ignorance.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> If there is no God why are you alive? Can you bring something dead to life?


1) I firmly believe that my being alive is not contingent on an engaged divine principle. 
2) Among growers, you ask that?! Water, ferts, air, lighting (the four classical elements, right there!) ... all dead. I need a living catalyst (seed or clone) but observe the living result, and celebrate!
cheers 'neer


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> If someone believes in science and has full faith that what that scientist taught them, then that person probably goes around telling people this is how this is and if you disagree then you're wrong. Then the scientist finds out it is wrong but the guy has already spread the false word of truth. So yes flawed people (religious or other) try to gather followers.


if someone believes in science, the scientist in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is. It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> If someone believes in science and has full faith that what that scientist taught them, then that person probably goes around telling people this is how this is and if you disagree then you're wrong. Then the scientist finds out it is wrong but the guy has already spread the false word of truth. So yes flawed people (religious or other) try to gather followers.


Specifically, I wrote _no flawed person_, not _no flawed diverse group of scientists_. Let me try my point this way: Science gains its followers honestly; it does not claim to to be infallible, and it does not claim to be the word of god, so people know what to look out for going in. Religion gains its followers dishonestly; it claims to be infallible, it does claim to be the word of god, so people do not know what to look out for going in. Science says, 'be skeptical of what I say', religion says, 'don't you dare question what I say'...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> if someone believes in science, the scientist in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is. It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.


If someone believes in religion, the religious person in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is.
It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 14, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> If someone believes in religion, the religious person in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is.
> It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.


And that's where the arguments fail, every time.  Science is backed by repeatable observations. Religion is backed by some guy who says its so. In science, the correct theories get proven and incorrect theories get discarded or modified to work. In religion, any time religion is proven wrong, they blame it in interpretation, the person arguing against religion, or society.

Same as how in every other religious thread that posters like me comment in we get arguments from religious people saying theories and science is wrong. Yet none of them have *ever* even *once* linked to a scientific article that they could disprove.

Everyone wants to be a theoretical physicist, the thing is that it took me 8 years in school to do that, and its not a religious based environment. Science IS NOT religion and religion IS NOT science! It is simply that science proves religious people to be full of shit, and they dont like that.  (Ok a little tongue in cheek there )


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 14, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> And that's where the arguments fail, every time.  Science is backed by repeatable observations. Religion is backed by some guy who says its so. In science, the correct theories get proven and incorrect theories get discarded or modified to work. In religion, any time religion is proven wrong, they blame it in interpretation, the person arguing against religion, or society.
> 
> Same as how in every other religious thread that posters like me comment in we get arguments from religious people saying theories and science is wrong. Yet none of them have *ever* even *once* linked to a scientific article that they could disprove.
> 
> Everyone wants to be a theoretical physicist, the thing is that it took me 8 years in school to do that, and its not a religious based environment. Science IS NOT religion and religion IS NOT science! It is simply that science proves religious people to be full of shit, and they dont like that.  (Ok a little tongue in cheek there )


So you're trying to tell me in the history of science there hasn't been a scientist telling people this is fact and that is the truth and then been proven wrong after having a bunch of people believe him?
Can you show me where a religious person says something in science is wrong? I haven't seen that on RIU. Maybe it just me that hasn't seen it. It's simple we don't care whether or not science proves something, that's a benefit for us (for humans).


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 15, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So you're trying to tell me in the history of science there hasn't been a scientist telling people this is fact and that is the truth and then been proven wrong after having a bunch of people believe him?
> Can you show me where a religious person says something in science is wrong? I haven't seen that on RIU. Maybe it just me that hasn't seen it. It's simple we don't care whether or not science proves something, that's a benefit for us (for humans).


Why would a religious person say something in science is wrong? If it's science, it's not wrong after tested. It's the theories that's wrong sometimes...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

science was way wrong during the alchemy period, no one is bashing that... also, science is also used to kill... if you are too naive to know that, i dont know what to say... both sides kill, so what, as long as you aint the one dying right?






Bwpz said:


> Why would a religious person say something in science is wrong? If it's science, it's not wrong after tested. It's the theories that's wrong sometimes...


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 15, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> science was way wrong during the alchemy period, no one is bashing that... also, science is also used to kill... if you are too naive to know that, i dont know what to say... both sides kill, so what, as long as you aint the one dying right?


Of course science can be used to kill, so can my thumb.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 15, 2011)

point settled... now everyone can kill





Bwpz said:


> Of course science can be used to kill, so can my thumb.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> science was way wrong during the alchemy period, no one is bashing that..


So science was wrong when people were engaged in mysticism prior to the enlightenment? 

No one has ever said the results of science is always right. You cannot discount that the process of scientific discovery is head and shoulders above any and every other path to knowledge ever attempted.


----------



## Bwpz (Sep 15, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> point settled... now everyone can kill


Yeah, they sure could if they wanted to...

What exactly is it you're getting at? A pencil can kill man, you're just saying science can kill, no shit haha...


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 15, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So you're trying to tell me in the history of science there hasn't been a scientist telling people this is fact and that is the truth and then been proven wrong after having a bunch of people believe him?
> Can you show me where a religious person says something in science is wrong? I haven't seen that on RIU. Maybe it just me that hasn't seen it. It's simple we don't care whether or not science proves something, that's a benefit for us (for humans).


The last Version of the book is correct until Revised! 1+1=2 or 1+1= sqroot of 2 depends retecangular or polar form? Just to expand on what I read here: So according to all written records 7500 years Weather change is trackable to man's industrialization? So the science is still out on this? Or is global warming just the result of all the heat from all the radiators cooling internal combustion engines? But A models were 1909? So we only have 102 years to observe that information. And I am the religious person saying when did temperature recording historically start to give a solid understanding of temperatures over a million year period?


----------



## Red1966 (Sep 16, 2011)

mexiblunt said:


> And sometime. Wanna hang out? If ya do meet ya at 7pm. Doesn't work.
> 
> Wanna hang out? If so meet ya at joe's bar. Doesn't work.
> 
> The two go together so well.



Wanna hang out? If so meet ya at joe's bar. Doesn't work. Actually, that does work. You just have to stay in the bar a LOOOOONG time. Works for me!


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

mp, smoke a bowl! i think i have found out my issue with you, i just cant answer the way you do... i mean i try, but it just dont come out, so i just type something reasonable and leave it be... 

I was not implying that science is always right either. All im saying is that science has had its fuck up as well and has lead people astray from real scientific work because the church banned all other types of study cause they were hell bent on getting shhgold!

I love science mp! it is a major part of my career and i really enjoy learning more about what i love to do for a living... If it means subscribing to all the really good journals to get the most up to date scientific data regarding how to train athletes for improve athletic performance, i am all for it... you see, you are an expert in a field that i am not, i am an expert in a field you are not, so you will misunderstand each other some times because we have different methods of getting our point across. sorry for the mix up and heated exchanges





mindphuk said:


> So science was wrong when people were engaged in mysticism prior to the enlightenment?
> 
> No one has ever said the results of science is always right. You cannot discount that the process of scientific discovery is head and shoulders above any and every other path to knowledge ever attempted.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 16, 2011)

alright I just had an idea, so here it goes...
Religious books are just books right? So then we have religious people saying this is right no doubt about it, then we have the atheists saying I just don't believe it, and then we have the skeptics that say bullshit you bunch of dumbasses. Before I go on I would like to point something out.
When I was in school we would have a shitload of textbooks about science, some of them were old editions. Anyways my biology/chemistry/physics teacher all taught from these books and would sometimes point out that some of the information in these older edition books have been proven wrong so they would teach you what was right. But think about it... These books were old editions so the past students had to learn that false crap but since the book never said was false they took it as fact since the book gave many of these so called "facts".
Now back to my initial point... Just like the science books the religious books are just books that don't say they are false but say they are true. (iforgot my point so im gonna come up with some bullshit point for now until my real point comes back to me, ha) Maybe they are wrong also but you can't say that science doesn't draw people astray from the truth just like religion supposedly does.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 16, 2011)

Or maybe my point was that you shouldn't hate religion as a whole because it's not religions fault it's religious people's fault. IDK I'm super baked I'm getting more and more lost with my own posts... Ehh I'm gonna get some cereal.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 16, 2011)

Red1966 said:


> Wanna hang out? If so meet ya at joe's bar. Doesn't work. Actually, that does work. You just have to stay in the bar a LOOOOONG time. Works for me!


Ok cool meet ya there! If i'm not there when you get there just wait.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 16, 2011)

grizlbr said:


> The last Version of the book is correct until Revised! 1+1=2 or 1+1= sqroot of 2 depends retecangular or polar form? Just to expand on what I read here: So according to all written records 7500 years Weather change is trackable to man's industrialization? So the science is still out on this? Or is global warming just the result of all the heat from all the radiators cooling internal combustion engines? But A models were 1909? So we only have 102 years to observe that information. And I am the religious person saying when did temperature recording historically start to give a solid understanding of temperatures over a million year period?


they take core samples of ice and they know what was in the atmosphere however long the ice goes back. up to millions of years


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 16, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> mp, smoke a bowl! i think i have found out my issue with you, i just cant answer the way you do... i mean i try, but it just dont come out, so i just type something reasonable and leave it be...


Why on earth would you try to answer like someone else? 
I wouldn't have responded to your post at all if it was reasonable. Alchemy has nothing to do with science except for being the precursor to chemistry because of all of the discovery of the various elements. So saying science was wrong while linking it to alchemy just sounds like an attempt to disparage science for no particular reason even though you say you like science. You should ask yourself why you posted something like that, what was the point? 


> I was not implying that science is always right either. All im saying is that science has had its fuck up as well and has lead people astray from real scientific work because the church banned all other types of study cause they were hell bent on getting shhgold!


How does something the church did make it the fault of science? Maybe if it wasn't for the church scientific discovery would be 100 years further ahead than it is currently. 


> I love science mp! it is a major part of my career and i really enjoy learning more about what i love to do for a living... If it means subscribing to all the really good journals to get the most up to date scientific data regarding how to train athletes for improve athletic performance, i am all for it... you see, you are an expert in a field that i am not, i am an expert in a field you are not, so you will misunderstand each other some times because we have different methods of getting our point across. sorry for the mix up and heated exchanges


 You say you love science but this was not the first time you have made a comment that attempts to belittle science. I'm glad you love science and try to be good in your field. I just wish you wouldn't try so hard to try to somehow make it on an equal footing with religion or whatever you are doing.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 16, 2011)

religion is something for the weak minded to cling to.


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 16, 2011)

beardo said:


> If their is no God why are you alive? can you bring something dead to life?


 Actually...yes you can.

http://www.sciy.org/2010/05/21/first-synthetic-life-created/


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

> Why on earth would you try to answer like someone else?


why do you misunderstand my words? What i meant by that is me trying to you know, be at your level or rhetoric, which im not. i can be, but i just dont like to sound so smart, no offense.



> I wouldn't have responded to your post at all if it was reasonable.


that explains why you have ignored all my valid and "substance" filled posts on other threads... thats cool.



> Alchemy has nothing to do with science except for being the precursor to chemistry because of all of the discovery of the various elements


again, you misunderstand my words. what i meant by throwing alchemy into the mix was that alchemy is a part of science, but lead others not to follow what they believed in cause they had to spend their time in alchemy. i hate the catholic church for what they have done to the field of science, but that does not mean alchemy was not influential. I believe the idea of making ssshgold out of nothing came from so called scientists' way before the church found out, but as soon as the church heard about it, they tried to control that as well.



> So saying science was wrong while linking it to alchemy just sounds like an attempt to disparage science for no particular reason even though you say you like science.


how is alchemy not a part of science? There are alchemist to this day trying to find new ways to make gold. they already have, but in minuet amounts, not worth the time and money. and this statement seems to me that you are hostile with all my posts, just trying to find something you see wrong with it and pointing in a smug fashion.



> How does something the church did make it the fault of science?


alchemists made up the idea of turning metals into precious metals before the church knew about, so you cannot say alchemy was not a fuck up of science and the church...



> Maybe if it wasn't for the church scientific discovery would be 100 years further ahead than it is currently.


maybe if it werent for hitler or stalin, or the communist dictators of china or japan in the early part of the 20th century we would have even furthered our advances in all aspects of science, so to blame solely the church is ridiculous and preposterous!



> You say you love science but this was not the first time you have made a comment that attempts to belittle science.


please show me where i "belittled" science? If all i have done is give another point of view in some rather atheist fueled arguments in which their hatred for religion is absurd. You guys "belittle" peoples beliefs and what they write all the time, so i see no point in you brining this up. Why is that luger can bash on religion and believers and yet always side with muslims and what they want. that is exactly what you say i am doing, yet you do not bring this to his attention. again, the atheism bias.



> I'm glad you love science and try to be good in your field.


what is life without striving to be the best you can be in what you love to do? 



> I just wish you wouldn't try so hard to try to somehow make it on an equal footing with religion or whatever you are doing.


i am not trying to make anything equal, i am just giving to sides to the argument. There is all this religion does bad no good and science is all and mighty! well, people have to be informed of some misleads that science has done in our past history.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> religion is something for the weak minded to cling to.


wow, did you copy and paste this? I have seen this by someone else


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 16, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> why do you misunderstand my words? What i meant by that is me trying to you know, be at your level or rhetoric, which im not. i can be, but i just dont like to sound so smart, no offense.


I didn't misunderstand you. This tells me you are trying to be like someone that you're not. I don't try to use any rhetoric or words in any special way, I just type the way I think. It seems that when you try to match other people, you make yourself harder to understand. 



> that explains why you have ignored all my valid and "substance" filled posts on other threads... thats cool.


I haven't ignored posts of yours in other threads when they are reasonable. 
What I meant by that was that I wouldn't have responded with criticism to reasonable posts. Of course if I had a response I would do so, but many of your posts were so unreasonable they deserve a comment just to straighten out misconceptions. 



> again, you misunderstand my words.


 Again, I don't think that's my fault. I think you might need to choose different words. 


> what i meant by throwing alchemy into the mix was that alchemy is a part of science, but lead others not to follow what they believed in cause they had to spend their time in alchemy. i hate the catholic church for what they have done to the field of science, but that does not mean alchemy was not influential. I believe the idea of making ssshgold out of nothing came from so called scientists' way before the church found out, but as soon as the church heard about it, they tried to control that as well.


What do you think science is? How do you think that alchemy was scientific, let alone part of science? Calling alchemists scientists would be like calling witches community leaders. 


> how is alchemy not a part of science?


The correct question would be how is it part of science. 


> There are alchemist to this day trying to find new ways to make gold. they already have, but in minuet amounts, not worth the time and money. and this statement seems to me that you are hostile with all my posts, just trying to find something you see wrong with it and pointing in a smug fashion.


I'm not being hostile, I'm disturbed that you, someone that claims to love science, thinks alchemy is science. How about astrology? That was a precursor to modern astronomy, is astrology and horoscopes science? 


> maybe if it werent for hitler or stalin, or the communist dictators of china or japan in the early part of the 20th century we would have even furthered our advances in all aspects of science, so to blame solely the church is ridiculous and preposterous!


I never solely blamed the church for anything. I made the connection based on what _you said _about the church and alchemy leading people away from scientific study. 
Honestly, I think if it weren't for Hitler and Japan, we would be a few years behind where we are now. The war was very influential to the progress of atomic research. 


> please show me where i "belittled" science?


Calling alchemy science in order to find fault is IMO, belittling science. 


> If all i have done is give another point of view in some rather atheist fueled arguments in which their hatred for religion is absurd.


I don't think dislike of religion is absurd.


> You guys "belittle" peoples beliefs and what they write all the time, so i see no point in you brining this up.


Questioning beliefs is not belittling them. However, some beliefs are worthy of criticism and disparagement. If you hold onto irrational beliefs, it's probably better to keep them to yourself or be prepared to defend them. 


> Why is that luger can bash on religion and believers and yet always side with muslims and what they want. that is exactly what you say i am doing, yet you do not bring this to his attention. again, the atheism bias.


I am not luger so I can't answer for him. I will say that defending the rights of Muslims is not the same as defending Islam. I will also defend Muslims or Christians or Satanists, or whoever, against unfair treatment by the government. I will not however, defend their beliefs as rational. 


> what is life without striving to be the best you can be in what you love to do?


mediocre? 



> i am not trying to make anything equal, i am just giving to sides to the argument. There is all this religion does bad no good and science is all and mighty! well, people have to be informed of some misleads that science has done in our past history.


 Science doesn't pretend to be infallible. People that understand science also understand its limitations and no one is more familiar with the mistakes and blind alleys science has led us to in the past than scientists and the scientific literate. However, trying to find additional fault of science where it is actually blameless like linking it to alchemy is just wrong.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 16, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> religion is something for the weak minded to cling to.


How? There's plenty of religions that don't believe in a afterlife. I personally believe I'm gonna go to a grave and that's it because I sin too much and don't really try my hardest to follow my religion. So how is that comfort?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 16, 2011)

> It seems that when you try to match other people, you make yourself harder to understand.


i find that rather true and i thank you for pointing it out. It is just, i mean, im very intelligent so i want to respond in ways similar to yours, but as i have found out, it is a bit hard to understand. 



> What do you think science is


to me science is the study and research of everything there is on this planet and beyond and trying to further our understanding of what we love to do. I know my definition is rather small, but i like to keep it that way for simplicity. please expand my definition if you will? I really dont get into other fields because of my own interest in my field of study. 



> The correct question would be how is it part of science.


why would it not? If it set the ground for modern chemistry, i believe it should be included in science. the great mathematician who was competing against einstein for the formula for the theory of relativity found the formula first, but gave all the credit to einstein, yet no one remembers him when they mention it, i dont know if that made sense to you.



> thinks alchemy is science


again, why is it not science? alchemists were performing countless hours of study and research pertaining to all sorts of metals while trying to discover a new way to make gold. a lot of the first alchemist were into other fields as well, so what makes their work invalid? they followed their methods they used with other studies, but i think what makes it seem not a science to you is the relationship it had with the church. if you think about it, alchemy is used all throughout the scientific world because we are constantly changing compounds and creating new ones with different chemicals and what not or creating new drugs for pharmaceutical use and monetary benefits.



> How about astrology?


astrology is retarded, how does that relate to what we are discussing? astrology has to do with interpreting the stars and the cosmos and trying to relate to how we feel or what we are going through. although i do believe that it did contribute to science due to all the graphing and making of calendars by the position of the stars and what they shared with astronomy. i think the two worked hand in hand till they wanted to believe that astrology actually had an influence on you as a person due to the stars and whatever else they studied. You cannot say that astrology did not contribute to astronomy either.



> I never solely blamed the church for anything.


yes, but you blame religion for most fuck ups today and how religion could have influenced a person to do such acts of whatever they may have done, the church does spread religion.



> I think if it weren't for Hitler and Japan, we would be a few years behind where we are now. The war was very influential to the progress of atomic research.


so what about stalin? and you are ok with all the lives lost during those tragic events? yes, only in the name of science right? it also shows how science was used to destroy life



> Calling alchemy science in order to find fault is IMO, belittling science.


calling people who believe and solely keep to themselves about their beliefs "religious nut jobs" is belittling my beliefs as well. That is an attempt to try and show you all the hypocrisy of your(not you in general, but if you have said it or thought it) claims about being "religious nut jobs!" 



> I don't think dislike of religion is absurd.


maybe that is your position on religion, dislike, but others i cannot say the same for. Just as you all associate anyone who believes in God as a "religious nut job" i have made the statement because you are associated with atheists. And what said to be absurd is the fact the you all associate all believers to "nut jobs" and people who "force their beliefs on others!"



> Questioning beliefs is not belittling them.


so questioning science is?



> I will say that defending the rights of Muslims is not the same as defending Islam. I


why are you not defending islam when defending muslims? they believe in islam and follow alah, just like radical muslims do. So why persecute me, that i believe in the Christian God and do not force anything on anyone? 



> mediocre?


 I would have to say less then mediocre. I believe the sole purpose of life is to become the best you can be at helping others in any way possible through what you have learned. Of course, learned i mean, what you have learned through your studies in your area of expertise.



> However, trying to find additional fault of science where it is actually blameless like linking it to alchemy is just wrong.


then how is linking us to some past hominid without proper or sufficient evidence not wrong? I mean we do have very close similarities and features, just as alchemy and chemistry have, yet linking us to a hominid is accepted, while linking alchemy to science is not?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 16, 2011)

In re astrology and alchemy:

Astrology and alchemy are both mystical pursuits. They are essentially witchcraft - trying to divine andor influence spirit power by assigning meaning to the shape of star and planet patterns ... or by a serious version of Potions class at hogwarts.

Alchemy predated chemistry in much the same way as astrology predated and drove astronomy before telescopes. 
But neither has owt to do with science. They're both about trying to divine or recover occult magical knowledge, which is incompatible with scientific method and mindset.
cheers 'neer


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 16, 2011)

I think 'neer explained it well enough, no sense in repeating it here. 
One thing I will say is that you have an incorrect conception about science. Science is not just the study of things. It is a systematic method of how to study things. This includes being open to examination by anyone, which leads to peer review and no trade secrets. 

Even ignoring the mysticism, both alchemy and astrology used cryptic notes and symbols to keep people that 'weren't in the know' ignorant. It was about as closed and secretive as you can get. This is the antithesis of how science is done. 



olylifter420 said:


> yes, but you blame religion for most fuck ups today and how religion could have influenced a person to do such acts of whatever they may have done, the church does spread religion.


Please tell me where I blame religion for most of anything. I blame religion for a lot, but politics has to be the winner. 



> so what about stalin? and you are ok with all the lives lost during those tragic events? yes, only in the name of science right? it also shows how science was used to destroy life


Straw man. Just because I benefit from accelerated science because of wars, does not mean I support war. You benefit as much as I do. Wars have always been a driving force for creativity and invention. Gunpowder and ballistics is science as much as nuclear warheads. I have never appealed to science in that way and to insinuate I do is really low. 


> calling people who believe and solely keep to themselves about their beliefs "religious nut jobs" is belittling my beliefs as well. That is an attempt to try and show you all the hypocrisy of your(not you in general, but if you have said it or thought it) claims about being "religious nut jobs!"


First, point to a post where I have called anyone a nut job. I know you like to lump all atheists together with the same beliefs but as I have pointed out, that is a fallacy. 

Second, the religious people that I consider a bit off are not the ones keeping their beliefs to themselves. They are the Westboro Baptists and Cobb County School Board members and others that I believe pose a real threat to other people's liberty. 



> maybe that is your position on religion, dislike, but others i cannot say the same for. Just as you all associate anyone who believes in God as a "religious nut job" i have made the statement because you are associated with atheists. And what said to be absurd is the fact the you all associate all believers to "nut jobs" and people who "force their beliefs on others!"


Since atheism is not a belief system, it's about what I don't believe. What I believe is often quite different than what other atheists believe. This is not going to be the same with people of the same religion, they are professing to believe certain things and those beliefs must overlap if they are going to consider themselves the same religion. 


> so questioning science is?


Not questioning science. You can question science all day long. What is belittling is trying to equate it with things it is not like mystical alchemy. 


> why are you not defending islam when defending muslims? they believe in islam and follow alah, just like radical muslims do. So why persecute me, that i believe in the Christian God and do not force anything on anyone?


How have I persecuted you? I would defend you if your rights were being threatened. My lack of belief in your god does nothing to harm you let alone harass you. As stated before, discussing your beliefs in an open forum subjects them to criticism. I am just as critical of Islam as any other religion. You dislike the criticism, even if it is just. If you don't like that, you are free to not bring up topics or join in discussions about things that you don't want discussed. 




> I would have to say less then mediocre. I believe the sole purpose of life is to become the best you can be at helping others in any way possible through what you have learned. Of course, learned i mean, what you have learned through your studies in your area of expertise.


I have no problem with that and agree to some extent. 


> then how is linking us to some past hominid without proper or sufficient evidence not wrong? I mean we do have very close similarities and features, just as alchemy and chemistry have, yet linking us to a hominid is accepted, while linking alchemy to science is not?


Why is it wrong to link us to earlier hominids? Do you disagree we are related? Rejection of common ancestry is denial, not scientific criticism. If you have evidence that counters the claims that we are related to other upright walking, tool using humans and proto-humans, then you are free to publish those critiques in any of the many anthropology journals.


----------



## Doj (Sep 16, 2011)

I am not personally a fan of religion, but I do think there is something bigger behind all the backwater theology we have today. I do believe we as human beings are special in many ways. I think we have a soul, and a consciousness like no other species on earth, and that our mind alone is very powerfull. We are made up from the same building blocks as any other species, but our mind as humans is different. I feel we are connected to the universe in a way we can't understand yet, and from this feeling many many people get, ancient humans had certain ways of life, which through time got corrupted and became what we know as religion.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 17, 2011)

> It is a systematic method of how to study things. This includes being open to examination by anyone, which leads to peer review and no trade secrets.


Yes, i understand that, i just left it out... i was on a roll and i sometimes forget to add things to what i write. I am always open to new methods and teachings in my field of expertise, as it is always changing and if caught off guard, you can stay behind. Yes, the examination should be done by someone who is also an expert in your respective field. Done by someone else and they will most likely not know what you are talking about. What i do like about my career is that experience is everything and that cannot be taught.



> both alchemy and astrology used cryptic notes and symbols to keep people that 'weren't in the know' ignorant.


yes, just as the free masons' do and so does science. To me, someone that is not in the "know" will have no clue when i mention the SSC or ATC, just as in many fields, there are plenty of terms that regular people will not know, making apart of the people who are not in the "know".



> I blame religion for a lot, but politics has to be the winner.


i dont need to show you, you already said it yourself and are politics not influenced by religion?



> I have never appealed to science in that way and to insinuate I do is really low.


Im sorry for insinuating anything, i was just pulling a common atheist tactic i see a lot of, no offense. As i have found, you are very different from the common atheist on here and i appreciate that. You have given me chance to discuss with you and for that i am thankful as well MP.



> I know you like to lump all atheists together with the same beliefs but as I have pointed out, that is a fallacy.


it aint nice when you get associated with people you do not have common ground with other then just being a believer or non believer. That is just to point out that what other so called atheists' do this all the time and they frequent here quite often and you know that, yet you say nothing about. 



> keeping their beliefs to themselves.


this i know, but when we (believers) get accused of the same atrocities that others did way before us, it aint nice and gets annoying after awhile. 



> they are professing to believe certain things and those beliefs must overlap if they are going to consider themselves the same religion.


No, not really because most church people i have met deny evolution and if you believe it you are doing works of the devil. I think that is extremely stupid and something i do not partake with. I am very interested by evolution and adaptions, in no way am i denying evolution. I believe God gave me the right to think for myself and choose what and how to believe it, what to study and what not to study and so on. Just as you do not associate with most other atheists, i do not associate myself with retarded people like those that you dislike.



> What is belittling is trying to equate it with things it is not like mystical alchemy.


why is alchemy so mysterious to you? Do not be so close minded and think for a bit. When doing a chemistry experiment where you have to mix two compounds to make another, that in essences is alchemy. As you said, alchemy was the Precursor to chemistry, so a lot of what was done procedure wise is done is now used in modern day chemistry. the mixing of compounds, using a solute and a solvent to make a solution, All that was passed on through alchemy. Before alchemy there was no chemistry if what you say is true and it is, that alchemy was the precursor to chemistry.



> How have I persecuted you?


i am sorry, i wrote what is in parenthesis the wrong way. I meant to say that you, as in atheists in general. 



> You dislike the criticism, even if it is just. If you don't like that, you are free to not bring up topics or join in discussions about things that you don't want discussed.


I am always open to criticism, but when people start posting things to bait you or say things that seem smug, i will not take it. You have been part of some discussions where i was already, and by the time you join, i am already tired of trying to civil with the other atheists in that thread. I have no problem discussing things with you, i enjoy our discussions.



> I have no problem with that and agree to some extent.


Why do you agree to some extent? Please share you philosophy of life?



> Why is it wrong to link us to earlier hominids?


i am not saying it is wrong, i am just questioning to find reasoning.



> Do you disagree we are related?


I find it hard to disagree because the evidence is surmounting and somewhat conclusive. but are all flying things related as well? 



> If you have evidence that counters the claims that we are related to other upright walking, tool using humans and proto-humans, then you are free to publish those critiques in any of the many anthropology journals.


I do not know why you seem so irritated with this last statement. You know as much as i do that is impossible for me to do. I dont have the background or study to do such a thing and you know that, that is why you seem irritated.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 17, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Yes, i understand that, i just left it out... i was on a roll and i sometimes forget to add things to what i write. I am always open to new methods and teachings in my field of expertise, as it is always changing and if caught off guard, you can stay behind. Yes, the examination should be done by someone who is also an expert in your respective field. Done by someone else and they will most likely not know what you are talking about. What i do like about my career is that experience is everything and that cannot be taught.
> 
> 
> yes, just as the free masons' do and so does science. To me, someone that is not in the "know" will have no clue when i mention the SSC or ATC, just as in many fields, there are plenty of terms that regular people will not know, making apart of the people who are not in the "know".


No, that was my whole point. Science is open to anyone. The terms and symbols are not secret. Everything is published and available to anyone. Science is nothing like freemasonry, alchemy or any other secret society. 



> i dont need to show you, you already said it yourself and are politics not influenced by religion?


You keep saying that I say things, when I ask you where I said it, you tell me you don't need to show me? 
I never said that religion is responsible for most of our problems. Even if religion influences politics in some things, that doesn't make your claim about me true. 



> Im sorry for insinuating anything, i was just pulling a common atheist tactic i see a lot of, no offense. As i have found, you are very different from the common atheist on here and i appreciate that. You have given me chance to discuss with you and for that i am thankful as well MP.
> 
> 
> it aint nice when you get associated with people you do not have common ground with other then just being a believer or non believer. That is just to point out that what other so called atheists' do this all the time and they frequent here quite often and you know that, yet you say nothing about.


First off, thank you. I am able to keep an even tone when the other parties are likewise respectful. However, I do tend to get irritated at times and let it show when it clearly is detrimental to my argument. 


You are shifting terms again. Atheists have a common ground in that they don't believe in a god. However, that common ground is no different than the common ground I share with other people that don't play chess, or play the piano or collect stamps. Now if chess players started behaving badly and demanding that checkers players be killed (both regular and Chinese variety), then I think the non-chess players would feel somewhat united. 


> this i know, but when we (believers) get accused of the same atrocities that others did way before us, it aint nice and gets annoying after awhile.


You are shifting the argument again. No believer is blamed for atrocities of the past. Religion is. There is a big difference between blaming religion for problems and blaming the religious. The thing is that it is religious believers that fall victim to the negatives of religion. When people believe they have god on their side, it can be difficult to stop them from doing bad things. 


> No, not really because most church people i have met deny evolution and if you believe it you are doing works of the devil. I think that is extremely stupid and something i do not partake with. I am very interested by evolution and adaptions, in no way am i denying evolution. I believe God gave me the right to think for myself and choose what and how to believe it, what to study and what not to study and so on. Just as you do not associate with most other atheists, i do not associate myself with retarded people like those that you dislike.


You picked out a single thing that you don't have in common with others of your religion and therefore you don't share other views? You all share a view that Jesus is lord and our salvation, that is a common positive belief among all Chrisitans, amiright? 
There is not a single positive belief that all atheists share. In fact there's not a single belief that all theists share except one and that is the belief that god exists, yet that is exactly one more than the zero beliefs that all atheists have. 



> why is alchemy so mysterious to you? Do not be so close minded and think for a bit. When doing a chemistry experiment where you have to mix two compounds to make another, that in essences is alchemy. As you said, alchemy was the Precursor to chemistry, so a lot of what was done procedure wise is done is now used in modern day chemistry. the mixing of compounds, using a solute and a solvent to make a solution, All that was passed on through alchemy. Before alchemy there was no chemistry if what you say is true and it is, that alchemy was the precursor to chemistry.


That is not the essence of alchemy. Learn the history of chemistry and you will read about people like Robert Boyle that pleaded to others that chemistry stand above alchemy as a separate and scientific discipline. He was a student of Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. How can you not see the similarities between alchemy-chemistry and astrology-astronomy? 



> i am sorry, i wrote what is in parenthesis the wrong way. I meant to say that you, as in atheists in general.


Yet my question still stands as in the royal we. How has any atheist persecuted you? Persecution is a strong word. I find it difficult to imagine how someone with no power over you has been able to persecute you or any other religionist. 



> I am always open to criticism, but when people start posting things to bait you or say things that seem smug, i will not take it. You have been part of some discussions where i was already, and by the time you join, i am already tired of trying to civil with the other atheists in that thread. I have no problem discussing things with you, i enjoy our discussions.


Yet I stopped responding to you because your postings became hate-filled rants against atheists. To me they seemed more like baiting than anything I have seen from other atheists including some of the more aggressive ones. 



> Why do you agree to some extent? Please share you philosophy of life?


I might try later. That's a deep question that I'm not sure I have answers for. 



> i am not saying it is wrong, i am just questioning to find reasoning.


The reasons are out there in published works and natural history museums. Question all you want, I love trying to answer questions about evolution. The problem that I typically run into is denial of the evidence without offering rational reasons. 


> I find it hard to disagree because the evidence is surmounting and somewhat conclusive. but are all flying things related as well?


Well, all life is related but not all flying things are closely related. We can show how flight has evolved independently many times by very different methods. 


> I do not know why you seem so irritated with this last statement. You know as much as i do that is impossible for me to do. I dont have the background or study to do such a thing and you know that, that is why you seem irritated.


Not irritated at all. In fact, I posted that to point out that's exactly how science works. You don't need a degree or even have studied anything professionally, just learn about it and understand it enough to refute it with evidence or even some new creative insight that turns into an initial hypothesis. The problem is that most people that deny common ancestry don't even understand it well enough to get the basics correct yet they still feel confident enough to think all of the people that dedicate their lives to this research are full of shit. And the these people like to call scientists arrogant...
These are not people keeping their beliefs to themselves, something that we agreed is necessary if one is to avoid ridicule.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 17, 2011)

> There is not a single positive belief that all atheists share.


... except perhaps for the relief/awe/responsibility that comes from knowing (in the sense of sincerely believing) that the buck stops here.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 17, 2011)

Hey who else is smoking some bowls and watching the debates go on and on?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 17, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> alright I just had an idea, so here it goes...
> Religious books are just books right? So then we have religious people saying this is right no doubt about it, then we have the atheists saying I just don't believe it, and then we have the skeptics that say bullshit you bunch of dumbasses. Before I go on I would like to point something out.
> When I was in school we would have a shitload of textbooks about science, some of them were old editions. Anyways my biology/chemistry/physics teacher all taught from these books and would sometimes point out that some of the information in these older edition books have been proven wrong so they would teach you what was right. But think about it... These books were old editions so the past students had to learn that false crap but since the book never said was false they took it as fact since the book gave many of these so called "facts".
> Now back to my initial point... Just like the science books the religious books are just books that don't say they are false but say they are true. (iforgot my point so im gonna come up with some bullshit point for now until my real point comes back to me, ha) Maybe they are wrong also but you can't say that science doesn't draw people astray from the truth just like religion supposedly does.


Alright I think I was supposed to post this in the other thread that talks about evolution taught in schools. And my point was that atheists shouldn't complain about religion being an elective when it was mandatory that other students had to learn that false crap some of the old edition science books taught.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 17, 2011)

> The terms and symbols are not secret.


Agreed



> you tell me you don't need to show me?


"I blame religion for a lot, but politics has to be the winner." I understood that as in you do blame religion for a lot of stuff going on today. Sorry if i misunderstood.



> I am able to keep an even tone when the other parties are likewise respectful.


i wish all atheists were like that. I just get really heated cause of other people on here. As i have found, the multiple chances you have given me to discuss with you are greatly appreciated. I will do my best to continue contributing good stuff while discussing with you.



> Atheists have a common ground in that they don't believe in a god.


well why do so many hate or dislike religion and the people who follow it?



> then I think the non-chess players would feel somewhat united.


Yes, this is how we(believers) feel on here when we start getting associated with those people who kill and use the word of God for malice.



> No believer is blamed for atrocities of the past.


Many on here have associated us with those type of people and then we start to defend ourselves after having our beliefs belittled and they begin to say that that is what our religion has taught us. 



> Religion is.


Yes, but each religion has followers and as such, many of us who never even thought about doing whatever it is they associate us with are automatically targeted for attacks and constant baiting by others who dislike or hate our beliefs.



> When people believe they have god on their side, it can be difficult to stop them from doing bad things.


I have never done bad things because God is on my side. I do bad things because that is the choice i made at that time. The question is, what do you consider to be bad? Smoking marijuana? Stealing? Thinking about another woman while having sex with your wife? Cursing at someone who cut you off in traffic? Betting on games? The thing is, "bad" is a big three letter word that can have a different meaning for everyone. Yes, there are some well known bad things, killing or cheating, but what about minor things? Some atheists may consider missionaries who go and help out needy people in 3rd world countries who go to missions where they have been established and accepted long ago, as a bad and horrendous thing they are doing. While the rest of the world shows compassion and appreciation for what they do. These people believe in what they do because that is what God has taught them to do, place others ahead of yourself for the better of mankind. That what you say is associated with radical extremists or far far left or right right individuals who believe they can do whatever it is using God's name in vain. 



> You picked out a single thing that you don't have in common with others of your religion and therefore you don't share other views? You all share a view that Jesus is lord and our salvation, that is a common positive belief among all Chrisitans, amiright?


I do share views with other believers in that we believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is and will be our savior come judgement day. For other extremists, that is about as far as it goes. yes, you are right about the second part of your statement. What is your point about that?



> yet that is exactly one more than the zero beliefs that all atheists have.


are beliefs not philosophies? Im pretty sure they are, so why do you say atheists have zero beliefs? The belief if you are an idealist, realist or pragmatist are shared by billions right?



> That is not the essence of alchemy.


is alchemy not the mixing of various elements and designing experiments in order to make a precious metal, most commonly would be gold? I understand the "mystical" side to. Ok, not essences, but their common ground if you may, is that not a common trait between them?



> . How can you not see the similarities between alchemy-chemistry and astrology-astronomy?


there is common ground. Many of the tools and equipment used in alchemy are now used in chemistry and the same can be said for astrology and astronomy. I dont know if you are being sarcastic there. The only difference as you say is that while alchemy was used for the "supernatural" and "mystical", chemistry is about the scientific method and using experimentation to discover truth or fact.



> Persecution is a strong word.


Im sorry for using persecution, i was a bit too high and thought it would have conviction. 



> Yet I stopped responding to you because your postings became hate-filled rants against atheists.


the atheists i would be discussing with prior to you just did their best to irritate believers, im not going to sit there and just watch it happen without me saying anything nice. as i have said, i see you consideration in you giving me several chances to discuss properly with you and for that, again i am thankful.



> To me they seemed more like baiting than anything I have seen from other atheists including some of the more aggressive ones.


does that mean im intelligent?



> I might try later. That's a deep question that I'm not sure I have answers for.


I mean you dont have to write an essay, just a few key pointers you might want to share with a young buck, well (25). 



> The reasons are out there in published works and natural history museums.


but when you dont know where to look first, isnt good to ask someone who knows already?



> Question all you want, I love trying to answer questions about evolution.


are you an anthropologist? Not being mean or anything, just curious cause you seem to know a lot about the topic.



> The problem that I typically run into is denial of the evidence without offering rational reasons.


there is no denial on my part, im not naive enough to not consider substantial evidence. Although i am Christian, i accept evolution and appreciate its study. I will do some more readings on it and work up some questions for later discussion.



> We can show how flight has evolved independently many times by very different methods.


what methods do you speak of? what books or readings do recommend?

ok, i got an evolution question.

what evidence is there about our vestigial structures such as the thymus or appendix? Has there been actual organ discovery? I would think maybe only in subjects that were heavily conserved in ice. I see no use in them, just our thymus in our early years of life to develop our immune system, but after a certain year, it goes dormant or is of no use anymore. Our appendix only serves to harm us or kill us when it get infected. Do you believe that in our future species these structures will cease to develop?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 17, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Alright I think I was supposed to post this in the other thread that talks about evolution taught in schools. And my point was that atheists shouldn't complain about religion being an elective when it was mandatory that other students had to learn that false crap some of the old edition science books taught.


you dont have to go back so far, i have several books for 2004-05 for kinesiology that have had several methods disproven or unaccepted in more recent textbooks, you do make an excellent point though.


----------



## Phillip J Fry (Sep 17, 2011)

woodsusa said:


> The universe came from somewhere.


Ya the big bang


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 17, 2011)

Phillip J Fry said:


> Ya the big bang


Can you prove it to us?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 17, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> > Originally Posted by *Hepheastus420*
> > alright I just had an idea, so here it goes...
> > Religious books are just books right? So then we have religious people saying this is right no doubt about it, then we have the atheists saying I just don't believe it, and then we have the skeptics that say bullshit you bunch of dumbasses. Before I go on I would like to point something out.
> > When I was in school we would have a shitload of textbooks about science, some of them were old editions. Anyways my biology/chemistry/physics teacher all taught from these books and would sometimes point out that some of the information in these older edition books have been proven wrong so they would teach you what was right. But think about it... These books were old editions so the past students had to learn that false crap but since the book never said was false they took it as fact since the book gave many of these so called "facts".
> ...


There imo is a key structural difference between science and any revealed doctrine. When is the last time someone in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions came forth with a new, revised edition? There is no mechanism for amending or correcting stuff that arguably hasn't stood the test of time. There cannot be such a mechanism - without undercutting a core premise, i.e. everything in [this book, directly revealed/dictated/authored by the Kahuna or a key minion], is true. The only way to modify the doctrine is to find an additional book in the manner of the apostles, Mohammed and Joseph Smith.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 17, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> There imo is a key structural difference between science and any revealed doctrine. When is the last time someone in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions came forth with a new, revised edition? There is no mechanism for amending or correcting stuff that arguably hasn't stood the test of time. There cannot be such a mechanism - without undercutting a core premise, i.e. everything in [this book, directly revealed/dictated/authored by the Kahuna or a key minion], is true. The only way to modify the doctrine is to find an additional book in the manner of the apostles, Mohammed and Joseph Smith.
> cheers 'neer


They change the interpretations all the time, that's where all these new books come from. So both science and religious books are always changing.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 17, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> They change the interpretations all the time, that's where all these new books come from. So both science and religious books are always changing.


I don't see religious books changing. When was there a new edition (not merely translation) of Torah, the New Testament, al-Qur'an? 
cheers 'neer


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 17, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> They change the interpretations all the time, that's where all these new books come from. So both science and religious books are always changing.


even so, these changes are based on personal beliefs and whatever the guy writing it wants. science revises itself through study, experiment, and peer review.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 17, 2011)

argument of repetition.





Luger187 said:


> even so, these changes are based on personal beliefs and whatever the guy writing it wants. science revises itself through study, experiment, and peer review.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 17, 2011)

I remain intrigued by the concept of change in religious books.
cheers 'neer


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 17, 2011)

as am i with science books in my field. they always keep me up to date





cannabineer said:


> I remain intrigued by the concept of change in religious books.
> cheers 'neer


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 17, 2011)

Just gonna post this again...seems the religious ignored it: http://www.sciy.org/2010/05/21/first-synthetic-life-created/

Synthetic life...hmmm...God is us now?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 17, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Just gonna post this again...seems the religious ignored it: http://www.sciy.org/2010/05/21/first-synthetic-life-created/
> 
> Synthetic life...hmmm...God is us now?


Nah we saw it... It could be beneficial but I have my doubts about it being beneficial. No we didn't create everything so we are not god.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 17, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> as am i with science books in my field. they always keep me up to date


Heph suggested that religious books are changing right alongside books based on science. Imo that claim is ... revolutionary. I'm not here for the usual tedious atheists v. believers noogiefest. It's just that that claim runs athwart everything I (think I) know about western religion.
cheers 'neer


----------



## Harrekin (Sep 17, 2011)

Eh, making a strand of DNA that can reproduce and has not only philosophical quotes, the creators names and a protein marker that makes it blue from 4 non-organic chemicals is called creating life...whatever you want to say, that is a remarkable feat and is creating life from non-organic (non-living) substances.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 17, 2011)

Harrekin said:


> Eh, making a strand of DNA that can reproduce and has not only philosophical quotes, the creators names and a protein marker that makes it blue from 4 non-organic chemicals is called creating life...whatever you want to say, that is a remarkable feat and is creating life from non-organic (non-living) substances.


This article was mind-blowing, thanks for sharing. I love the designers names and those philosophical quotes imbedded right into the DNA strand, and all the watermarks indicating it is synthetic code. It's like fucking Blade Runner. They still didn't technically create life, more like hijacked a bacteria cell and now control it. Still, there may be no need to create the synthetic chromosome vehicles if we can simply use the ones that exist. Maybe they can make me a hot synthetic girlfriend next, mine talks too much...


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 18, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Nah we saw it... It could be beneficial but I have my doubts about it being beneficial. No we didn't create everything so we are not god.


 Hear?d this one before: Make your own dirt! Been a long time is it 5 or 6 amino acids 5^5 is 625? so who determinded the key for hexidecmal? I decided a waste of time to embed christiancatfishhole.com in 5 year old photos of catfish so just like me messing the end of .bmp & .jpg code does it beak anything? might be the new LSD? If the correct zipper got hold of it. Do not forget to vote in the special election grizlbr for president!


----------



## Mannie Phresh (Sep 18, 2011)

do these arguments go on in every forum?


----------



## Beansly (Sep 18, 2011)

Mannie Phresh said:


> do these arguments go on in every forum?


 The religious debate threads get pretty ridiculous sometimes lol.
People are very brave over the internet.


----------



## Mannie Phresh (Sep 18, 2011)

always. everybodys a tough guy lol


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 18, 2011)

Mannie Phresh said:


> always. everybodys a tough guy lol


you wana fight bro?!


----------



## researchkitty (Sep 18, 2011)

Mannie Phresh said:


> do these arguments go on in every forum?


Well yea, this is the spirituality subforum.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 18, 2011)

Mannie Phresh said:


> always. everybodys a tough guy lol


Yeah I'm 6' 5" 350 lbs (mostly muscle) and a master of karate.


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 19, 2011)

No just a strong old fart! Want the name of my choir director? This was spossd to be about my son 6"7' 300+ I am not usta lookin up at people? When I had a little problem in jail officer 69# tried a sleeper, hard to choke out someone with asthma. Kicked the door 5 feet in the air? No way I had a stroke! Way I watched you! Will wonders never cease/??


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 19, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> you wana fight bro?!


Luger, since this is your first time at fight club, you have to fight...


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 19, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Luger, since this is your first time at fight club, you have to fight...


 Political Stunts? I have me an idea buy 5 seeds for $25 start a perpetual grow and make some money to spend? So Presidental candadate Put a DOA bill forward what did it do? So this is a Marijuana web site I assume we are all for Legalization? Political Stunts: Write in Candidate: Total reform even to trying to pull an Arnold Swartz...Real DEAL Do it for 1 years wages Save 720,000 right there. How to turn the economy tommorow! If Marijuana were legal how much would you be able to earn in sales and would you spend the income? That WAS the way before ?Nafta? Who would smuggle pot in if your grows were legal? Now why would someone take 1/4 the pay for 4 years: because it is 4 times what I live on.
Just a turn it around now idea. All the candidates are Spending Mega $ campaigning Same Old Same Old. If it means money in your pocket let your part of 535 people hear about it


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 19, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> you wana fight bro?!


 No just know I can not raise a family door to door sales. Behind a parts counter maybe?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Sep 19, 2011)

at first i burst out laughing at this woman , but then i saw the faces of the children and quickly became utterly disgusted , this is what i call mental child abuse.having to live and grow up with someone like this will have devastating phsycological effects on those poor kids .


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 19, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Luger, since this is your first time at fight club, you have to fight...








im ready bro



ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> at first i burst out laughing at this woman , but then i saw the faces of the children and quickly became utterly disgusted , this is what i call mental child abuse.having to live and grow up with someone like this will have devastating phsycological effects on those poor kids .


yeah that shit would be so scary if that was your mom. having to deal with that bullshit every day.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 19, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> im ready bro
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that shit would be so scary if that was your mom. having to deal with that bullshit every day.


Oh shit Lugers in his fighting position.... Yeah that mom is psycho... Poor kids.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 19, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Oh shit Lugers in his fighting position.... Yeah that mom is psycho... Poor kids.


lol yeah i keep my fists in the air and hammerfist down on my opponent


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 20, 2011)

Alright new subject. Religious influence on politics:
There is none. It just seems that way because if a person is religious they grow religious morals. Now if that person runs for president he will be picked by his morals. And since there's alot more people with religious morals they pick the guy with the same morals as them.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Alright new subject. Religious influence on politics:
> There is none. It just seems that way because if a person is religious they grow religious morals. Now if that person runs for president he will be picked by his morals. And since there's alot more people with religious morals they pick the guy with the same morals as them.


Dissenting opinion. The abortion debate is a lively part of US politics, and it is spectacularly polarized along religious lines. A vanishingly small percentage of people who self-identify as religious are pro-choice. A similarly small percentage of people who see themselves as not religious are pro-life. 
cheers 'neer


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Dissenting opinion. The abortion debate is a lively part of US politics, and it is spectacularly polarized along religious lines. A vanishingly small percentage of people who self-identify as religious are pro-choice. A similarly small percentage of people who see themselves as not religious are pro-life.
> cheers 'neer


Gay marriage too. Gays are systematically being denied equal rights in this country because some people view it as a moral choice.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Gay marriage too. Gays are systematically being denied equal rights in this country because some people view it as a moral choice.


good catch! I'd say I stand behind gay rights ... but that sounds a little weird.
cheers 'neer


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well why do so many hate or dislike religion and the people who follow it?


I think the reasons some of us dislike religion has been spelled out here numerous times. I don't think that means we dislike the followers although I question anyone that believes things without good reasons. That goes for pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists as well. 
I think many religionists take the criticism of their thought process and internalize it creating a position that it is about them rather than their beliefs and lack of reasoning. That is not the fault of the atheist. If scientists acted like every criticism of their thought processes and reasoning was a personal affront, nothing would ever get done. Believers need to take these questions at face value, as sincere attempts to understand and/or expose weak thinking that's vulnerable to bias, not as personal attacks. 



> Yes, this is how we(believers) feel on here when we start getting associated with those people who kill and use the word of God for malice.


Feel that way but the fact is that many of these people are following the word of god to the letter. Scripture is not as clear as many of you try to make it seem. A literal reading of the bible calls for some horrendous things. The fact that other passages contradict those only reinforces the ambiguity. 


> Many on here have associated us with those type of people and then we start to defend ourselves after having our beliefs belittled and they begin to say that that is what our religion has taught us.


I haven't seen that. I have only seen it point out that there are many still doing bad things in the name of Christ. However, followers don't always see those things as bad which points out how the religion can skew morality for the worse. 


> Yes, but each religion has followers and as such, many of us who never even thought about doing whatever it is they associate us with are automatically targeted for attacks and constant baiting by others who dislike or hate our beliefs.


It doesn't matter if you personally have been involved in these things. We are only pointing out it is the institutionalized ignorance that is to blame. 


> I have never done bad things because God is on my side. I do bad things because that is the choice i made at that time. The question is, what do you consider to be bad? Smoking marijuana? Stealing? Thinking about another woman while having sex with your wife? Cursing at someone who cut you off in traffic? Betting on games? The thing is, "bad" is a big three letter word that can have a different meaning for everyone. Yes, there are some well known bad things, killing or cheating, but what about minor things? Some atheists may consider missionaries who go and help out needy people in 3rd world countries who go to missions where they have been established and accepted long ago, as a bad and horrendous thing they are doing. While the rest of the world shows compassion and appreciation for what they do. These people believe in what they do because that is what God has taught them to do, place others ahead of yourself for the better of mankind. That what you say is associated with radical extremists or far far left or right right individuals who believe they can do whatever it is using God's name in vain.


I would say bad would be spreading untruths and ignorance, supporting the suppression of other people's freedoms and doing actual harm to others, i.e. killing "witches", keeping condoms from those that need them the most, and closer to home, distancing and disowning a family member because they don't believe. I know religious families that have disowned their own kids, not because they chose another religion but merely decided they didn't believe. 


> I do share views with other believers in that we believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is and will be our savior come judgement day. For other extremists, that is about as far as it goes. yes, you are right about the second part of your statement. What is your point about that?


Nothing except that it demonstrates the label tells us something you are rather than something you are not. 




> are beliefs not philosophies? Im pretty sure they are, so why do you say atheists have zero beliefs? The belief if you are an idealist, realist or pragmatist are shared by billions right?


Atheists can have all sorts of beliefs. However the mere fact that one is an atheist doesn't tell you anything about those beliefs. They could be a nihlist, a buddhist,, a humanist, etc. Many atheists are nutjobs that think aliens brought us here. Nutjobs aren't the sole domain of religion. 


> is alchemy not the mixing of various elements and designing experiments in order to make a precious metal, most commonly would be gold? I understand the "mystical" side to. Ok, not essences, but their common ground if you may, is that not a common trait between them?


Alchemy is much more than that. The trial and error method of discovery is not the best way to do science. Except for the identification of many elements, we don't know much about the process or 'experiments' of alchemists as they were kept secret. 



> there is common ground. Many of the tools and equipment used in alchemy are now used in chemistry and the same can be said for astrology and astronomy. I dont know if you are being sarcastic there. The only difference as you say is that while alchemy was used for the "supernatural" and "mystical", chemistry is about the scientific method and using experimentation to discover truth or fact.


I haven't disagreed there is some overlap between alchemy and chemistry but alchemy was not chemistry and did not use the ordered, systematic method of discovery that chemistry does. 



> Im sorry for using persecution, i was a bit too high and thought it would have conviction.


It puts you playing the victim without merit. 



> the atheists i would be discussing with prior to you just did their best to irritate believers, im not going to sit there and just watch it happen without me saying anything nice. as i have said, i see you consideration in you giving me several chances to discuss properly with you and for that, again i am thankful.


Carl Sagan wrote, "'The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.'" I would add, 'and not trolling and insulting' 



> does that mean im intelligent?


IDK, does it? 



> but when you dont know where to look first, isnt good to ask someone who knows already?


Sure, and I'm willing to teach, but it is far easier to go to material already designed to do that. The topic is so large, it is impossible to cover it in such a forum as this. 


> are you an anthropologist? Not being mean or anything, just curious cause you seem to know a lot about the topic.


I have a doctorate in a branch of biology. Too much information on this particular website is not advised.


> there is no denial on my part, im not naive enough to not consider substantial evidence. Although i am Christian, i accept evolution and appreciate its study. I will do some more readings on it and work up some questions for later discussion.


Unfortunately, this is rarely true of many of the religionists that post here and on other boards I frequent. The majority of the posts are spent dispelling misconceptions. 


> what methods do you speak of? what books or readings do recommend?


Look up convergent evolution
http://animals.about.com/od/birds/a/evolutionflight.htm


> ok, i got an evolution question.
> 
> what evidence is there about our vestigial structures such as the thymus or appendix? Has there been actual organ discovery? I would think maybe only in subjects that were heavily conserved in ice. I see no use in them, just our thymus in our early years of life to develop our immune system, but after a certain year, it goes dormant or is of no use anymore. Our appendix only serves to harm us or kill us when it get infected. Do you believe that in our future species these structures will cease to develop?


 Thymus is not really vestigial. It has a purpose. The appendix is well documented. Many vertebrates have a well developed hind gut. We don't have use for a tail anymore either. It's all pretty much the same, like whale hind limbs. They are part of the original blueprint but our particular evolutionary line lost the need for it but things don't always go away completely, hence the term vestigial. I'm not sure if you have more to this question than that.


----------



## stevenclark999 (Sep 20, 2011)

Well, I have heard something which is true or not ,, no idea,, It says after death,, we are going to take another birth of any animal or whatever.
Science does not say anything like this.

Regards - http://www.genericpharmacyrx.net


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

Hey guys, I found this and wanted to share it with you guys, tell me what you think. .



In the past thirty five years, scientists have been stunned to discover that the universe is finely tuned to an incomprehensible precision to support life. For many scientist, this points in a very compelling way toward the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Here are some of the data gathered by scientists, both Christians and non-Christians, that point toward complexity and orderedness at the beginning of the universe: Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros. Davies also estimated that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100, life could never have developed. For comparison, there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. There are about fifty constants and quantities. For example, the amount of usable energy in the universe, the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, the proportion of matter to antimatter. That must be balanced to a mathematically infinitesimal degree for any life to be possible. For organic life to exist, the fundamental regularities and constants of physics must all have values that together fall into an extremely narrow range.

The probability of this perfect calibration happening by chance is so tiny as to be statistically negligible. Collins puts it well: "When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are fifteen constants...that have precise values. If any of those constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million, the universe could not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people." Some have said that it is as if there were a large number of dials that all had to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits, and they were. It seem extremely unlikely that this would happen by chance. Stephen Hawkins concludes: "The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Astronomers are discovering a whole new dimension of evidence that suggests this astounding world was created, in part, so we could have the adventure of exploring it. As astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and science philosopher Jay Wesley Richards, who wrote the book "The Privileged Planet," elaborates. Total eclipse of the sun, which yield a treasure trove of scientific data, can only be viewed from one place in the solar system where there are intelligent beings to view them. Also, earth's location away from galaxy's center and in the flat plane of the disk provides a particularly privileged vantage point for observing both nearby and distant stars. Another example, earth provides an excellent position to detect the cosmic background radiation, which is critically important because it contains invaluable information about the properties of the universe when it was very young. Because our moon is the right size and distance to stabilize Earth's tilt, it helps preserve the deep snow deposits in our polar regions, from which scientist can determine the history of snowfall, temperatures, winds, and the amount of volcanic dust, methane, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The findings of scientists that our world appears to be designed for discovery have added a compelling new dimension to the evidence for a Creator. And, frankly, their analysis makes sense. The finely tuned universe can compel only one reasonable conclusion, a supernatural agent must be responsible for it.

Every time I've come across written communication, whether it's a painting on a cave wall or a novel from Amazon.com or the words "I love you" inscribed in the sand on the beach, there has always been someone who did the writing. Even if I can't see the couple who wrote "I love you," you don't assume that the words randomly appeared by chance of the the movement of the waves. Someone of intelligence made that written communication. And what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living creature is purely and simply written information. I'm not saying this because I'm a writer; scientist will tell you this. We use a twenty-six-letter chemical alphabet, whose letters combine in various sequences to form all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. For me, that's reason enough to believe this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer. In 2004, the atheist world was shocked when famed British atheist Antony Flew suddenly announced that he believed in the existence of God. For decades he had heralded the cause of atheism. It was the incredible complexity of DNA that opened his eyes: In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more that fifty years of DNA research have provided the materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Flew: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1523707/dna_evidence_convinces_atheist_that.html?cat=34



Nearly every scientist agrees that the universe had a beginning. The most widely accepted explanation is the Big Bang theory or some variation of it. The question is: What made the bang? If you hear a noise you look for the cause for a little bang, then doesn't it also make sense that there would be a cause for the big bang? Stephen Hawking states, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." The philosopher Kai Nielson says, "Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang... and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."

Maybe you've heard Christians denying the evidence for the Big Bang theory because they believe it contradicts the Bible's revelation that God created the world. But well-meaning, Bible-believeing Christians have different views on the issue. For example, William Lane Craig believes that the Big Bang is one of the most plausible arguments for God's existence. Adds astrophysicist C.J. Isham: "Perhaps the best argument... that the Big Bang supports theism [belief in God] is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists." Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted that, although details may differ, "the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. You may have seen the bumper sticker that reads, "The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and Bang! It happened." It's a little simplistic, but maybe it's not so far off.

"In the beginning there was an explosion," explained Noble Prize-winning physicists Steven Weinberg in his book The First Three Minutes, "which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing part from every other particle." The matter rushing apart, he said, consisted of elementary particles, neutrinos and the other subatomic particles that make up the world. Among those particles were photons, which make up light. "The universe," he said, "was filled with light." Interesting, that's what the Bible says too.

Obstacles to the formation of life on primitive earth would have been extremely challenging. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it. And that would only be one protein molecule, a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins.

There is something about nature that is much more striking and inexplicable than its design. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity, the laws, of nature, that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. The method of induction requires generalizing from observed cases of the same kind. Without inductive reasoning we couldn't learn from experiences, we couldn't use language, we couldn't rely on our memories. Most people find that normal and untroubling. But not philosophers! David and Bertrand Russel, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven't got the slightest idea of why nature-regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven't the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow. If someone would say, "Well the future has always been like the past," Hume and Russell reply that you are assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. To put it another way, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature, it can only take it by faith. There have been many scholars in that last decades who argued that modern science arose in its most sustained form out of Christian civilization because of its belief in a all-powerful, personal God who created and sustains an orderly universe. As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is escapable. I can always say, "We don't know why things are as they are." As a clue for God, however, it is helpful. I can surely say, "We don't know why nature is regular, it just is. That doesn't prove God." If I don't believe in God, not only is this profoundly inexplicable, but I have no basis for believing that nature will go on regularly, but I continue to use inductive reasoning and language. Of course this clue actually doesn't prove God. It is rationally avoidable. However, the cumulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 24, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey guys, I found this and wanted to share it with you guys, tell me what you think. .


This was an awesome read for me, thanks. Have you read this?

creatio ex nihilo

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


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 24, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey guys, I found this and wanted to share it with you guys, tell me what you think. .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dude... i stopped reading when they spelled Hawking's name wrong. if you look, they only spelled it right once haha.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2011)

The universe was not designed to fit humans, but rather humans evolved to fit the universe. The anthropic principal is an alternative to god, not support for god. Your brain is calibrated to judge odds on an everyday earth level.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 24, 2011)

Who is to say this is the perfect model? Like a highway designed for cars. Is it perfect? I still see cars in the ditch sometimes. What if highways had rails along both sides?


----------



## olylifter420 (Oct 5, 2011)

> They are part of the original blueprint but our particular evolutionary


what do you think about mental health illnesses? Do you believe that they are in some way a process of evolution? I mean there is very small data pertaining to the documentation of mental health issues... Short as in hundreds of years... long enough to see changes in diseases.. this would not be possible due to the lack of advancements in many fields of study. What i meant is that they lose their purpose after a certain period of time(years). I have read literature in which it states that the thymus becomes calcified or hardens up after your immune system has developed. 

Im very interested in this because these are things that are taking place today in front of us. Alzheimer's disease is a big one that has me thinking. It is very common among several races and has become very profound. Are all these things part of our evolution time line ? 

it just really sucks cause all our questions will only be answered hundreds if not thousands of years after we die...



> have a doctorate in a branch of biology.


mad respect brother. That is my ultimate goal. all in due time. Not in bio though. Kinesiology is my thing.


----------

