Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: marty31672 on January 05, 2010, 10:55:15 PM
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
-
i'm thinking maybe i'll start tomorrow morning after my 1st cup of coffee before my 1st Wii Fit Session
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
The bible isn't like a traditional book, you can jump around. I would start with The Gospels. Which are Matthew- John.
-
Perhaps you can read it together whenever you're in her ass. 2 birds, 1 stone, win win.
-
Hmmm, maybe this part "In the beginning..." ::)
-
reading the bible should re-inforce your lack of belief.
-
The first pages are the funniest. There's a talking snake, actual fucking talking snake that I guess had legs originally but god thought it wasn't being nice and made it's legs disappear. ::)
-
Perhaps you can read it together whenever you're in her ass. 2 birds, 1 stone, win win.
;D
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zadOLacQL.jpg)
-
Tell her Christianity was created by Jews and see her reaction.
-
Good toilet paper
-
I remember reading all the books of the New Testament when I was a kid just so that I could say I'd done it - I remember the first four books (Matthew Mark, Luke, and John) were all pretty much the same telling the same traditional story of Jesus in the same sort of roundabout way - then it went downhill from there and by the time I got to Revelations I was depressed as fuck because all it seemed to talk about was sinning, plague and pestilence and how the world would open up into a hellish existence if you didn't repent blah blah blah.....
-
I'd read it with one of these.
(http://tzenger.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/blow_torch.jpg)
-
**********SPOILER ALERT**************
Jesus Dies.
-
burn it.
-
read it on fox news while lecturing tiger woods on marital infidelities.
-
With a grain of salt.
-
With a grain of salt.
LOL
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
read it while he rams your butthole with a huge dildo
you'll be able to pack in more info
-
read it while he rams your butthole with a huge dildo
you'll be able to pack in more info
sev will walk down to Auschwitz and get you a REAL bible
its like a stones throw away from his moms house
:D
-
With a grain of salt.
Your picture-google-fu is strong today!
Aye I've read parts of it, and it's the quickest way to put you off religion (in general btw).
-
Read it like the work of fiction it is.
-
sev will walk down to Auschwitz and get you a REAL bible
its like a stones throw away from his moms house
:D
spike
take one of your susage gh built fingers and stick it deep inside your rectum...then tell us how u really feel
-
I tried once but it was duller than Last of the Mohecians.
-
I tried once but it was duller than Last of the Mohecians.
wait now, that was a savage novel
-
:)
-
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Makes perfect sense.
-
8)
-
read it on fox news while lecturing tiger woods on marital infidelities.
That's not Brit Hume
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
divorce your wife
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
Epic newbie joined this site to preach the word of God. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
Also newbie is admitting to being PUSSY WHIPPED... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
read it with a WHOLE LOT of this
-
Romans is a good book to start with in the Bible.
-
where does it discuss Jesus' cycle?
-
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Makes perfect sense.
beautifully summerized
-
The Lord Of The Rings is better than Bible.
-
With a grain of salt.
I expected better from you chimps.... :-[
-
PM and ask this dude tonymctones....he seems to know it all...to the point that if your beliefs differ from his he will make u "look foolish in regards to your beliefs on religion".....
-
Not.
-
If you ask them...how did we get here then? They will start going into their RELIGION of the big bang, evolution, etc, etc. They werent around when the world was created, yet they BELIEVE they know HOW it was created. That is called FAITH. They believe in their BIG BANG....and others believe in GOD. Both are religious and require faith. They just "think" they are being scientific and that theirs is not religious.
No, the bible is spiritual scripture and science is science. There is no competition.
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
use the Wii version
-
am i the only one who is not understanding the meaning behind a grain of salt? :-[
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
repent the end is near.....
-
Good toilet paper
...along with your magazine cover shots >:(
-
wavelength...your not getting the point.
science is science, BUT evolution, big bang theory, etc. etc. etc.....are NOT science. everyone seems to think they are being scientific though when they say they BELIEVE in the big bang, etc. those ideas are not based on scientific FACT, but on BELIEF.
Um. I don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. :-\
-
wavelength...your not getting the point.
science is science, BUT evolution, big bang theory, etc. etc. etc.....are NOT science. everyone seems to think they are being scientific though when they say they BELIEVE in the big bang, etc. those ideas are not based on scientific FACT, but on BELIEF.
Yes they are science. What you mean is pseudo-philosphical babble around the scientific theories of evolution and the big bang. This babbel could in fact be called belief.
-
Um. I don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. :-\
Generally the findings of the so-called "science" in this matter is based on each persons own biases.
-
I find the lack of rape in this thread very disturbing
-
I would go with Scientology.
-
(http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/80868823.jpg)
-
No, I think it is quite the opposite.
Definition: Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition: Faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
No one KNOWS the world is millions of year old, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that the world was created by a big bang, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that there isnt life after death, they BELIEVE it.
Are you seeing a trend here yet Dr. Chimps? I think I understand the word science much better than you do. Science is facts based on study and observation. You cannot observe the creation of the world, you can only GUESS on how it was created. That is FAITH, NOT SCIENCE.
So, again, we are left with two sides of a coin.
1. In the beginning DIRT
or
2. In the beginning GOD
Both are religious, both based on FAITH
One is ridiculous, one has merit. To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous. To believe there is a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter because He created these three things seems more logical.
Well said.
-
Um. I don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. :-\
You tell me that Stephen Gould does not have a RELIGIOUS like take on evolution?
For many Scienice is simply a humanism redefined. Their faith is in their own understanding, which ironicaly is constantly mutating, and shifting, based on new input, and ideas, but it never settles.
In the end one must take a "leap of faith," regardless of what philosopical/scientific/metaphysical take on the world they wish to confrom to, only the fool deines the esoteric/supernatural.
" A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Francis Bacon
-
No, I think it is quite the opposite.
Definition: Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition: Faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
No one KNOWS the world is millions of year old, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that the world was created by a big bang, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that there isnt life after death, they BELIEVE it.
Are you seeing a trend here yet Dr. Chimps? I think I understand the word science much better than you do. Science is facts based on study and observation. You cannot observe the creation of the world, you can only GUESS on how it was created. That is FAITH, NOT SCIENCE.
So, again, we are left with two sides of a coin.
1. In the beginning DIRT
or
2. In the beginning GOD
Both are religious, both based on FAITH
One is ridiculous, one has merit. To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous. To believe there is a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter because He created these three things seems more logical.
LOL. The irony. This has to be a gimmick.
-
There's probably a condensed version some where that you could access.. cuz thats a LONG book.
also from what i understand, mark mathew, and luke from the new testament are basically the same.. so its probably good enough to read just one.
-
LOL. The irony. This has to be a gimmick.
Instead of simply mocking him, why dont you offer a sound and logical refutation. Or would that be agaisnt the spirit of Getbig? ::)
-
No, I think it is quite the opposite.
Definition: Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition: Faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Still wrong. Science is not some definition to be totted out like you're talking to your friends over beers. It is an investigative process. I'll also guess that your grasp of science is limited -ie. you think the 'theory' in Einstein's Theory of Relativity means speculation or conjecture.
-
Sir Isaac had a few ideas
-
You tell me that Stephen Gould does not have a RELIGIOUS like take on evolution?
For many Scienice is simply a humanism redefined. There faith is in their own understanding, which ironicaly is constantly mutating, and shifting, based on new input, and ideas, but it never settles.
In the end one must take a "leap of faith," regardless of what philosopical/scientific/metaphysical take on the world they wish to confrom to, only the fool deines the esoteric/supernatural.
" A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
Francis Bacon
Mr. Gould, now dead, might have been willing to post such philosophical musings in his numerous essays and books, but you can be damn sure he would not be submitting them to any peer-reviewed publications. Oh brother.
-
Mr. Gould, now dead, might have been willing to post such philosophical musings in his numerous essays and books, but you can be damn sure he would not be submitting them to any peer-reviewed publications. Oh brother.
I can buy that. However I'm not sure if you understand that philosophically speaking, that Science should be the investigation of the "How," rather then the "Why."
So to negate any metaphysics, and to a lesser degree, any Sociology, psychology, or similar disciplines, from one's overall take on life, is ill advised at best, and foolish at worst.
-
If God exist , he is an asshole .
-
I can buy that. However I'm not sure if you understand that philosophically speaking, that Science should be the investigation of the "How," rather then the "Why."
So to negate any metaphysics, and to a lesser degree, any Sociology, psychology, or similar disciplines, from one's overall take on life, is ill advised at best, and foolish at worst.
I see what your saying, but I think your conflating a general questioning with the actual process of how something is investigated. But I'm referring to the 'hard' sciences, the empirical ones. The soft sciences like the ones you mentioned are, well, they vary their investigative parameters as they involve a hell of a lot of subjectivity.
-
I see what your saying, but I think your conflating a general questioning with the actual process of how something is investigated. But I'm referring to the 'hard' sciences, the empirical ones. The soft sciences like the ones you mentioned are, well, they vary their investigative parameters as they involve a hell of a lot of subjectivity.
I have to leave now...but when I return I will try to write on this in more detail. To put it very simply... each science has the need to take things on faith, and or subjective reasoning, all to varying degrees, depending on what scientific discipline we are talking about. I will try and take the time to expound on this when I return.
-
come on bible thumpers get out your bible take a half hour break from spewing your bullshit and follow along with these vids...then report specifically what points wear made that were inacurate or what you may agree with....please don't comment if you only watched 5 minutes or skiped around...
when penn & teller can kick your ass regarding the bible you cant say shit....
-
To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous.
Who created God , Did he come from nothing?
PS : If god exist he is an asshole.
-
simplyhuge is so dumb its funny :D
-
simplyhuge is so dumb its funny :D
He appears confused and is just spewing imo. I'm just going to let him get on with it. lol
-
hmmm, so you're saying that the big bang theory is proven science? like the law of gravity?
I cant test the law of gravity, I can observe the law of gravity.
Can you test your big bang theory? Can you observe your big bang theory? Can you explain where the matter came from to condense into a dot for your big bang theory? Can you tell me where the energy came from to spin that dot for your big bang theory? Can you tell me why the planets, moons, and even galaxies spin different directions and violate the law of angular momentum?
I know your answers to all of the above is "no I cannot." So I will say it again. Big bang, evolution, etc are based on FAITH. It is your belief, and you are entitled to it, but do not try to suggest that your belief is science when it is just as much religion as believing in God is.
You're embarrassing yourself.
-
i was valedictorian of my highschool. I also have a bachelors in Industrial Engineering and graduated in the top of my class. Not that education should matter when it comes to discussing issues that just require a little logic and common sense.
Thanks for aiding the discussion with your "brilliant" comment though. I'm sure your credentials are impecable.
That's all mediocre by getbig standards
-
Luke.16
[19] There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[20] And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[21] And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
[24] And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[25] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
[26] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
[27] Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
[28] For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
[29] Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[30] And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
[31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Notice verse 31. If a person is not willing to believe the Bible (Moses and hte prophets), then they wouldn't believe even if they had seen Jesus rise from the dead. That means there were some at the time of Jesus, and even here reading this, that if they were to see Jesus literally die, and then three days later He was raised from the dead....they would still NOT believe. They would claim it was a trick, gimmick, some sort of illusion.
John.20
[25] The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[26] And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[27] Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Pics or it didn't happen ;D
-
I've answered this already, but I will try to explain it here again.
Three things are needed for something to exist in OUR world.
1 Time
2 Space
3 Matter
You can't have Matter if you don't have Space to put it in. You can't put matter somewhere in space without saying When you put it there, so there has to be time, space, and matter.
So how did we get time, space, and matter?
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Time: Beginning
Space: Heaven
Matter: Earth
God created all three in the very first verse of the Bible. In order for him to have CREATED time, space, and matter...He must have existed outside of time, space, and matter.
We exist in time, and so does our world...so the inevitable question is always asked "Who created God?" What they really mean though is "WHEN did God come into existance?" If God created TIME, then he does not have a beginning or an end. God just IS. Now for us who exist in a world of time, it is hard to swallow that something does not have a beginning. To our brains it is almost incomprehensible because our brains scream "But everything has a beginning!" Not so with God. The creator of time does not need a beginning.
Let's look at the alternative though for a reality check. If God is not real, then something along the lines of the big bang theory must be true. Would you agree? If so, then you have the same questions to ask yourself about YOUR religion. How did the energy, matter, etc. get here? Does dirt create itself? Does dirt and dust exist outside of time? Where did the energy come from?
An atheist refuses to believe in God, but happily believes in a theory which is ridiculous like the big bang...even though he cant answer the simple question he asks those that believe in God. Where did it all come from?
Both are religious, but believing in God is more logical and less ridiculous than believing in dust that got here from nothing and magically spins and condenses and explodes all from nothing.
I don't believe in God .
I don't consider myself an Atheist either .
I don't Know where we come from and I really don't care.
PS :Your explanation at how God was created is absurd .
-
Newton was highly intelligent, but he had some batshit crazy beliefs too ;D
-
i was valedictorian of my highschool. I also have a bachelors in Industrial Engineering and graduated in the top of my class. Not that education should matter when it comes to discussing issues that just require a little logic and common sense.
Thanks for aiding the discussion with your "brilliant" comment though. I'm sure your credentials are impecable.
LOL
-
Here is a Daily Bible Reading Plan from Biblegateway.com:
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/)
Here are a few links to some excellent Daily Devotionals:
Greg Laurie http://harvest.org/devotional/ (http://harvest.org/devotional/)
Bob Coy http://www.activeword.org/dailydevotion.cfm (http://www.activeword.org/dailydevotion.cfm)
Charles Stanley http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.5710199/k.291/January_2010_Devotionals/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp (http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.5710199/k.291/January_2010_Devotionals/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp)
Family Life (For Couples) http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3930045/# (http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3930045/#)
-
I don't believe in God .
I don't consider myself an Atheist either .
I don't Know where we come from and I really don't care.
PS :Your explanation at how God was created is absurd .
what do you believe in che?
-
No, I think it is quite the opposite.
Definition: Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Definition: Faith : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
No one KNOWS the world is millions of year old, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that the world was created by a big bang, they BELIEVE it.
No one KNOWS that there isnt life after death, they BELIEVE it.
Are you seeing a trend here yet Dr. Chimps? I think I understand the word science much better than you do. Science is facts based on study and observation. You cannot observe the creation of the world, you can only GUESS on how it was created. That is FAITH, NOT SCIENCE.
So, again, we are left with two sides of a coin.
1. In the beginning DIRT
or
2. In the beginning GOD
Both are religious, both based on FAITH
One is ridiculous, one has merit. To believe we all came from dirt which came from nothing is ridiculous. To believe there is a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter because He created these three things seems more logical.
IMO your definition of "science" as far as if it refers to "natural science" is somewhat misleading. Science does not produce "knowledge" as in absolute truth, it produces scientific theories about scientific aspects of the world. There are scientific theories about the age of the world and the big bang. There is no room for belief or faith in science at all, there are just currently accepted scientific theories. No pure scientist will ever tell you he "knows" for certain that the universe was created in a big bang. And as soon as evidence comes along which falsifies the big-bang theory, every pure scientist must immediately let go of this theory without hesitation.
However, the theory of the big bang, which is a theory on how the scientific aspects of the world were created, does in no way compete with spiritual scripture, which deals with the world in a holistic sense.
I also think that the definition of faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" is wrong. True faith is pure knowledge, otherwise it's mere ideology or bigotry.
hmmm, so you're saying that the big bang theory is proven science? like the law of gravity?
I cant test the law of gravity, I can observe the law of gravity.
Can you test your big bang theory? Can you observe your big bang theory? Can you explain where the matter came from to condense into a dot for your big bang theory? Can you tell me where the energy came from to spin that dot for your big bang theory? Can you tell me why the planets, moons, and even galaxies spin different directions and violate the law of angular momentum?
I know your answers to all of the above is "no I cannot." So I will say it again. Big bang, evolution, etc are based on FAITH. It is your belief, and you are entitled to it, but do not try to suggest that your belief is science when it is just as much religion as believing in God is.
There really is no qualitative difference between the scientific law of gravity and the scientific theory of the big bang. There is a quantitative difference concerning the amount of evidence we have for gravity, but theoretically speaking, that is all subject to change in the future.
-
PS :Your explanation at how God was created is absurd .
God wasn't created. You are not understanding.
-
Here is a Daily Bible Reading Plan from Biblegateway.com:
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/)
Here are a few links to some excellent Daily Devotionals:
Greg Laurie http://harvest.org/devotional/ (http://harvest.org/devotional/)
Bob Coy http://www.activeword.org/dailydevotion.cfm (http://www.activeword.org/dailydevotion.cfm)
Charles Stanley http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.5710199/k.291/January_2010_Devotionals/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp (http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.5710199/k.291/January_2010_Devotionals/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp)
Family Life (For Couples) http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3930045/# (http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3930045/#)
I would also recommend John MacArthur http://www.gty.org/ A lot of good info on that site.
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
Starting at the beginning of the New Testament (which would be the Book of Matthew) is a good idea like HTexan suggested but I usually tell people to read the Book of John first.
And no, you don't need any type of religious background before reading :)
-
wavelength, you are a pretty practical type of guy i think. I think you are missing my point though.
Gravity has facts to back up theory. I.e. if an apple is thrown into the sky...it falls back down. The big bang theory has no facts to back it up at ALL. just mere beliefs (you choose to call them theories...) but belief is not science. Other theories can be observed, and that is a key term here...gravity can be observed...the big bang theory has zero observable evidence. The law of angular momentum is in complete opposition to the big bang theory. What scientific evidence points towards a big bang which came for what hte text books say "literally nothing".
yes and that means we can just explain our existance and creation based on a nice little fairytale and mystical man in the skies ;D
-
yes and that means we can just explain our existance and creation based a nice little fairytale and mystical man in the skies ;D
haha yea....Its the only logical thing to do ;D
-
lol
the bright minds of getbig discussing one of the most symbolically encoded works of/for humanity
fucking priceless :D
-
You're embarrassing yourself.
Chimps you know better then to just throw out Ad Hominem attacks...why don't you illustrate to him why his is embarrassing himself, or would that be too much work? ???
-
Chimps you know better then to just throw out Ad Hominem attacks...why don't you illustrate to him why his is embarrassing himself, or would that be too much work? ???
My physics professor tells us about people who constantly send him hate mail arguing about how relativity is all wrong; even sending him long algebraic calculations to 'prove' their point... guess what, he just treats it like garbage and doesn't respond ;D
-
My physics professor tells us about people who constantly send him hate mail arguing about how relativity is all wrong; even sending him long algebraic calculations to 'prove' their point... guess what, he just treats it like garbage and doesn't respond ;D
Well...not responding would be better then just throwing out straw men, which is both a sign of laziness, and arrogance.
-
Well...not responding would be better then just throwing out straw men, which is both a sign of laziness, and arrogance.
I suppose one could make that case but I haven't followed their argument so I can't comment on that.
-
wavelength, you are a pretty practical type of guy i think. I think you are missing my point though.
Gravity has facts to back up theory. I.e. if an apple is thrown into the sky...it falls back down. The big bang theory has no facts to back it up at ALL. just mere beliefs (you choose to call them theories...) but belief is not science. Other theories can be observed, and that is a key term here...gravity can be observed...the big bang theory has zero observable evidence. The law of angular momentum is in complete opposition to the big bang theory. What scientific evidence points towards a big bang which came for what hte text books say "literally nothing".
off the top of my head:
- expansion of space/universe
- background radiation
as to your claim that it defies the law of conservation of angular momentum, here's a peice I found that I think explains it:
the reason why the planets are expected to have all had the same basic rotational direction originally is due to the dynamics of how the solar system formed: the friction in the disk of gas and dust around our young star that formed the planets sort of forces them to have the same angular momentum direction (to start with) as the solar system as a whole. The angular momenta can be changed later by collisions.
-
come on bible thumpers get out your bible take a half hour break from spewing your bullshit and follow along with these vids...then report specifically what points wear made that were inacurate or what you may agree with....please don't comment if you only watched 5 minutes or skiped around...
when penn & teller can kick your ass regarding the bible you cant say shit....
Fortunately, Penn and Teller can do no such thing, and neither can you, which is why you resort to using these stupid video to mask your feeble and pointless takes.
As for your cry for specific points, where do I begin?
First, regarding the Ark, the Bible DOES NOT CLAIM that Noah gathered every species of animals. The word used in Genesis 6 is "kind". Of course, Linnaeus' taxonomic system wasn't around when Genesis was written. Those who studied this issue have estimated that the Hebrew word for "kind" would correspond to the taxonomic term of either Family or (no lower than) genus.
According to "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" at best Noah would have only needed to have gathered about 16,000 animals, with the average one, being the size of a sheep.
As for his rambling about other cultures having Flood legends, file that under the "tell-us-something-we-don't-know" category. Of course, Penn (assuming that's the big guy with the glasses) would have to explain how other civilizations (i.e. China), which are nowhere near Israel, ended up with the same basic premise: At some point in Earth's history, the planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only handful of people (usually no more than eight) surviving.
Ironically enough, there's an ancient Chinese word for "boat, made from three characters. It literally translates "eight-mouth-vessel".
How many people reportedly survived the Genesis Flood, again.........EIGHT.
-
Oh, another favorite, the claim that the Exodus account wasn't true. Who is this bonehead again, who claims that there's no evidence of the event outside the Bible (Michael Shermer, Skeptic magazine)?
I guess this was made before the multiple specials (one from National Geographic; another from the History channel), which investigates the evidence SUPPORTING the Exodus account.
Then, there's the recent study of the Gulf of Aqaba, which Bible critics forget is PART of the Red Sea. There are archaeological finds there, including chariot wheels.
Not to mention, there are ancient NON-BIBLICAL accounts of the Exodus from historians like Josephus and Diodorus Siculus.
So much for the "no evidence outside the Bible" flap.
And, on another note, what manner of foolish atheist ranting would be complete, without their displaying their inability to read Deut. 21:20,21 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. [/i]" (NIV).
Did Mr. Shermer bother to grasp in his skull, that the passage DOES NOT STATE that the "son", in question, is a child.
The son is described as a "profligate and a drunkard", hardly words usually cited to depict a little boy. But, never let these simple details interfere with a blathering atheist rant.
-
the wife has been pestering me to "devote daily time to the Word"
i tried a few months ago to start from the very beginning but got bored/lost in the indices somewhere
how do i start exactly? by that i mean what page? i see she kinda jumps around so i get the feeling that i shouldnt read cover to cover like i do with my leisure stories.
anything i should read BEFORE i start reading the bible? like do you need a certain basic level of religiousity or religious knowledge before beginning?
Why bother?
Everybody knows what the only true religion is.
http://www.venganza.org/ (http://www.venganza.org/)
(http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/Last-Supper.jpg)
(http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1600_1200.jpg)
(http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/pastafarianism-cross.jpg)
(http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodlycreation.jpg)
-
Is one of those Penn and Teller videos the one where they "prove" that Jesus had long hair by showing a painting of Him? LOL
-
wavelength, you are a pretty practical type of guy i think. I think you are missing my point though.
Gravity has facts to back up theory. I.e. if an apple is thrown into the sky...it falls back down. The big bang theory has no facts to back it up at ALL. just mere beliefs (you choose to call them theories...) but belief is not science. Other theories can be observed, and that is a key term here...gravity can be observed...the big bang theory has zero observable evidence. The law of angular momentum is in complete opposition to the big bang theory. What scientific evidence points towards a big bang which came for what hte text books say "literally nothing".
Of course there are facts to back up the theory of the big bang. Other theories about the scientific aspects of the beginning of the universe are possible too of course. Just as there can be other scientific theories about why objects are drawn together.
The gravitational "field" itself cannot be observed either, in the end it's just a name for a set of mathematical formulas. What can be observed is the movement of objects and this can lead to a theory about a "magic field" or a "magic big bang". I can't see any qualitative difference. The conception of a real, invisible "field", which somehow draws objects together is just as elusive as the conception of a big bang.
What most people don't realise is that these conceptions are not part of pure science anymore but are in fact already philosophic concepts. This is because for pure science it doesn't matter at all which mind construct is behind a set of mathematical formulas within a scientific model. Instead of a gravitational field, you can e.g. just as well imagine invisible leprechauns pushing objects together according to the corresponding formulas. For science, that's completely irrelevant.
-
When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator."
Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.
-
Harry Potter looking swole /\
l
l
-
Harry Potter looking swole /\
l
l
;D
-
When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator."
Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.
Interesting that some one of the christian faith proposed the theory but so-called 'creationists' are hell-bent on trying to disprove the theory.
-
Interesting that some one of the christian faith proposed the theory but so-called 'creationists' are hell-bent on trying to disprove the theory.
Interesting indeed! Not all Christians agree on everything.
Einstein's initial dismissal of the theory and his reasons behind it are very interesting too.
-
The bible isn't like a traditional book, you can jump around. I would start with The Gospels. Which are Matthew- John.
those all= the same...just said differently
-
Interesting indeed! Not all Christians agree on everything.
Einstein's initial dismissal of the theory and his reasons behind it are very interesting too.
Well, I think he was biased in favor of the idea that the universe is eternal. He also was not a fan of quantum mechanics, which has since become an essential tool in physics.
I don't think his biases are unique to him, or to people who are atheists. We know of several examples in history where scientific ideas were attacked due to religious preconceptions about the world.
The hope is that we can keep the biases in check and not slow scientific progress unnecessarily 8)
-
Well, I think he was biased in favor of the idea that the universe is eternal. He also was not a fan of quantum mechanics, which has since become an essential tool in physics.
I don't think his biases are unique to him, or to people who are atheists. We know of several examples in history where scientific ideas were attacked due to religious preconceptions about the world.
The hope is that we can keep the biases in check and not slow scientific progress unnecessarily 8)
Agreed! But this goes to show that the biases and attacks can come from either side, just as both sides can also contribute to the progress of science.
Science is neither theist nor atheist. Science is not bias. But scientists are theist or atheist. Scientists are bias. They are human after all.
-
;)
-
Well, I think he was biased in favor of the idea that the universe is eternal. He also was not a fan of quantum mechanics, which has since become an essential tool in physics.
I don't think his biases are unique to him, or to people who are atheists. We know of several examples in history where scientific ideas were attacked due to religious preconceptions about the world.
The hope is that we can keep the biases in check and not slow scientific progress unnecessarily 8)
Well...with a lot of people, Science has simply become the new God. Most of the more renowed Atheists that have been active in Acedmica, for the last three decades or so, have had an intense religious-like devotion to their cause. They are just as bad as any Christian Apologist, perhaps worse even, as the Christian Apologist makes his intentions obvious, where the Atheist is more apt to ensconce their agenda under the guise of "Intellectual Honesty."
-
Well...with a lot of people, Science has simply become the new God. Most of the more renowed Atheists that have been active in Acedmica, for the last three decades or so, have had an intense religious-like devotion to their cause. They are just as bad as any Christian Apologist, perhaps worse even, as the Christian Apologist makes his intentions obvious, where the Atheist is more apt to ensconce their agenda under the guise of "Intellectual Honesty."
X2 Top
-
Well...with a lot of people, Science has simply become the new God. Most of the more renowed Atheists that have been active in Acedmica, for the last three decades or so, have had an intense religious-like devotion to their cause. They are just as bad as any Christian Apologist, perhaps worse even, as the Christian Apologist makes his intentions obvious, where the Atheist is more apt to ensconce their agenda under the guise of "Intellectual Honesty."
could you be any more vague??do you have specific examples of what your talking about?
-
colleges are tax exempted too ;D