Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 16, 2014, 09:15:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Are you smarter than an atheist? A religious quiz  (Read 2986 times)
howardroark
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2524


Resident Objectivist & Autodidact


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 17, 2012, 11:41:03 AM »

With us speaking of Einstein and saying Coach owned himself, well, let us use Einstein's formula to prove there is a God, shall we?  E=MC^2  , this formula was proven with the detonation of the atomic bomb, where my boy Einstein said matter is nothing more than energy bound together by more energy and one can mathematically prove the amount of energy in a given amount of mass.  With that is proven that matter or atoms can be destroyed BUT can NOT be created, hhmmm?  Therefore, Einstein himself has no answer other than a higher power creating matter?

However,  a common man wrote a scripture that may encompass this matter building object?

Heb 11:3 NIV says, ďBy faith we understand that the universe was formed at Godís command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.Ē


You get an F in Physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dr.Ill
Getbig II
**
Posts: 247



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 17, 2012, 11:46:28 AM »

You get an F in Physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Holy Shit, next, somone that actually isn't ignorant!  And he claimed to get a 30/32 Bahahahahaha
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3423


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2012, 12:21:07 PM »

With that is proven that matter or atoms can be destroyed BUT can NOT be created, hhmmm?

Bullshit... New particles are created all the time in particle accelerators. That is one of things they are designed to do: convert energy into subatomic particles by colliding electrons and positrons at relativistic velocities and converting some of that kinetic energy into new particles.

I'm sick and tired of people with no scientific background and only the most rudimentary understanding of simple physics talking about things like they are world-renowned experts and presenting their half-assed opinions and poor understanding as indisputable scientific facts.

You get an F in Physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Not true: see above. Matter can be created and it can be destroyed. It's just that when matter is created[/b] a certain, quantifiable amount of energy is actually converted into matter. Similarly, when matter is destroyed, it is actually converted into a certain, quantifiable amount of energy.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dr.Ill
Getbig II
**
Posts: 247



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2012, 12:31:24 PM »

Bullshit... New particles are created all the time in particle accelerators. That is one of things they are designed to do: convert energy into subatomic particles by colliding electrons and positrons at relativistic velocities and converting some of that kinetic energy into new particles.

I'm sick and tired of people with no scientific background and only the most rudimentary understanding of simple physics talking about things like they are world-renowned experts and presenting their half-assed opinions and poor understanding as indisputable scientific facts.

Bullshit....first off, new particles are not being created, they are being discovered!  Secondly, if you want to dribble on like you know something, then spew some facts and refute Einstein's theory brain child!  Never has energy been coverted to matter, never....please indicate in which physics book you found matter being produced from energy?  Not your "theory" books either! 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3423


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2012, 12:40:44 PM »

Bullshit....first off, new particles are not being created, they are being discovered!

For a complete idiot, you actually managed to produce a brilliant statement: it manages to show of your idiocy in a very elegant and compact way. Congratulations.


Secondly, if you want to dribble on like you know something, then spew some facts and refute Einstein's theory brain child!  Never has energy been coverted to matter, never....please indicate in which physics book you found matter being produced from energy?  Not your "theory" books either!

The whole point of Einstein's theory is that matter and energy are interchangeable! Energy being converted into matter isn't against Einstein's theory. If you think it is, feel free to point out exactly where either General or Special Relativity state such a thing.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dr.Ill
Getbig II
**
Posts: 247



View Profile
« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2012, 12:51:28 PM »

For a complete idiot, you actually managed to produce a brilliant statement: it manages to show of your idiocy in a very elegant and compact way. Congratulations.  

The whole point of Einstein's theory is that matter and energy are interchangeable! Energy being converted into matter isn't against Einstein's theory. If you think it is, feel free to point out exactly where either General or Special Relativity state such a thing.


Matter and energy may be interchangeable with effect, however, one can not be substituted by the other.  If an electron hits an electron, then a electron will be ejected from that shell, at that point photon energy is created and next electron falls into place.  Not substituted with energy.  

The new particle that was found today, also refutes the "interchangeable" stance, when opposite particles collide that obliterate themselves.  

Therefore in these two interactions, matter and energy never substitute just cause an effect.  Matter is never formed by energy, just more energy.

Report to moderator   Logged
Onetimehard
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 12474


Jasher


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: April 17, 2012, 12:52:19 PM »

Matter and energy may be interchangeable with effect, however, one can not be substituted by the other.  If an electron hits and electron, and electron ejected from shell, then photon energy is created and next electron falls into place.  Not substituted with energy. 

The new particle that was found today, also refutes the "interchangeable" stance, when opposite particles collide that obliterate themselves. 


Correct
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3423


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2012, 01:58:56 PM »

Matter and energy may be interchangeable with effect, however, one can not be substituted by the other.  If an electron hits and electron, and electron ejected from shell, then photon energy is created and next electron falls into place.  Not substituted with energy.

Depends what you mean by "substituted." I never said that energy was a substitute for matter or vice versa. But matter can be converted into energy - see nuclear fission, for example, where a large amount of energy is released in the form of gamma rays - and energy can be converted into matter. See, for example http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html.


The new particle that was found today, also refutes the "interchangeable" stance, when opposite particles collide that obliterate themselves.

How does the discovery of any particle refute the interchangeable state? I'll agree that energy and matter aren't interchangeable in the sense that "here's 3.14159 GeV of energy and *tada* suddenly! Behold foofoo particle!"  but matter can be created out of energy. But see here: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html


Therefore in these to interactions, matter and energy never substitute just cause an effect.  Matter is never formed by energy, just more energy.

I don't quite follow what you mean by "Matter is never formed by energy, just more energy." unless it's an obtuse reference to threshold energy. But even if that's the case, that doesn't help your point. Indeed, it only strengthens mine, that bosonic particle interactions can give rise to fermionic particles.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tre
Expert
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16457


"What you don't have is a career."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #83 on: April 17, 2012, 02:04:27 PM »

30 of 32 and I hate pretty much everyone.

Report to moderator   Logged
che
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12876



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2012, 02:23:05 PM »

1  of 32
Report to moderator   Logged
Dr.Ill
Getbig II
**
Posts: 247



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: April 17, 2012, 02:25:36 PM »

Depends what you mean by "substituted." I never said that energy was a substitute for matter or vice versa. But matter can be converted into energy - see nuclear fission, for example, where a large amount of energy is released in the form of gamma rays - and energy can be converted into matter. See, for example http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html.

I will combat this argument with this simple article, are we going to talk subatomic structures or matter?  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html


What I meant without copy and pasting someone elses ideas or thoughts, this is just mine entirely, is like in that case where they used accelerators and high laser beams, it took accelerated electrons blasted across a tube and to collide (with probably a tungtsten material) to dispell millions of electrons thus producing a vast amount of photons (energy)...This was my point, it takes so much more energy to even make one subparticle and this is no where near living matter.

I need to be more pointed in my argument, we have not seen any indication that energy can be converted to any "living" matter in which this whole argument started about is a higher power creating "living" matter from energy.

I must admit, for someone I thought rolled around naked with pictures of himself, you have proved that your not just another schmoe.  Hats off sir!
Report to moderator   Logged
dantelis
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1749


Classic physique!


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: April 17, 2012, 02:29:18 PM »

30 of 32.  Missed the Maimides and First Great Awakening ones.

If you have a half-way decent education and read the news occassionally, you should do pretty well on this quiz.  

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.
Report to moderator   Logged
NarcissisticDeity
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 43661


I dont care what Ronnie says bc hes not a credible


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2012, 02:35:39 PM »

30 or 32.  Missed the Maimides and First Great Awakening ones.

If you have a half-way decent education and read the news occassionally, you should do pretty well on this quiz.  

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

Heracles
Report to moderator   Logged
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9673


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2012, 02:48:43 PM »

Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? HM?

(Student was silent.)

Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Letís start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ?

Student : From Ö GOD Ö

Professor: Thatís right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, donít they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. Iím afraid I havenít.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesnít exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we donít have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir Ö Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you'll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won't you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge Ö or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.
The God Botherers (Student) whole argument is hinging on the fact that because we cant see the professors brain it doesn't exist and we have to just use faith - what a joke, unlike GOD, we can kill the professor, crack open his cranium and confirm our suspicions, the professor does indeed have a brain.  No Faith Required - Dumb Argument!
Report to moderator   Logged

V
doriancutlerman
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1189


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2012, 02:50:39 PM »

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  to assume religious folk are universally stupid, ignorant or whatever else is illogical.  Anyone who's studied the most rudimentary fallacies of relevance would understand that.  It's little different than me saying people who believe in extraterrestrial life are morons, idiots and so on.

Generally speaking, people who think knowledge begins and ends with religion ARE simple fucks.  But there remains a whole rainbow of intellectual grades which embrace/reject religion for reasons no one's mentioned here.  Take my friend Curtis (I will not give you his full name, but intrepid Google-Fu fighters might discover he authored some books for perhaps the most popular franchise in the world).  He is a doctor of astrophysics.  Literally, a fucking *rocket scientist.*  Only the most obstinate, delusional troll here might claim to rival his I.Q.  Roll Eyes

While he says his initial leaning is toward "weak agnostic," he chooses to believe in an afterlife to which his consciousness will transcend because that belief serves him.  That is, he is unsettled by the concept of ceasing to exist altogether when he dies; therefore, belief in an afterlife helps keep him going, helps keep him from obsessing over the hereto unrealistic probability of retaining his mind into some computer (which he has certainly considered) or other means.  

Religion is more than believing some tall tale about Moses parting the sea, a burning bush, Noah's Arc, Mohammed having his heart pulled out, "purified" and then put back in his chest, etc.  A lot of it is bullshit, but more often than not, the people who stand by, point, laugh and talk about how the sheep believe in the "invisible man in the sky" seem to conveniently overlook the millions of intelligent people who choose to believe in a higher power, afterlife or whatever for reasons other than simple childhood brainwashing indoctrination.

Report to moderator   Logged
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9673


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2012, 02:51:08 PM »

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.
Hercules  Grin Heracles, son of Zeus


* 220px-Heracles_Pio-Clementino_Inv252.jpg (25.02 KB, 220x400 - viewed 78 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Shizzo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19453



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2012, 02:55:54 PM »

Any pussy pics in this thread?
Report to moderator   Logged
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9673


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2012, 03:04:23 PM »

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  to assume religious folk are universally stupid, ignorant or whatever else is illogical.  Anyone who's studied the most rudimentary fallacies of relevance would understand that.  It's little different than me saying people who believe in extraterrestrial life are morons, idiots and so on.

Generally speaking, people who think knowledge begins and ends with religion ARE simple fucks.  But there remains a whole rainbow of intellectual grades which embrace/reject religion for reasons no one's mentioned here.  Take my friend Curtis (I will not give you his full name, but intrepid Google-Fu fighters might discover he authored some books for perhaps the most popular franchise in the world).  He is a doctor of astrophysics.  Literally, a fucking *rocket scientist.*  Only the most obstinate, delusional troll here might claim to rival his I.Q.  Roll Eyes

While he says his initial leaning is toward "weak agnostic," he chooses to believe in an afterlife to which his consciousness will transcend because that belief serves him.  That is, he is unsettled by the concept of ceasing to exist altogether when he dies; therefore, belief in an afterlife helps keep him going, helps keep him from obsessing over the hereto unrealistic probability of retaining his mind into some computer (which he has certainly considered) or other means.  

Religion is more than believing some tall tale about Moses parting the sea, a burning bush, Noah's Arc, Mohammed having his heart pulled out, "purified" and then put back in his chest, etc.  A lot of it is bullshit, but more often than not, the people who stand by, point, laugh and talk about how the sheep believe in the "invisible man in the sky" seem to conveniently overlook the millions of intelligent people who choose to believe in a higher power, afterlife or whatever for reasons other than simple childhood brainwashing indoctrination.


Define Intelligence, just because someone holds a degree or high status position doesn't make them intelligent, they are just successful repeaters and were able to memorise facts and remember them when tested.  The more you fit well in to society and raise up it's heights, the more I would argue that you have been successfully indoctrinated and have enough brain capacity to read and write and memorise facts, that's about it, most of the professionals I meet are fucking idiots - I am shocked the people society allows to call Professional - the Title Professional should be something that is earned from your peers, not given to you from a school that is praising you for following there set curriculum and successfully memorising it.  To be Intelligent, you need to be able to follow your own line of inquiry to a satisfying conclusion, and most professionals I have met are unable to do this, they just repeat what they have been told like parrots.  The World really needs radicals like Noam Chomsky giving orders, but that will never happen with the Bullies running the schoolyard.
Report to moderator   Logged

V
E-Kul
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9673


Space: The final frontier


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: April 17, 2012, 03:06:16 PM »

Any pussy pics in this thread?
Grin


* hairy_marcia_pussy2.jpg (382.7 KB, 768x1024 - viewed 95 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

V
Onetimehard
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 12474


Jasher


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: April 17, 2012, 03:09:07 PM »

30 or 32.  Missed the Maimides and First Great Awakening ones.

If you have a half-way decent education and read the news occassionally, you should do pretty well on this quiz.  

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.
Ha, I love this stuff but C'mon that's an easy one,
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3423


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: April 17, 2012, 06:58:08 PM »

I will combat this argument with this simple article, are we going to talk subatomic structures or matter?  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

Actually we are talking about bosonic particles, which do not have mass, vs. fermionic particles, which do have mass. It's been proven theoretically and verified by observation that the interaction of bosonic particles can create fermionic particles.


What I meant without copy and pasting someone elses ideas or thoughts, this is just mine entirely, is like in that case where they used accelerators and high laser beams, it took accelerated electrons blasted across a tube and to collide (with probably a tungtsten material) to dispell millions of electrons thus producing a vast amount of photons (energy)...This was my point, it takes so much more energy to even make one subparticle and this is no where near living matter.

Right, traditional particle accelerators accelerate electrons (or positrons) at relativistic velocities and slam them into a target (the specific nature of the target is irrelevant, except that it's made of fermions - i.e. it has mass). They do not do this to generate photons, although photons are certainly generated. They do this because at the extremely high energies produced by such collisions, energy itself can be converted into exotic forms of matter, which could have existed for very brief amounts of time immediately after the Big Bang.

As to your point that it takes a lot of energy to convert matter into energy, that is right. The energy levels necessary for the creation of a single particle/anti-particle pair is significantly higher than the energy the pair would have at a resting state.

You may want to read up on a branch of experimental/applied physics called "Two Photon Physics" which looks at what happens when photons collide. It's really quite fascinating.
 

I need to be more pointed in my argument, we have not seen any indication that energy can be converted to any "living" matter in which this whole argument started about is a higher power creating "living" matter from energy.

Terminology does matter, especially in discussions such as this, because without accurate and consistent terms, it's both impossible to get anywhere and possible to get anywhere. For example, there's no such thing as living matter. Matter is matter. Life is an emergent property of particular arrangements of matter. But the way you phrased the above statement suggests some mystical distinction between, say the matter that's in a rock and the matter that is you. Fundamentally, both are quite similar.


I must admit, for someone I thought rolled around naked with pictures of himself, you have proved that your not just another schmoe.  Hats off sir!

Well thanks. To be fair, I would never roll around naked with pictures of myself - I'm neither ripped nor muscular enough to entertain such notions. But hey, one can dream... one can dream!

Report to moderator   Logged
muscularny
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1775


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: April 18, 2012, 02:08:38 AM »

they could of made all questions on one page, but they force you to load new pages for each as well as a page inbetween in order to display more ads lol

smart
Report to moderator   Logged

I beg to differ!
doriancutlerman
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1189


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: April 18, 2012, 05:27:22 AM »

Define Intelligence, just because someone holds a degree or high status position doesn't make them intelligent, they are just successful repeaters and were able to memorise facts and remember them when tested.  

A doctor of astrophysics doesn't get by on rote memorization, for God's sake (pun intended).  Are you familiar with the term "cognitive complexity"?

Quote
the Title Professional should be something that is earned from your peers, not given to you from a school that is praising you for following there set curriculum and successfully memorising it.  To be Intelligent, you need to be able to follow your own line of inquiry to a satisfying conclusion, and most professionals I have met are unable to do this, they just repeat what they have been told like parrots.

Somehow the subject of my post was changed from an astrophysicist of my acquaintance into "most professionals" you know.  How did that happen?  And why do you assume Curtis is a mere parrot, or that he's the only truly smart person who eschews atheism?  Talk about a bold statement!

The irony is, a person of even fairly modest intelligence could've figured out who I was talking about by now ...
Report to moderator   Logged
PJim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3357


I took my potatoes down to be mashed.


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2012, 05:44:30 AM »

And how has science proven there is no God, could you elaborate please?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
Report to moderator   Logged
Dr.Ill
Getbig II
**
Posts: 247



View Profile
« Reply #99 on: April 18, 2012, 05:52:31 AM »

What sides? There is only 1 side, the proven sides such as exact sciences. There is no other side. SHould be teach kids about Spiderman. He must be real, I saw it in a book and more importantly 'How do we know Spiderman IS NOT real'. Prove to me Spiderman IS NOT real and I will suspend my belief. Until then he is real and better then any God!

Kids being fucked up? Whats the connection with this and not teaching religion? With religion kids would be allright? How so?

I ask him what science proves there is no God with this statement.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

With that, I am asking for his evidence.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!