Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: The True Adonis on August 25, 2008, 08:59:31 AM
-
Discuss.
-
anyone who can ignore scientific evidence and believes the fairy tales presented in the "bible" can never be described as intelligent.
-
Discuss.
STUPID PEOPLE AER INCAPABLE OF RECOGNIZING INTELLIGENCE...
-
Discuss.
Define religious...the head of the human genome project is an Evangelical Christian (but not a Creationist); Francis Collins...
-
TA. Have you ever taken ephedrine or ephedra?
-
"God does not play dice." - Einstein on quantum theory.
You'll have more luck with a "the vast majority of..." approach.
-
Does believing in a higher power constitute religion?
I don't believe there's a bearded man in a robe which chooses to send you eternal pleasure, or eternal torture, based upon if you stole a piece of gum as a kid or got laid before you were married.
Do I believe that something more powerful than a human being started the processes of the universe? Of course.
-
Define religious...the head of the human genome project is an Evangelical Christian (but not a Creationist); Francis Collins...
He was not the head as in head of research. He held nothing but an Administration position. He did no direct work on the project whatsoever.
-
TA. Have you ever taken ephedrine or ephedra?
Lol.
-
Does believing in a higher power constitute religion?
I don't believe there's a bearded man in a robe which chooses to send you eternal pleasure, or eternal torture, based upon if you stole a piece of gum as a kid or got laid before you were married.
Do I believe that something more powerful than a human being started the processes of the universe? Of course.
Define more powerful...do you mean an intelligent being?
-
"God does not play dice." - Einstein on quantum theory.
You'll have more luck with a "the vast majority of..." approach.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/12/einstein460x276.jpg)
Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
-
Does believing in a higher power constitute religion?
I don't believe there's a bearded man in a robe which chooses to send you eternal pleasure, or eternal torture, based upon if you stole a piece of gum as a kid or got laid before you were married.
Do I believe that something more powerful than a human being started the processes of the universe? Of course.
Given Scientific Evidence that is ignorant as well.
-
There are lots of intelligent religious people
George W Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
All Jews
Barney
-
Given Scientific Evidence that is ignorant as well.
I'm listening. What scientific evidence are you talking about? I'm not that strong in the area. I know that something created the universe. I don't know what it was. But I know that no man has that ability. Therefore something more powerful - and with significantly greater creation abilities - than man exists. The Creator.
I don't know if it's something with a conscious, or something else.
-
what about those religious vegetables the kids love?
-
are you saying there are no such things as talking snakes?
-
How can anyone be responsible for Adam's inability to meet or carry on an intelligent conversation with a professed religious figure. Are there any religious boards saying..." I have never met and I cannot name an intelligent bodybuilder or poster on a bodybuilding board."
It's a relationship not a religion!
-
STUPID PEOPLE AER INCAPABLE OF RECOGNIZING INTELLIGENCE...
Stupid people also have trouble locating that little button on the left of their keyboard that says "Caps Lock" on it.
-
I'm listening. What scientific evidence are you talking about? I'm not that strong in the area. I know that something created the universe. I don't know what it was. But I know that no man has that ability. Therefore something more powerful - and with significantly greater creation abilities - than man exists. The Creator.
I don't know if it's something with a conscious, or something else.
Don`t think of the universe in Anthropocentric terms. Humans are meaningless to the planet and are but a blink of a fraction of a second in the history of earth.
-
Nice find but you bolded the wrong parts.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/12/einstein460x276.jpg)
Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear
Scientist's reply to sell for up to £8,000, and stoke debate over his beliefs
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein, and his famous aphorism has been the source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.
A little known letter written by him, however, may help to settle the argument - or at least provoke further controversy about his views.
Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".
Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.
In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion.
One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it.
Einstein is best known for his theories of relativity and for the famous E=mc2 equation that describes the equivalence of mass and energy, but his thoughts on religion have long attracted conjecture.
His parents were not religious but he attended a Catholic primary school and at the same time received private tuition in Judaism. This prompted what he later called, his "religious paradise of youth", during which he observed religious rules such as not eating pork. This did not last long though and by 12 he was questioning the truth of many biblical stories.
"The consequence was a positively fanatic [orgy of] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression," he later wrote.
In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory.
Sounds to me like a man who believed in God but was disappointed in religious institutions and human interpretations of God.
BTW I'm an athiest, but I don't feel that makes all religious people, by default, less intelligent than I.
-
Don`t think of the universe in Anthropocentric terms. Humans are meaningless to the planet and are but a blink of a fraction of a second in the history of earth.
exactly, humans have been around for AT MOST 250,000 years and this planet has been here for billions of years.
-
-
Nice find but you bolded the wrong parts.
Sounds to me like a man who believed in God but was disappointed in religious institutions and human interpretations of God.
BTW I'm an athiest, but I don't feel that makes all religious people, by default, less intelligent than I.
Again, the letter was written in 1954. You are using semantics. He liked to use the word as a play. IT like when I say Goddamnit. I`m not asking god to damn something.
-
-
-
Nonsense. Lots of intelligent people who are *ahem* religious. Someone like a Thomas Merton could philosophically take us all on without breaking a sweat. :)
-
I judge religious people as my inferiors.
-
Again, the letter was written in 1954. You are using semantics. He liked to use the word as a play. IT like when I say Goddamnit. I`m not asking god to damn something.
Not so. It is my interpretation that Einstein believed in God but not in human religious institutions. Most would view a belief in God as a religious belief, whether or not that person followed the dogma of a particular church. Are you saying that someone who believes in God but is not a follower of a church is not religious? That would be using the term in a narrower sense than what is widely accepted, so the semantic gamesmanship would lie with you.
I think you'd really enjoy Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" Adam. It's a fairly scathing analysis of religion's role in holding back humanity from scientific advancement.
-
TA.....you don't anything about training, you don't know anything about nutrition, you don't know anything about religion, you constantly lie your ass off, one week you speak in proper english (or whatever) the next you say your family has the biggest Bently dealership in the state, the next your telling people you can DL 225x12........damn dude, you seriously have some problems with finding yourself, each day it's like you want to be something your not. You need help.
Then you come on here just to annoy.
-
Most religious people have serious faults in reasoning. When you challenge them, they react with anger because they can't refute points made by atheists.
Overall, atheists are much more intelligent.
-
TA.....you don't anything about training, you don't know anything about nutrition, you don't know anything about religion, you constantly lie your ass off, one week you speak in proper english (or whatever) the next you say your family has the biggest Bently dealership in the state, the next your telling people you can DL 225x12........damn dude, you seriously have some problems with finding yourself, each day it's like you want to be something your not. You need help.
Then you come on here just to annoy.
Heh heh. It seems he has hit the mark.
-
TA.....you don't anything about training, you don't know anything about nutrition, you don't know anything about religion, you constantly lie your ass off, one week you speak in proper english (or whatever) the next you say your family has the biggest Bently dealership in the state, the next your telling people you can DL 225x12........damn dude, you seriously have some problems with finding yourself, each day it's like you want to be something your not. You need help.
Then you come on here just to annoy.
::)
The legend grows. I like to hear what you`ll invent next.
-
This is truely an absurd statement. While I would wholehartedly agree that the majority of christians/religious people are at best naive, (and at worst foolish), there has been plenty of highly intelligent religious people that have influenced modern society.
Some examples: Soren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Carl Jung, John Locke.... and this is just naming a few of the top of my head...
To think that one cannot even name one intelligent religious person, is an incredibly arrogant statement.
M!
"I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage" Nietzsche
-
This is truely an absurd statement. While I would wholehartedly agree that the majority of christians/religious people are at best naive, (and at worst foolish), there has been plenty of highly intelligent religious people that have influenced modern society.
Some examples: Soren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Carl Jung, John Locke.... and this is just naming a few of the top of my head...
To think that one cannot even name one intelligent religious person, is an incredibly arrogant statement.
M!
"I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage" Nietzsche
Add Jimmy Carter to that list!
I consider him pretty intelligent!
-
it's pretty hard to meet people who don't exist...
-
I do enjoy hearing what you guys are coming up with. So far the majority are Philosophers and the like. Bernays and Freud>Jung by the way. :)
-
Bringing up guys like Newton and Locke doesn't work because they lived in a time when a show of faith was expected from everyone. Now religion doesn't really serve that same purpose in western society, and further many of today's scientists are either atheists or agnostic.
-
Bringing up guys like Newton and Locke doesn't work because they lived in a time when a show of faith was expected from everyone. Now religion doesn't really serve that same purpose in western society, and further many of today's scientists are either atheists or agnostic.
Also add to the fact that if they let it be known that they were not religious, the ostracizing, ridiculing and even life threatening consequences they would have had to endure from an ignorant public and bullying church.
-
Yes but Jung's synchronicity was a big hit in the 80s with Sting. Honestly, can you picture Freud singing "Feed Ze Vorld?" :-\
-
Nonsense. Lots of intelligent people who are *ahem* religious. Someone like a Thomas Merton could philosophically take us all on without breaking a sweat. :)
These people haven't heard of the Jesuit order, I suppose. :-\
-
I disagree with Adonis and also think he's an idiot. Always have.
-
;D
(http://www.shortlessonsfromthebigbook.com/MOimages/drgenescottfirstfruitsgivngandtithingpic1.jpg)
-
These people haven't heard of the Jesuit order, I suppose. :-\
That's funny. You know, I was going to mention Jesuit logic, argument or apologetics and just went with Merton because I can just see his Seven Story Mountain on one of my bookshelves. :D
-
Kenneth Copeland. So there.
-
Kenneth Copeland. So there.
LOL.
I do admire the ones who can fleece so many individuals to the point where there is an endless lot of sheep to slaughter which in turn produces endless piles of wool to cloth the Shepherd.
;D
-
You can also add William James to the list. His writings were the main influence behind pragmatism, and his theories are still felt in the psychological world to this day. I would also venture an opinion that he was more intellegent then Freud or Jung, but I realize I am most likely in the minortiy in that regard.
M!
-
Religion IS NOT ONLY monotheistic BS like islam, christianity etc, Adam.
There are endless intelligent people in religion, especially in buddhism.
Hope this helps.
-
These people haven't heard of the Jesuit order disorder, I suppose. :-\
Fixed.
-
Discuss.
I'm sure after meeting you ...People say the same exact thing..
-
Famous athiests... wow!
http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm
LMAO...
"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-Dr. James Watson, American biologist, (Discoverer of DNA.)
-
You can also add William James to the list. His writings were the main influence behind pragmatism, and his theories are still felt in the psychological world to this day. I would also venture an opinion that he was more intellegent then Freud or Jung, but I realize I am most likely in the minortiy in that regard.
M!
More intelligent is just a relative term when talking about such men. And no he's not forgotten! And let's not forget he was brother to Henry James, and while not an academic per ce, Henry was one of the most astute observers of human nature. :)
-
hmmm
what's scarier? A Religious Zealot or a Atheist Fanatic.
I would go with Atheist fanatic, a religious person will shut the hell up. An atheist like we have seen here never shuts up ::)
I agree with 240 here. I'm not religious, I do have a belief though. I can take account of what scientific progress we have made. We all know it takes time to develop everything. We are bodybuilding here, look how long it takes to develop your body. Look how long it has taken man and the rest of the universe to develop into what it is today.
I can't agree with the the timeline given in the religious books. The religious books are there for wisdom. Unfortunately some take it literally and they are ridiculed because of it. It gives religion a bad image. Religion isn't screwed it's the people.
Atheist are about if not more so annoying than the pain in the ass Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door before you take a shit.
-
I can take account of what scientific progress we have made.
Look at what people believed 500 years ago. The universe revolved around earth, the sun was a god, etc.
imagine how they'll be laughing at us in 500 years!
-
Look at what people believed 500 years ago. The universe revolved around earth, the sun was a god, etc.
imagine how they'll be laughing at us in 500 years!
What I'm laughing at is a guy with no job who's wife/girlfriend supports the family. A guy who really can't find himself, has endless hours on the internet and comes accross as the biggest know-it-all i've ever seen. With all that time, use it a little more wisely. 240...so bright yet so lost.
-
What I'm laughing at is a guy with no job who's wife/girlfriend supports the family. A guy who really can't find himself, has endless hours on the internet and comes accross as the biggest know-it-all i've ever seen. With all that time, use it a little more wisely. 240...so bright yet so lost.
240 is a teacher.
-
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/savetheplanet.jpg)
LOL
-
Discuss.
It think questions like that arise because of a few simple misconceptions:
- religion is equal to a simple-minded form of christian fundamentalism,
- rationality is equal to the scientific method,
- science competes with religion.
The original claim is absurd of course. Todays posterboys for atheism (Dawkins, Atkins, Sagan, etc.) would neither stand a chance against the great religious thinkers nor against serious religious critics like the great philosphers.
-
He was not the head as in head of research. He held nothing but an Administration position. He did no direct work on the project whatsoever.
I can see why you can't name an intelligent religious person. It's because you are an idiot. Held nothing but an "Administration" position? The guy was the head of the project. The head of research is his subordinate.
Now, to dispel your notion that he never did any direct scientific work with DNA, here is a little bit of info for you:
In college Collins found biology boring and trained as a chemist, only to become a physician and then a famed gene hunter at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where he identified the gene for cystic fibrosis and helped find the gene for Huntington's disease.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/interview-francis-collins
You are wrong.
Now, lets say he only held an "administrative" position. The man is still more qualified than you to speak about most scientific subjects. When it comes to science, he is more intelligent than you. I doubt you would argue with that, but if you want to make your case, go ahead. It should make for a good laugh.
-
anyone who can ignore scientific evidence and believes the fairy tales presented in the "bible" can never be described as intelligent.
Please, tell me quaker-- what do YOU know of science? (besides what u hear on tv)
::)
-
Religion IS NOT ONLY monotheistic BS like islam, christianity etc, Adam.
There are endless intelligent people in religion, especially in buddhism.
Hope this helps.
Buddhism can be just as much BS as christianity, it all depends.
Some of the greatest thinkers of all time were christians. Some were buddhists. It would be ignorant to make such a distinction.
-
Buddhism can be just as much BS as christianity, it all depends.
Some of the greatest thinkers of all time were christians. Some were buddhists. It would be ignorant to make such a distinction.
Sure you are right, i just wanted to stir up TA a bit.
-
Buddhism can be just as much BS as christianity, it all depends.
Some of the greatest thinkers of all time were christians. Some were buddhists. It would be ignorant to make such a distinction.
However ,I find that the basic tenets of Buddhism in their core better reflect a rational, empirical view of existence whereas Christianity at its core is filled with all sorts of ludicrous and miraculous claims that have nothing to do with life or existence; in Christianity there is nothing like the Four Noble Truths (all of which can be deduced and confirmed empirically through life experience).
-
Please, tell me quaker-- what do YOU know of science? (besides what u hear on tv)
::)
sounds like i hurt "boonstacks" feelings, he must believe in Noah's Ark, The Ten Commandments and that the world is only 6,000 years old. :D
-
Topic is too lame to discuss.
-
However ,I find that the basic tenets of Buddhism in their core better reflect a rational, empirical view of existence whereas Christianity at its core is filled with all sorts of ludicrous and miraculous claims that have nothing to do with life or existence; in Christianity there is nothing like the Four Noble Truths (all of which can be deduced and confirmed empirically through life experience).
You will be able to find the Noble Truths in the bible as well.
-
sounds like i hurt "boonstacks" feelings, he must believe in Noah's Ark, The Ten Commandments and that the world is only 6,000 years old. :D
What's even worse is that someone decided that Eddy Robinson was a good cast choice for The Ten Commandments. ::) :D
/'i'm the boss, here, see...'
-
He was not the head as in head of research. He held nothing but an Administration position. He did no direct work on the project whatsoever.
his book was also terrible and his main argument was morality which is firmly established in social psychology/evolutionary psychology.
his line of reasoning was we have a moral compass=god did it.
-
I can see why you can't name an intelligent religious person. It's because you are an idiot. Held nothing but an "Administration" position? The guy was the head of the project. The head of research is his subordinate.
Now, to dispel your notion that he never did any direct scientific work with DNA, here is a little bit of info for you:
In college Collins found biology boring and trained as a chemist, only to become a physician and then a famed gene hunter at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where he identified the gene for cystic fibrosis and helped find the gene for Huntington's disease.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/interview-francis-collins
You are wrong.
Now, lets say he only held an "administrative" position. The man is still more qualified than you to speak about most scientific subjects. When it comes to science, he is more intelligent than you. I doubt you would argue with that, but if you want to make your case, go ahead. It should make for a good laugh.
In college he was also an atheist. :)
He held nothing but an administration position for the Genome Project. FACT.
P.S. I have that issue of Discover Magazine. :)
-
You will be able to find the Noble Truths in the bible as well.
Not as an all encompassing basic philosophical principle...in the Bible and in Christianity in general you have to cherry pick to get any 'truth' whereas in Buddhism it is inherent in the foundational principles of the stream of thought itself.
-
hmmm
what's scarier? A Religious Zealot or a Atheist Fanatic.
Atheist are about if not more so annoying than the pain in the ass Jehovah's Witness knocking on your door before you take a shit.
You are wrong. People who murder in the name of "god" and "jesus" are far more dangerous than an atheist trying to talk sense. Most atheists aren't even public like christians, muslims or whatever, so I don't know how you go comparing atheists to idiots who knock on your door and ask for contributions. ::)
-
What's even worse is that someone decided that Eddy Robinson was a good cast choice for The Ten Commandments. ::) :D
/'i'm the boss, here, see...'
Or Ronnie casting himself as Moses for the 2006 Mr. Olympia. ;D
(http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=337103&d=1159712778)
(http://www.bbszene.de/html/2006/mr_olympia_2006/men_finals/PA013826.JPG)
-
You are wrong. People who murder in the name of "god" and "jesus" are far more dangerous than an atheist trying to talk sense. Most atheists aren't even public like christians, muslims or whatever, so I don't know how you go comparing atheists to idiots who knock on your door and ask for contributions. ::)
Also It affects all of our policies regarding disease, medicine, technological progress, enviromental issues, scientific progress, etc...
When the truth is available, it makes no sense to believe in something false, especially when it will effect many more people.
Religion and Faith( the unwarranted belief with no evidence) are viruses.
-
Also It affects all of our policies regarding disease, medicine, technological progress, enviromental issues, scientific progress, etc...
When the truth is available, it makes no sense to believe in something false, especially when it will effect many more people.
Religion and Faith( the unwarranted belief with no evidence) are viruses.
Good point, TA. Religion NEEDS to be called out because it has such negatives as its believers disputing a woman's right to choose, and trying to impede the progress of certain types of medical science.
-
Religious belief is about fear, indoctrination, and need...
That's what it is perverted to by ideologists. Religion, or better, spirituality is quite the opposite.
-
Not as an all encompassing basic philosophical principle...in the Bible and in Christianity in general you have to cherry pick to get any 'truth' whereas in Buddhism it is inherent in the foundational principles of the stream of thought itself.
I agree.
-
The belief in god and the practice of religion are for those to weak to live in this world without the possibility of an afterlife. It gives people a since of false hope. Religion and gods were developed to explain what we could not. Science has explained much of it away but the “faithful” remain steadfast.
Ignorance is bliss I guess!!
I.F.
-
I agree.
Wow...amazing. ;D
-
Wow...amazing. ;D
My finger was alread on the B for 'but', but I thought, let the Godkiller have a cookie. ;D
-
I believe that creationism and evolution work together.
They are not mutually exclusive.
To believe totally in either to me is strange
-
You are wrong. People who murder in the name of "god" and "jesus" are far more dangerous than an atheist trying to talk sense. Most atheists aren't even public like christians, muslims or whatever, so I don't know how you go comparing atheists to idiots who knock on your door and ask for contributions. ::)
they are fanatics. they don't represent the religion properly or even humanity properly.
I remember reading a paper on atheism and what type of society it creates. It isn't great. Shit, I can't remember. It wasn't from a religious source either.
-
they are fanatics. they don't represent the religion properly or even humanity properly.
I remember reading a paper on atheism and what type of society it creates. It isn't great. Shit, I can't remember. It wasn't from a religious source either.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism? :D
-
they are fanatics. they don't represent the religion properly or even humanity properly.
I remember reading a paper on atheism and what type of society it creates. It isn't great. Shit, I can't remember. It wasn't from a religious source either.
All atheists regimes so far have been socialist. The honest truth is that most atheists are freedom loving people really have libertarian views on lots of things. Most are not agressive as TA, and could honestly care less about what others follow.
-
All atheists regimes so far have been socialist. The honest truth is that most atheists are freedom loving people really have libertarian views on lots of things. Most are not agressive as TA, and could honestly care less about what others follow.
There NEVER has been true Socialism. The closest, and they are miles upon miles off, are the atheist nations right now of Sweden,Norway, Denmark and Luxembourg. Right now, they lead the world in just about every important area.
-
True Socialism would be the best possible outcome for humanity.
-
True Socialism would be the best possible outcome for humanity.
I agree.
-
True Socialism would be the best possible outcome for humanity.
During our ego exist. Its impossible.
For that, we have to go back to prehistorical mode.
-
I agree.
Hehe.
-
adonis do you realize the makeup of our universe is finely balanced for us to exist? thus there is a divine creator?
-
"God does not play dice." - Einstein on quantum theory.
You'll have more luck with a "the vast majority of..." approach.
Einstein was confronted with this and wrote that he does not believe in a personal "god". He was talking about the laws of nature.
CD
-
Its interesting that many of you guys dont know where that word of Einstein coming from. ;D ;D
-
adonis do you realize the makeup of our universe is finely balanced for us to exist? thus there is a divine creator?
Shut the fuck up you paint sniffing waste of human matter... ::)
-
Shut the fuck up you paint sniffing waste of human matter... ::)
LOL :D
-
Shut the fuck up you paint sniffing waste of human matter... ::)
Ouch! That is gonna leave a mark! :o
-
Add Jimmy Carter to that list!
I consider him pretty intelligent!
This statement proves you're an idiot. Unless you're joking of course.
-
I'm actually surprised nobody has posted this yet. A film I think all of you and the entire world for that matter should really watch.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Part 1 is pretty intriguing as he breaks down the Zodiac.
-
I'm actually surprised nobody has posted this yet. A film I think all of you and the entire world for that matter should really watch.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Part 1 is pretty intriguing as he breaks down the Zodiac.
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/EoR_DVD_Jacket.jpg)
-
In college he was also an atheist. :)
He held nothing but an administration position for the Genome Project. FACT.
P.S. I have that issue of Discover Magazine. :)
HEHEHEH!! If he was an atheist in college, so what? Don't tell me that you are implying here that he came about his discovery merely because he was an atheist. If so, that is pretty naive. But, I digress. If he didn't believe in God at one time and now he is a believer, then that only means one thing. He saw he light. He was INTELLIGENT enough to see the error of his ways. It completely destroys your litter theory.
Merely administrative? He LED the project. Who gets the credit for a company's success? The CEO or the person on the conveyor belt? You act as if he was some sort of overglorified administrative assistant. There was no one higher than him on that project. Are you implying that anyone could have led that $3.7 billion project? Have you discovered any genes? How many genome projects are you feverishly working on?
If you have that issue of Discover magazine, try to read the articles. Go beyond the glossy little pictures.
Again. Don't deflect the question. Are you more intelligent than Mr. Collins? If so, make your case.
-
Einstein was confronted with this and wrote that he does not believe in a personal "god". He was talking about the laws of nature.
CD
I gave my interpretation of his beliefs a few pages back, right or wrong. I agree Einy didn't believe in a Giant Jew in the sky.
Its interesting that many of you guys dont know where that word of Einstein coming from. ;D ;D
I thought it was his response to the predicted uncertainty of an electron's position and the probabilities of quantum theory in general. Not so? I don't know much about it so I welcome a correction if I'm wrong.
If we're going to look for a relationship between religious belief and intelligence (ugh, again with the intelligence thread), it strikes me that those who struggle with the question of God, his existence and his nature, are generally more intelligent than those who hold a fervent belief one way or another and reject any intellectual exploration of the topic.
(http://reporter.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/allenhead.jpg)
-
This statement proves you're an idiot. Unless you're joking of course.
No really. I like Jimmy Carter a whole lot actually.
-
STUPID PEOPLE AER INCAPABLE OF RECOGNIZING INTELLIGENCE...
or typing correctly obviously
-
Discuss.
Bob Dylan isn't intelligent?
Bono?
-
Anyone see Ben Stein's movie "Expelled?"
-
I'm listening. What scientific evidence are you talking about? I'm not that strong in the area. I know that something created the universe. I don't know what it was. But I know that no man has that ability. Therefore something more powerful - and with significantly greater creation abilities - than man exists. The Creator.
I don't know if it's something with a conscious, or something else.
....and does the creator also look towards his heaven and ponder "something more powerful - and with significantly greater creation abilities - than man me exist. The My Creator."
-
Don`t think of the universe in Anthropocentric terms. Humans are meaningless to the planet and are but a blink of a fraction of a second in the history of earth.
I agree. Can't wait till we are all gone so the planet can once again restore itself to greatness.
-
I agree. Can't wait till we are all gone so the planet can once again restore itself to greatness.
Word...
-
bill mahr.....
-
I can.
First you have to know enough and surround yourself with enough intelligent people in order to meet those among them who are religious.
Richard Dawkins knows plenty of intelligent people.
As examples of "good scientists who are sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
Here are more:
Among the fathers of the so-called modern synthesis, Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian and something of an amateur theologian; Sir Ronald Fisher was a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines.
- H. Allen Orr, "Gould on God", Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html
And that's just to name a few.
-
I can.
First you have to know enough and surround yourself with enough intelligent people in order to meet those among them who are religious.
Richard Dawkins knows plenty of intelligent people.
As examples of "good scientists who are sincerely religious", Dawkins names Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion, 99. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
Here are more:
Among the fathers of the so-called modern synthesis, Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian and something of an amateur theologian; Sir Ronald Fisher was a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines.
- H. Allen Orr, "Gould on God", Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.5/orr.html
And that's just to name a few.
And none of these people believes that the world is 6,000 years old Loco...
-
And none of these people believes that the world is 6,000 years old Loco...
Yes...and? What does that have to do with the title of this thread? They are all devout Christians, "sincerely religious", and they are all very intelligent people.
-
Yes...and? What does that have to do with the title of this thread? They are all devout Christians, "sincerely religious", and they are all very intelligent people.
Exactly, not like MCWAY and company...none of these men is a creationist...
-
Don`t think of the universe in Anthropocentric terms. Humans are meaningless to the planet and are but a blink of a fraction of a second in the history of earth.
I agree. Can't wait till we are all gone so the planet can once again restore itself to greatness.
Word...
This nonsense is just as ridiculous as believing in a God and miracles.
What is meaningful to the planet? Nothing is, everything is made of atoms, uncaring, unconscious - particles.
If we existed in 50%+ of the Earth's history HOW exactly would that change things?
If you can't wait, why are you still alive? ???
If you subscribe to that way of thinking, wouldn't be advantageous for you to commit suicide?
-
This nonsense is just as ridiculous as believing in a God and miracles.
What is meaningful to the planet? Nothing is, everything is made of atoms, uncaring, unconscious - particles.
If we existed in 50%+ of the Earth's history HOW exactly would that change things?
If you can't wait, why are you still alive? ???
If you subscribe to that way of thinking, wouldn't be advantageous for you to commit suicide?
I would be missing out on a fantastic lunch if I ended it all early.
-
Without mankind, there is no world. When mankind dies, the world dies with it.
-
Without mankind, there is no world. When mankind dies, the world dies with it.
Basically, I agree with this from a Atheist viewpoint. Anyone who wishes for the end of mankind so Earth can go back to "glory" is lost.
Animals do not appreciate the Earth in the same way we do either, so that's a null point.
-
Basically, I agree with this from a Atheist viewpoint. Anyone who wishes for the end of mankind so Earth can go back to "glory" is lost.
Animals do not appreciate the Earth in the same way we do either, so that's a null point.
I'm not saying that without human consciousness there would be nothing. However, what there is, is completely outside the human realm. You're right that this can be a valid Atheist view-point. However, it is not a valid scientific-positivistic view point. Point being, you are not a scientific positivist. :)
-
I'm not saying that without human consciousness there would be nothing. However, what there is, is completely outside the human realm. You're right that this can be a valid Atheist view-point. However, it is not a valid scientific-positivistic view point. Point being, you are not a scientific positivist. :)
I'm selfish, if humans (my creed) aren't here to enjoy the Earth and the universe I'd rather it not exist.
-
I'm not saying that without human consciousness there would be nothing. However, what there is, is completely outside the human realm. You're right that this can be a valid Atheist view-point. However, it is not a valid scientific-positivistic view point. Point being, you are not a scientific positivist. :)
Yes he is.
-
Yes he is.
Of course! ;D
-
Exactly, not like MCWAY and company...none of these men is a creationist...
Maybe not. But Drs. Duane Gish, Kurt Wise, Andrew Snelling, and the late Dr. D. James Kennedy ARE creationists ("young earth Creationists"), with Dr. Kennedy listed among the "2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century".
-
And none of these people believes that the world is 6,000 years old Loco...
none of these men is a creationist...
There are Old Earth creationists too.
-
I'm selfish, if humans (my creed) aren't here to enjoy the Earth and the universe I'd rather it not exist.
Haha, all wishful thinking! Sounds familiar? ;)
-
Maybe not. But Drs. Duane Gish, Kurt Wise, Andrew Snelling, and the late Dr. D. James Kennedy ARE creationists ("young earth Creationists"), with Dr. Kennedy listed among the "2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century".
You have got to be kidding me.
Kennedy, with his luxurious flowing robes and giant devil ears, was an inside-the-box run-of-the-mill rightwing preacher. I've watched him preach many times. Arnold Murray's scholarly approach to biblical interpretation puts Kennedy's pompous preachings to shame.
Who drafted this list of outstanding intellectuals list? Was it Kennedy himself? Was Kent Hovind on the list?
-
You have got to be kidding me.
Kennedy, with his luxurious flowing robes and giant devil ears, was an inside-the-box run-of-the-mill rightwing preacher. I've watched him preach many times. Arnold Murray's scholarly approach to biblical interpretation puts Kennedy's pompous preachings to shame.
Who drafted this list of outstanding intellectuals list? Was it Kennedy himself? Was Kent Hovind on the list?
Nope!
Kennedy's accolades also include:
- 1000 Leaders of World Influence by the American Biographical Institute,
- International Man of the Year (1999-2000), International Biographical Center, Cambridge England
-
Nope!
Kennedy's accolades also include:
- 1000 Leaders of World Influence by the American Biographical Institute,
- International Man of the Year (1999-2000), International Biographical Center, Cambridge England
Good Job McWay. if I have to count the amount of times that an evolutionist replies in this manner..."you've got to be kidding" or "oh brother" it would be one crazy number ;D
-
Nope!
Kennedy's accolades also include:
- 1000 Leaders of World Influence by the American Biographical Institute,
- International Man of the Year (1999-2000), International Biographical Center, Cambridge England
;D You're joking right? Those are fake scammer organizations, like the writing/poetry equivalents, where you submit your name, which is then carefully considered from amongst a gezillion other worthy people, (and of course every one of the gezillion is selected for the honor) at no charge, except you have to cough over $500 to pay for the inclusion of your name in the finely bound, beautiful volume to commemorate your achievement.
-
;D You're joking right? Those are fake scammer organizations, like the writing/poetry equivalents, where you submit your name, which is then carefully considered from amongst a gezillion other worthy people, (and of course every one of the gezillion is selected for the honor) at no charge, except you have to cough over $500 to pay for the inclusion of your name in the finely bound, beautiful volume to commemorate your achievement.
It's like the Hollywood walk of fame. I better watch what I say, Kennedy might have a star there as well.
The history of genius: Da Vinci, Goethe, Einstein, Hawking and D. James Kennedy!
-
Discuss.
You sir, are an idiot and severely mislead and in my words a buffoon! Even the lost individuals of GB have rebuked you! POOF, POOF begone with your non-sense FOOL!
Just another pimple faced idiot looking for attention; Mods delete this thread with tyrannical urgency!
-
You sir, are an idiot and severely mislead and in my words a buffoon! Even the lost individuals of GB have rebuked you! POOF, POOF begone with your non-sense FOOL!
Just another pimple faced idiot looking for attention; Mods delete this thread with tyrannical urgency!
Well said HM ;D
-
I agree that religion without science is nothing. If what we believe is true, then science should back it up. The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of decay, basically proves that there has to be an infinite cause to the universe. This law basically states that everything decays or goes from a state of order to an increasing state of chaos. We can see this in everything around us including the earth. Everything we know is finite. If a finite cause is responsible for everything around us, then what caused it? We can continue in this circular reasoning but at some point there had to be a cause that was outside space and time. I believe that cause is God, but thats just this non-intelligent Christian's opinion!
-
I agree that religion without science is nothing. If what we believe is true, then science should back it up. The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of decay, basically proves that there has to be an infinite cause to the universe. This law basically states that everything decays or goes from a state of order to an increasing state of chaos. We can see this in everything around us including the earth. Everything we know is finite. If a finite cause is responsible for everything around us, then what caused it? We can go in the circular reasoning on and on and on, but at some point there had to be a cause that was outside space and time. I believe that cause is God, but thats just this non-intellegent Christian's opinion!
Epic self-owning...
Here is the cause...
Kneel before the Lord of Lightning...
-
I agree that religion without science is nothing. If what we believe is true, then science should back it up. The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of decay, basically proves that there has to be an infinite cause to the universe. This law basically states that everything decays or goes from a state of order to an increasing state of chaos. We can see this in everything around us including the earth. Everything we know is finite. If a finite cause is responsible for everything around us, then what caused it? We can go in the circular reasoning on and on and on, but at some point there had to be a cause that was outside space and time. I believe that cause is God, but thats just this non-intellegent Christian's opinion!
How does it prove an "infinite cause" and please explain what you mean by "infinite cause".
I see hypocrisy here... You use the theories of physical science for one assertion, but then seem to ignore the fact that God would need infinite energy to exist, create the universe, be omnipresent, omnipotent etc. These aspects of God means the break down of what we know of physical science, he can time travel, keeps tabs on every atom in the universe etc.
Here's some circular reasoning for you: who created an infinite God, and who created that infinite God (iterate for infinity).
-
That's what I was talking about, a cause not bound by time. If the universe has a finite cause, then we at some point have to deny and/or contradict this 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is some absolute truth out there and no one has all the answers. If someone did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Any theory in this realm requires some sort of faith (the gap between what we know and the absolute truth). I believe it takes a lot more 'faith' to believe that all of this randomly happened than to believe there could be an intelligent cause not bound by space and time. What do you think caused all of this?
-
That's what I was talking about, a cause not bound by time. If the universe has a finite cause, then we at some point have to deny and/or contradict this 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is some absolute truth out there and no one has all the answers. If someone did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Any theory in this realm requires some sort of faith (the gap between what we know and the absolute truth). I believe it takes a lot more 'faith' to believe that all of this randomly happened than to believe there could be an intelligent cause not bound by space and time. What do you think caused all of this?
Well I disagree with some of your points. Believing in a God is the easy way out to all the questions of life, science and much of philosophy - ignorance is bliss. I want to know exactly what is going on (to the best of my ability of course, I'm not a world renowned intellect after all) and why.
I actually believe in the attractive theory of absolute Darwinism. The actual (and abundant) theories for a instance point are all somewhat feasible (the mainstream ones atleast) but universe creation through Darwinism natural selection is what I think is likely - I must admit I believe this because it grabs my imagination and I'm an epic fan of C. Darwin.
Basically the process is that natural selection occurs for universes. A universe is created with a set of constants, depending on these constants controls the fundamental behaviour and life expectancy of said universe.
This theory assumes the universe implodes and explodes with new constants created at the instance point, these constants being passed on to "child" universes (with slight modifications [unconscious] due to the inert randomness of matter dispersing across the vast void of space) which are created when the parent universe implodes on itself.
For example, a universe with highly radically constants will implode in nano seconds, but the next universe that is formed from the radical universe's implosion might create more stable constants, and so on an so forth, maybe until the universe gets constants that create relative stability (i.e. this generation of the universe) which are suitable for life.
-
"God does not play dice." - Einstein on quantum theory.
You're taking that quote out of context. einstein was anything but a religious man.
-
Thats all well and good, but what was the original parent universe? This is the flaw with that logic. This all had to start somewhere. As far as survival of the fittest, I definitely believe in micro-evolution. We see this all around us. Species adapt, but I dont believe that species change into other species. For example, why are apes still around if we are the product of their evolution?
-
Thats all well and good, but what was the original parent universe? This is the flaw with that logic. This all had to start somewhere. As far as survival of the fittest, I definitely believe in micro-evolution. We see this all around us. Species adapt, but I dont believe that species change into other species. For example, why are apes still around if we are the product of their evolution?
You're saying my assertion can't be true even though the same argument can be made for your assertion. Who made God? Who made that entity?
You have a major flaw in your interpretation of evolution through Darwinian natural selection. We are not the result of the evolution of Chimpanzees, Bonobos or Gorillas, they are not our genetic ancestors! They are however our cousins, we share a very recent (20 million years ago or less) ancestor.
So the process of evolution doesn't create speciation? What about fossil evidence, these organisms which lived millions of years ago, how and why did they get created? Who created them? Why was they destroyed?
Genetic evidence alone is enough to prove the process of evolution creates speciation.
-
Thats all well and good, but what was the original parent universe? This is the flaw with that logic. This all had to start somewhere. As far as survival of the fittest, I definitely believe in micro-evolution. We see this all around us. Species adapt, but I dont believe that species change into other species. For example, why are apes still around if we are the product of their evolution?
Your wasting your time because thier answere to this is Macro= lots of micro, but me you both know that micro +micro one million times does not mean even one macro, and they can'y give even one observable example of a macro-E ever accusring, go figure. ::)
-
You're saying my assertion can't be true even though the same argument can be made for your assertion. Who made God? Who made that entity?
You have a major flaw in your interpretation of evolution through Darwinian natural selection. We are not the result of the evolution of Chimpanzees, Bonobos or Gorillas, they are not our genetic ancestors! They are however our cousins, we share a very recent (20 million years ago or less) ancestor.
So the process of evolution doesn't create speciation? What about fossil evidence, these organisms which lived millions of years ago, how and why did they get created? Who created them? Why was they destroyed?
Genetic evidence alone is enough to prove the process of evolution creates speciation.
This is easy to answere. They did not live millions of years ago, they live pre-flood world where our earths atmosphere had stronger oxygen present. God created them. They were destroyed in the flood and discontinued at the flood, this includes dinosaurs. Any more question you want answered?
-
This is easy to answere. They did not live millions of years ago, they live pre-flood world where our earths atmosphere had stronger oxygen present. God created them. They were destroyed in the flood and discontinued at the flood, this includes dinosaurs. Any more question you want answered?
::)
-
This is easy to answere. They did not live millions of years ago, they live pre-flood world where our earths atmosphere had stronger oxygen present. God created them. They were destroyed in the flood and discontinued at the flood, this includes dinosaurs. Any more question you want answered?
The great flood in which Noah built the ark? So you're saying dinosaurs and humans coexisted?
-
The great flood in which Noah built the ark? So you're saying dinosaurs and humans coexisted?
Why not?
-
Why not?
Because that's simply not true.
Dinosaur fossils are found in rocks which accurate carbon and other atomic dating methods prove existed >= 65 million years ago.
Noah's ark according to biblical records was less than 6000 years ago.
-
As I've said before, God put those fossils there in order to fool you into believeing in evolution so that he could send you to hell even though he loves you. Why is this so hard to understand?
-
As I've said before, God put those fossils there in order to fool you into believeing in evolution so that he could send you to hell even though he loves you. Why is this so hard to understand?
Oh, never thought about it like that, I think you're right.
-
Oh, never thought about it like that, I think you're right.
Hahaha...
-
I'm saying there is an intelligent being outside of space and time that I believe to be God. You are saying that there was a planet outside of space and time that started correcting itself by trial and error. We are just putting our 'faith' in two different things. I just think your stance takes alot more 'faith' than mine.
-
As I've said before, God put those fossils there in order to fool you into believeing in evolution so that he could send you to hell even though he loves you. Why is this so hard to understand?
No one is saying this.Because that's simply not true.
Dinosaur fossils are found in rocks which accurate carbon and other atomic dating methods prove existed >= 65 million years ago.
Noah's ark according to biblical records was less than 6000 years ago.
Its not true because some science tags a date on it in the millions, carbon dating? sorry bro they don't use thois method on dinosaurs, they only use geolical column made by man, and everyone knows that dating methods aren't accurate. Bottom line is we lived with dinosaurs and the only reason you find this silly is because you have been taght differently since kindergarden.
-
I'm saying there is an intelligent being outside of space and time that I believe to be God. You are saying that there was a planet outside of space and time that started correcting itself by trial and error. We are just putting our 'faith' in two different things. I just think your stance takes alot more 'faith' than mine.
How about: no one knows...which would be the most accurate statement of all.
-
I believe in extraterrestrial life...
-
I believe in extraterrestrial life...
Because you are extraterrestrial life...
-
No one is saying this.Its not true because some science tags a date on it in the millions, carbon dating? sorry bro they don't use thois method on dinosaurs, they only use geolical column made by man, and everyone knows that dating methods aren't accurate. Bottom line is we lived with dinosaurs and the only reason you find this silly is because you have been taght differently since kindergarden.
Dinosaurs NEVER lived in any era even CLOSE to human beings. I find people thinking otherwise disturbing.
The dating methods are accurate, they don't provide resolution down to days, weeks etc but give an amazing accuracy in a range up to 60K years.
Carbon isotopes are the best methods for date ranges scientists most frequently use (< 60K years). The isotopes of other elements are better suited for different age ranges.
Here's some literature:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Info about other isotopes and their applications:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_isotope#Applications_in_geology_listed_by_isotope
-
I find people like you disturbing, people who are so gullable that they here numbers in the millions and believe, millions, use your head.
-
I find people like you disturbing, people who are so gullable that they here numbers in the millions and believe, millions, use your head.
Seriously, are you a gimmick? ??? :o
Gullibility to me is subscribing the the religions of Abrahamic ancestry written 200 years ago with no evidence of divinity past the assertions of men.
-
Seriously, are you a gimmick? ??? :o
Gullibility to me is subscribing the the religions of Abrahamic ancestry written 200 years ago with no evidence of divinity past the assertions of men.
200 years ago, thats why the dead sea scrolls are nearly 2000 years old. You atheist are all alike you say stuff like "oh brother" are you a gimmick? If you do your research the majoritry of planet believes in a creator of some sort, we all must be gimmicks and you have all have the answere, stupid ones that aren't observable because they happen in fairy tale land a quadrillion years ago
-
200 years ago, thats why the dead sea scrolls are nearly 2000 years old. You atheist are all alike you say stuff like "oh brother" are you a gimmick? If you do your research the majoritry of planet believes in a creator of some sort, we all must be gimmicks and you have all have the answere, stupid ones that aren't observable because they happen in fairy tale land a quadrillion years ago
Sorry, I did mean 2000 years.
Science has proved things that the majority of people believed true 100 years ago, to be false. The number of people believing in a lie doesn't make the lie truth, it does give the lie massive inertia tho.
Fairy tale land... oh the irony!
-
200 years ago, thats why the dead sea scrolls are nearly 2000 years old. You atheist are all alike you say stuff like "oh brother" are you a gimmick? If you do your research the majoritry of planet believes in a creator of some sort, we all must be gimmicks and you have all have the answere, stupid ones that aren't observable because they happen in fairy tale land a quadrillion years ago
dead sea scrolls were writin by man the same as the bible..just ancient people trying to put reason behind there existence.
-
I would like to see the Wienerschnitzel weigh in here a bit.
-
I would like to see the Wienerschnitzel weigh in here a bit.
lol
-
lol
Der Herr Wienerschnitzel ist von dem Herrn DonkeyKong zu unterscheiden...der Herr DonkeyKong zieht Bananen vor.
-
Der Herr Wienerschnitzel ist von dem Herrn DonkeyKong zu unterscheiden...der Herr DonkeyKong zieht Bananen vor.
Ja, ist mir schon aufgefallen.
Ich würde eher in die Kategorie "Sauerkraut" gehören.
-
Ja, ist mir schon aufgefallen.
Ich würde eher in die Kategorie "Sauerkraut" gehören.
Sauerkraut ist geil, bis aufs Furzen...
-
I would like to see the Wienerschnitzel weigh in here a bit.
Hehe. ;D
Is it about Dinosaurs living together with humans?
That's poopoo.
Thread closed. ;D
-
Ja, ist mir schon aufgefallen.
Ich würde eher in die Kategorie "Sauerkraut" gehören.
Haha, Sauerkraut mit G'selchtem und Semmelknödel, die Amis wissen ja nicht, was ihnen entgeht! ;D
-
Haha, Sauerkraut mit G'selchtem und Semmelknödel, die Amis wissen ja nicht, was ihnen entgeht! ;D
:-X :-X :-X
Ich hasse Sauerkraut.
Wiener Schnitzel ist mir lieber. ;D
-
:-X :-X :-X
Ich hasse Sauerkraut.
Depends on how you prepare it. You gotta mix sweet and sour kraut and add browned bacon bits and onion. And it still has to have a certain crispness.
Are we off topic? I think not. We're obviously very intelligent religious individuals. ;D
-
Depends on how you prepare it. You gotta mix sweet and sour kraut and add browned bacon bits and onion. And it still has to have a certain crispness.
Are we off topic? I think not. We're obviously very intelligent religious individuals. ;D
I kon ka joint wutzle...
-
I kon ka joint wutzle...
Hahaha, was that an attempt at Viennese?
Because it sounds Swabian!
Richtig wäre: I kon kan Joint wutzln.
Oder noch besser: I kon kan Ofen baun.
;D
-
Discuss.
That's because you've spent most of your life glued to a computer. Get out every once in while. There are all sorts of intelligent & facinating peope out there. And, wrong as they may be, many are religious...
-
Anthony Rizzi seems like a pretty smart guy...
http://www.iapweb.org/director.htm
-
stupid is defining intelligence based on what ones theory of life on earth is.
stupid is thinking that eventhough you don't have enough evidence to prove that
science is behind everything that you still have enough to disprove intelligent design.
stupid is not realizing that, when it comes down to it, science believers believe just as much in the unproven than religious people do.
stupid is thinking you can prove something by trying to prove it wrong first.
stupid is hopping on the anti-religion bandwagon and being just as much a sheep as religous people.
-
stupid is defining intelligence based on what ones theory of life on earth is.
stupid is thinking that eventhough you don't have enough evidence to prove that
science is behind everything that you still have enough to disprove intelligent design.
stupid is not realizing that, when it comes down to it, science believers believe just as much in the unproven than religious people do.
stupid is thinking you can prove something by trying to prove it wrong first.
stupid is hopping on the anti-religion bandwagon and being just as much a sheep as religous people.
quoted for stupidity
-
stupid is defining intelligence based on what ones theory of life on earth is.
stupid is thinking that eventhough you don't have enough evidence to prove that
science is behind everything that you still have enough to disprove intelligent design.
stupid is not realizing that, when it comes down to it, science believers believe just as much in the unproven than religious people do.
stupid is thinking you can prove something by trying to prove it wrong first.
stupid is hopping on the anti-religion bandwagon and being just as much a sheep as religous people.
most stupid post on getbig so far.
-
most stupid post on getbig so far.
Why do you think so?
It lacks precision IMO, but by far not the most stupid post on getbig.
-
Why do you think so?
It lacks precision IMO, but by far not the most stupid post on getbig.
you are taking this too serious, i was just making a half assed comment. I didn't even read that post.
;D ;D
-
you are taking this too serious, i was just making a half assed comment. I didn't even read that post.
;D ;D
Epic back paddling because of certainty of being owned. ;D
-
Epic back paddling because of certainty of being owned. ;D
lol, i was dead serious.
;D ;D
-
lol, i was dead serious.
;D ;D
Monster trying to turn around a lost battle. ;D ;D ;D
-
Monster trying to turn around a lost battle. ;D ;D ;D
i will go down with waving flags.
;D ;D