At 11/17/09 04:52 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Douchebag

Now I know the true face of Atheism. It is defiant, rude, immature, and childish.

At 11/14/09 11:27 AM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 11/13/09 10:09 PM, PabMo wrote:

Don't bother with Phone, he is the biggest retard/troll/thing, in the club! He say's nothing of value, never backs up his arguement, never wins an arguement, never contradicts an arguement, and never supports any of his claims with anything that can be transcribed as 'evidence'. Ultimatly he is one of them brainwashed folks, and his purpose in an Atheist club is fuitile.

Also he looks like a douche. LOL

No need to rage. Calm down and think of more constructive things to say other than "douche."

At 11/13/09 08:04 AM, PabMo wrote:

At 11/8/09 05:21 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: but still respect the moral values of the bible? Is that right?

This is where Secular Humanism came from. We don't need the bible to have morals or a sense of reason. Those are innate and instinctual.

Who are you to say that we don't need it? You're no better than a fascist if you're trying to tell people how to live their lives.

So even if I want to start a meaningful discussion, then I won't be allowed to because of rumors of what I did in the past? Have you not the slightest idea of repentance? God loves me, and if I do wrong then I repent.

holy shit itz a troll hurr what a fag ima call a mod

This thread went downhill way before I stepped in.

At 11/9/09 06:47 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: TL;DR

That was the most incomprehensible picture I've ever seen. Learn to draw you godless swine.

At 11/9/09 05:12 PM, Master117chief wrote: ph0ne, who's ph0ne?

Very subtle.

To everyone in this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IdL37PJ 2k&feature=related

At 11/7/09 12:55 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 11/6/09 11:59 PM, ph0ne wrote: As I said earlier, I already won.
You have no argumentative grounds left.

WHAT did you defeat us in, exactly?

Everything.

As I said earlier, I already won.
You have no argumentative grounds left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKT8IPdv zA

Very insightful video; it made me think.

At 11/5/09 05:37 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: [weak point]

Nice, you can create a website that spreads lies.
There is no evidence that something can come from nothing.

I already won.
GG.

At 11/5/09 04:14 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: [Weak claims.]

I
I already won. You have no argumentative grounds left. Don't bother writing me a novel of a counterpoint because I already completely buried you.

GG.

At 11/4/09 04:13 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: And your an idiot who doesn't look at evidence.

Nice grammar, you godless swine.

Religious arguements don't stand a chance anymore. Creationism, still stands a chance, and suggests that there was an original superbeing which presented energy, but that energy won't drive itself.

As stated before, I do not support Creationism. Read more carefully throughout my posts.

There can not be a God. There can be an architect of the universe (only in the idea of the Matrix), but I believe that there can never, ever, be a supernatural God. I usually base my arguements on the science of energy transference, and idea's on time, and law.

I don't care what you say about God, because I believe in him. It's my way of life. It works for me. I am happy because of this. You're nothing more than a filthy troll if you seek to ruin this perfect balance that my life is structured upon. In scientific terms, whether God exists or not is not a testable hypothesis.

The creator can never exist in our very same existence. It's not possible, he would have to exist in another timeline altogether. I'm still trying to understand all this theory on it so bare with me if it's not always 50-100% accurate, but I will always cite my sources on anything I don't fully understand.

God can't exist because, if a creator were in our existence, he/she or it (lets make it a 'he') would have to create energy. Which means that that this energy would have to suddenly move along a still timeline.

Still going on babbling nonsense. I feel bad for you.

This suggests at one point, our universe was static. Something has to act as an engine to drive this static energy, and the creator can't do this because he would be in a standstill along with the rest of static existence. Like a way a battery conserves energy and uses current to drive the energy around the circuit. Something needs to act as the engine for time which dictates that energy can make matter move around the cosmos.

God acts as the engine for time. Can you disprove this? No. I just proved myself right. Nice job.

Logically the universe needs an engine that has been moving, and has therefore always been moving, and will never stop moving. Infinity is based upon this forever moving, and that the timeline of the past stretches on to infinity. Our present needs to have arisen from an infinite past, which leads to an infinite future; thus there never was a 'creation', so it is false to envision God as the creator of the universe.

Didn't I already make it evident that I am not a supporter of Creationism? The density of Atheists like you is what astounds me.

I will finish by quoting this from the video's description:

Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

GG. I win.

At 11/4/09 05:59 PM, vgfa287 wrote: on a serious note ph0ne Evolution is the genetic frequency in a population over successive generations. it has nothing to do with the origin of life that my ignorant friend is abiogenesis. you keep saying that evolution goes against the fact that living things cannot come from non living things and yet you post creationist videos, creationists who believe that God created Adam form dirt.

Never have I ever stated directly or indirectly that I support Creationism, despite the fact that it may have been interpreted that way. The law which states that living matter cannot come from nonliving matter has not been disproven. Accepting Evolution as a Law, or even a Theory would be the equivalent of abandoning the scientific process.

At 11/4/09 06:05 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: In all truth, Science does not attempt to disprove Religion. Science only aims to find the answers...

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe very well in science as demonstrated, but I do not believe that Evolution has really demonstrated any acknowledgement for science in that respect.

At 10/29/09 07:19 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: It had to originate somewhere. Non-living things "advance" through human hands or due to nature. Life evolves on it's own in order to survive.

From where did it originate?

At 11/2/09 08:13 PM, Archon68 wrote: They're like, "NO EVOLUTION. PERIOD." Then they go on about "Natural Selection" and "Adaptations".

Christians are so silly.

I'm not a Christian, but I must explain again that I have found myself challenging Evolution, for reasons explained previously.
Let me guess, you're just a little 14 year old boy that can't commit himself to any faith because he's confused about his life and wants to "rebel" against society. Fair enough. This is something I see everyday.

I must express my feelings through these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3RZUdx3L dY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPL1G__N1 l0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOgig1e4K oU

Despite the evidence in favor of Evolution it has not disproven the Law that living matter cannot come from living matter.

You lose.

At 10/29/09 07:19 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: It had to originate somewhere. Non-living things "advance" through human hands or due to nature. Life evolves on it's own in order to survive.

It doesn't, and you can't prove me wrong.

At 10/21/09 07:21 PM, Nev wrote: Everything that has evolved has evolved from a living matter.

Where is your evidence?

Did this thread die all of a sudden?

At 10/22/09 06:38 AM, Earfetish wrote: Newton's Laws were about motion, dipstick

everyone ignore him from now on

Look at you, calling me a "dipstick" because you can't handle my argument, and you're attempting to CENSOR me because of this. Yeah, atheists are good people.

I'll be working with Hopeku.

Yes, we're making psytrance in FL Studio 8.

I came in here and made legitimate arguments, which you trashed and insulted, because you're just mad that you couldn't prove me wrong. Evolution conflicts Newton's law that living matter cannot come from non-living matter, and that law hasn't been proven wrong. How could that be misinterpreted?

You're only strengthening my beliefs that atheists are just angry people living in their own little world.

At 10/21/09 06:20 PM, vgfa287 wrote: This has fuck all to do with evolution, which can be defined as the change in the allele frequency in a population over successive generations, but I will say a few things.
Issac Newton studied physics not biology in fact he died before Charles Darwin published his "On the Origin of Spices" .

It has? can you show evidence to support this statement, you do know that you don't have to be an atheist to support the theory of evolution right?

did you even bother reading the comments posted on the website you got the above paragraph from?

Here's a better idea: Read my post again.
It's obvious you're just one of those ignorant wannabe hipster liberal kiddies who wants to rebel against society.

Triple post, don't kill me.

I also wanted to add that the bigotry and prejudice in this thread is off the charts.

Sorry for the double post, but I recently found myself questioning Evolution.

In order for something to go past being a thesis it must first disprove, through experimentation, the laws already in place. That is the scientific process. So far, the "theory of evolution" conflicts with newton's law which states that "living matter cannot come from nonliving matter," and so far that law has not been disproven, so Evolution should have never progressed past a thesis.

The fact that the whole scientific process has been thrown out when it comes to Evolution is completely bizzare to me, since most people I talk to, who believe in Evolution, claim to be "super atheist scientific rebel intellectual."

"So, I woke up the other morning with the thought that living things don't come from non-living things. This has been standard science since Louis Pasteur convinced us back in the 19th century. I believe this. Spontaneous generation is not science. Living things coming from non-living things has never been observed and has never been reproduced in any of the great laboratories of the world. And believe me there are plenty of scientists working on it. However, the atheist and the evolutionist want me to believe that the source of life is non-living matter. But I say again, that belief is not scientific. Science is observable. Science is reproducible. A living thing coming forth from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced. And somehow some of the same people who believe that living things came from non-living matter think I am delusional for believing in God. The thing about blind spots is that you don't see 'em."

from: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?
p=748

At 10/13/09 09:13 PM, michelinman wrote:

At 10/13/09 09:10 PM, ph0ne wrote: I made a serious post and it got deleted. I must express my disappointment for the mods.

Mmhm.

You're still mad at me for owning you.

I made a serious post and it got deleted. I must express my disappointment for the mods.

hi guys just stopping by