Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/26/07 04:29 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: congratulations Dr.Alberstein! you just discovered that when the bible said that jesus died, he in fact Died!

Come on, what is with you? The point is clearly demonstrated further down in the post, or did you just feel like being offensive today?

I dought that Islam said that, the relligion that never said Muhhammad had magical powers. And that Islam was a relligion that was so scared to make something a deity (like a magical horse), so they diddnt have Idols or pictures of people, I think your just spouting bull shit.

You know, checking it would be dead easy for you.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q =mohammed+flying+horse&btnG=Search

A) Islam never claimed muhammed had magic

I never said he had magic. I said he got a magic horse (as it is winged and can fly).

B) no one ever thought muhammed could fly because there were no images made depicting that.

HAHAHAHAH, you got to be fucking kidding me.

Picture one
Picture two
Picture three

Want more? Or are you going to accuse me of making these myself?

So, even if they are true, that doesn't make them scientific unless they are observed and documented using the scientific method.

you dont know what you are talking about.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying that simply pointing at the bible and saying "look, science!" doesn't make it science. What exactly is it that I don't know what I'm talking about?

I diddnt even know that there were horses in arabia at muhammeds time O.o

Read. Magic Horse. Google it. It was named Burak, and it was given to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.

You sir, have the honor of being the most ignorant person to reply to me thus far. I shall enjoy seeing your poor reply/lack or reply.

At 3/26/07 04:38 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Relligion doesnt need to prove that jesus existed, the Romans had him on file as a criminal, profe he exsisted.

I was more refering to Jesus existing as the son of God, not just that AN Jesus existed in the roman time. There was been plenty of people called Jesus over the years. Christianityu is about one spesific one, and simply saying that he exists in some roman record doesn't prove him to the be the son of God, that we are talking about.

As I see it, if you are looking for truth in something, religion is like a man telling you he knows it ALL and will TELL you and you have to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT, while science is a man telling you he doesn't know all, but he knows a way to find it out, which also includes YOU, so that YOU can be sure it IS the truth, and not being forced to take his word.

How about, water is made of 1 part oxygen, 2 parts hydrogen?

Science never says: "this is true, trust me". Religion does. That is my basis.

Except the Clotis first thoery, the DNA/RNA prion thoery, scientific racism... and many others.

Scientists documents what they find out, and can tell you what evidence they use and so on.

You could grow up and becomes a scientist yourself, and check these stuff out. That is a clear and easy way to check up on what they claim.

How are you to check up on when God choose to speak to ONE person? like the Pope? You can't become a priest and ask God to play off the tape with that conversation. You simply have to take the Popes word for it.

At 3/26/07 11:27 AM, Drakim wrote: I have a very different look on religion that you do, I think.

Probably.

As I see it, people look for truth. Religion doesn't claim that "this is a nice method to get the truth". It simply claims, "This religion IS truth."

I would have thought the opposite would be true. Math isn't really negotiable, whereas the correct religion is.

Science claims "this is the truth", whereas religion claims "This is OUR version of the truth"

I mean, if religion was a way to find truth, then it should be able to produce ANYTHING.

What "truth" are you looking for exactly?

As I see it, if you are looking for truth in something, religion is like a man telling you he knows it ALL and will TELL you and you have to TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT, while science is a man telling you he doesn't know all, but he knows a way to find it out, which also includes YOU, so that YOU can be sure it IS the truth, and not being forced to take his word.

Don't we take the word of scientists not to steer us wrong? We aren't all physicists, we rely on FAITH that what science has told us is TRUE. Sometimes those beliefs are exploited (German geneticists, Holocaust), and sometimes they are changed (Pluto's status).

In this way, science itself acts as a religion of the masses.

So what "Truth" are you looking for exactly, and why don't you feel religion contains the answer?

Christianityu is about one spesific one, and simply saying that he exists in some roman record doesn't prove him to the be the son of God, that we are talking about.

Yet the written record of those who actually knew the man is not evidence for you either.....we're kinda between a rock and a hardplace here, since Ancient evidence being what it is, is often incomplete and lacking......

Scientists documents what they find out, and can tell you what evidence they use and so on.

They also make mistakes.

You could grow up and becomes a scientist yourself, and check these stuff out. That is a clear and easy way to check up on what they claim.

Are you honestly insinuating everyone go through the 15 years of school to get Ph.D's in sciences simply to check up on them?

Sorry, I don't have the money. I'm just gonna rely on FAITH that what they're telling me isn't bollocks...... ;)

How are you to check up on when God choose to speak to ONE person?

God has spoken to many people, on several different occasions, throughout human existence. Constant reminders that he's there seem to be the way he does things......

You simply have to take the Popes word for it.

You also have to take the Physicist, Climatologist, Mathematician, and Chemist's word for it as well.....unless you plan on Doctoring in all these categories and finding out for yourself.........

At 3/27/07 07:24 PM, Imperator wrote: God has spoken to many people, on several different occasions, throughout human existence. Constant reminders that he's there seem to be the way he does things......

;
I've heard voices in my head on a couple of occasions.
1- on really good acid & 2- I had a high fever went into a coma & woke up in a hospital.
Ahh good times
Unlike others I don't run around trying to convince anyone that "God has spoken to me"
The way your post is worded, it looks like your entire religion could have had its start by a schizophrenic.
No wonder as I get older, they all (religions) seems more & more retarded.

If science is the answer then where did we come from, and if the big bang theory is your answer then why is it a theory and where did all those gases that cause the explosion come from?
Answer that you science wiz

At 3/27/07 07:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Unlike others I don't run around trying to convince anyone that "God has spoken to me"
The way your post is worded, it looks like your entire religion could have had its start by a schizophrenic.
No wonder as I get older, they all (religions) seems more & more retarded.

You just generalized my entire religion off of one post an anonymous user made on an internet forum. Now.....what seems more retarded to you?

At 3/27/07 07:56 PM, USMC-Ryan wrote: If science is the answer then where did we come from, and if the big bang theory is your answer then why is it a theory and where did all those gases that cause the explosion come from?
Answer that you science wiz

The big bang wasn't an individual. There were many big bangs expanding and contracting. However the microwave radiation and the matter and anti-matter were different from others (More matter than anti) so our universe filled with matter kept expanding.

And life on this planet was caused by amino-acids carried by meteorites after the earth collided with thea. Then in a carbon dioxide atmosphere the amino-acids evolved into algae. The simple plant life evolved into plants then threes and the bacteria which didn't evolve into simple algae began its life evolving into something else which will eventually be its consumer.

This is 4 billion years in 2 short paragraphs. And I haven't studied much on the subject lately so I'm rusty.

Now answer me this. God cannot have been always there. Because logically something has a beginning, a middle and an end. Everything has it, you, me the stars themselves. So where did God come from? When was he created and who created him? You cannot answer these questions because all I'm going to get from you is I'm stupid from thinking that God hasn't always been there.

How’s that for a statement my pedigree chum?

At 3/27/07 07:56 PM, USMC-Ryan wrote: If science is the answer then where did we come from, and if the big bang theory is your answer then why is it a theory and where did all those gases that cause the explosion come from?
Answer that you science wiz

I actually agree with you to a point... but you have to take it to a deeper philisophical level than that to gain respect for your arguement.

At 3/27/07 08:51 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 3/27/07 07:56 PM, USMC-Ryan wrote: If science is the answer then where did we come from, and if the big bang theory is your answer then why is it a theory and where did all those gases that cause the explosion come from?
Answer that you science wiz

I actually agree with you to a point... but you have to take it to a deeper philisophical level than that to gain respect for your arguement.

Hang on! People have shown you hundreds of links, countless posts and you yield your anger on "Answer me this?"

I've just had a sense of disavow and my feelings tell me that my next paragraph that was suppose to cover this one is responed negativly.
Wierd. God must be talking to me lol

At 3/27/07 07:56 PM, USMC-Ryan wrote: If science is the answer then where did we come from, and if the big bang theory is your answer then why is it a theory and where did all those gases that cause the explosion come from?
Answer that you science wiz

Where did we come from? Earth. We developed here from basic chemicals into a society of organisms based on the continuation of complex chemical reactions (life).

Why is the Big Bang a theory? I need to make sure you get this: there is no higher rank than "theory" in Science. Any explanatory, "mechanism" ideas in Science are either a hypothesis or theory; a hypothesis originated from observation, but has no actual proof yet, while a theory has proof. That's all there is to it.

Where did all the gases that caused the Big Bang come from? Put simply, there were no gases. The Big Bang wasn't a bang at all, and was nothing like a bomb. In a matter of a few seconds, a single, almost infinitesimal spot in space suddenly burst with a massive expansion of energy (mostly like light at this point) at superluminal speeds and at a temperature far greater than you can imagine (though it has been estimated). Within a single second, the energy began to cool and began forming quarks and other subatomic particles. The cooling progressed from there to what we see today.

The Big Bang was the source of all gases, and matter in general, so of course it wasn't a gas explosion.

At 3/27/07 09:22 PM, Draconias wrote:

Where did we come from? Earth. We developed here from basic chemicals into a society of organisms based on the continuation of complex chemical reactions (life).

In Genisis it even says God came to earth when it was "formless".

At 3/27/07 09:26 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/27/07 09:22 PM, Draconias wrote:

Where did we come from? Earth. We developed here from basic chemicals into a society of organisms based on the continuation of complex chemical reactions (life).

In Genisis it even says God came to earth when it was "formless".

That doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as "formless," unless it is used inaccurately to imply that God created absolutely every detail on Earth (which would mean he is quite evil-- hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, tornados --all great ideas).

Imperator, you speak of science as if it was a person/small group of people.

Science is a method. Just like how Trial and Error is a method, or Random Guess is a method.

You seem to think that the information we have is science. The information we have is a product of science, not science itself. For example, how to build/make a house or an Atomic bomb or pancakes is not science. It is building instructions and recipes. The scientific method might be used to understand and design those instructions and recipes.

And you keep going around my points rather than countering them. Yes, it might be hard to educate yourself so you can test the evidence science puts out, but, it is very much possible. The fact that school costs a lot of time and money doesn't change the nature of science. Science doesn't become a "faith" thing because people is poorly educated.

God talking to people, on the other hand, is NOT, and I repeat, NOT, something you can check, in any way or form. There is no "Has God spoken to this person?" Test. There is no evidence we can check him up on. Nothing. You either believe the man or you don't.

Do you seriously think there is science that acts like that? There might be very advanced science and science that requires a lot of education, but there is never science that is untestable. There is no scientific theory that you can't see the evidence for and against.

Evolution has fossils, and bacteria growing resistant to penicillin. You might agrue against the accuracy and such of these, but atleast it is SOMETHING you can argue against/for.

Religion doesn't provide this, at all.

At 3/28/07 05:11 AM, Drakim wrote: Imperator, you speak of science as if it was a person/small group of people.

No, I speak of it as an institution. And a fallible one at that.

You seem to think that the information we have is science. The information we have is a product of science, not science itself. For example, how to build/make a house or an Atomic bomb or pancakes is not science. It is building instructions and recipes. The scientific method might be used to understand and design those instructions and recipes.

Ah yes, science was "always there". True enough, but that doesn't mean the "truth" is accessible at all times. It can still remain obscured, or falsified by those in charge. That's my point.

And you keep going around my points rather than countering them.

Such as? I thought I was going through them....

God talking to people, on the other hand, is NOT, and I repeat, NOT, something you can check, in any way or form. There is no "Has God spoken to this person?" Test. There is no evidence we can check him up on. Nothing. You either believe the man or you don't.

No, but the existence of miracles is something there are tests for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for _the_Causes_of_Saints

What those tests are exactly is another story......

Do you seriously think there is science that acts like that? There might be very advanced science and science that requires a lot of education, but there is never science that is untestable. There is no scientific theory that you can't see the evidence for and against.

Yes, yes I do think science acts like that. A paper once came out citing brain sizes between straight and gay men were different; gay men had brain sizes similar to women. This study was published, widely believed, and later REFUTED. But for a while, it was widely believed by the public, WITHOUT QUESTION. What basis did people have for believing such a study for so long? Is it really that hard to believe that faith did not play a role in our assmumption of accuracy and "truth" here?

Science doesn't become a "faith" thing because people is poorly educated.

How else does the poor man view things? A scientist has a degree of assertiveness, and there is no reason why a regular joe wouldn't ride on what he says based on nothing more than his say-so that his information is accurate. When scientists come out and say things on Evolution, we believe them because after all, they know best right? Similarly, when the Pope comes out and says God works in mysterious ways, we believe him because after all, he knows best right?

I fail to see how people believing "I saw God", and "Jews are an inferior race" are unrelated belief structures. Both base themselves on false premises with certain degrees of evidence making them believable, and both have a certain credibility coming from authority figures. They are also both untested by the average joe. So how do they become believeable? WHY are they believable?

There might be very advanced science and science that requires a lot of education, but there is never science that is untestable. There is no scientific theory that you can't see the evidence for and against.

Being poor, I don't have the time to check if this is real or not; if this is the "truth" I seek. How would I go about checking this study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experime nt

Moreover, should I believe it to be true until I prove otherwise? If yes, why?

How about this?
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/histo ry/newtongrav.html

Should I believe it to be true until I prove otherwise? If yes, why? What is it about gravity that makes me believe it is true without me testing it otherwise?

Remember, faith is believing something without evidence. Having faith in something does not mean that evidence doesn't exist however.

At 3/28/07 08:36 AM, Imperator wrote:

And you keep going around my points rather than countering them.

Such as? I thought I was going through them....

Such as talking about not affording an education to even check if something is correct rather than if science and religion gives testable evidence

God talking to people, on the other hand, is NOT, and I repeat, NOT, something you can check, in any way or form. There is no "Has God spoken to this person?" Test. There is no evidence we can check him up on. Nothing. You either believe the man or you don't.

No, but the existence of miracles is something there are tests for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for _the_Causes_of_Saints
What those tests are exactly is another story......

Do you seriously think there is science that acts like that? There might be very advanced science and science that requires a lot of education, but there is never science that is untestable. There is no scientific theory that you can't see the evidence for and against.

Yes, yes I do think science acts like that. A paper once came out citing brain sizes between straight and gay men were different; gay men had brain sizes similar to women. This study was published, widely believed, and later REFUTED. But for a while, it was widely believed by the public, WITHOUT QUESTION. What basis did people have for believing such a study for so long? Is it really that hard to believe that faith did not play a role in our assmumption of accuracy and "truth" here?

So, you are saying that a study was published and that study told that gay men had a diffrent brain size, and said study didn't give ONE good reason for it's claim? Surely, the study must have contained some kind of evidence, such as tests of some kind or scans of different brains. If I gave out a study saying ANYTHING at all, without giving one kind of evidence or something in the study, then nobody would take it seriously.

I mean, seriously, what did the study say? "our best guess it" or "we think, but we can't prove it", and people believed it? they must have had a valid reason for their claims.

It is perfectly normal for studies to be refuted. Evidence isn't 100% surely true no matter what. But, if you see evidence for a cause, then it is perfectly normal to believe in it, until the evidence is refuted, or stronger evidence speaks for another case.

Science doesn't become a "faith" thing because people is poorly educated.

How else does the poor man view things? A scientist has a degree of assertiveness, and there is no reason why a regular joe wouldn't ride on what he says based on nothing more than his say-so that his information is accurate. When scientists come out and say things on Evolution, we believe them because after all, they know best right? Similarly, when the Pope comes out and says God works in mysterious ways, we believe him because after all, he knows best right?

How did the pope come to be in that position? Scientists are trusted because their have a very high accuracy of success. Look at all the technology you have, that isn't some failure. Can you spot one thing that the pope has given to you?

Sorry, I have very little time, so I can't respond to the rest of your post right now. Later.

At 3/28/07 08:36 AM, Imperator wrote: Being poor, I don't have the time to check if this is real or not; if this is the "truth" I seek. How would I go about checking this study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experime nt

Moreover, should I believe it to be true until I prove otherwise? If yes, why?

First of all, there is a distinction between "soft science" (sociology and the like) and "hard science" (physics, etc). You should not use "soft science" for an example of proof; technically, no proof in those fields is actually solid evidence.

Just remember: believe experiments you hear, and have access to significant information about, until flaws have been shown in the experiment. Only believe theories when you have seen the evidence and agree, or the vast majority of the Scientific community has cannonized the theory.

You don't have to prove anything or do any tests, but be aware of what testing others are doing and what has been done already.

Science promotes reasonable skepticism, not blind faith.

People are just dumb and have blind faith in whatever a scientist says, not realizing that scientists are regular human beings like the rest of us.

At 3/28/07 10:49 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/26/07 11:43 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 3/26/07 11:34 AM, Grammer wrote: That's because religion is base on faith, so you can believe in whatever the Hell you want. That doesn't make it wrong, though, we use faith in our lives all the time, and we never think twice about it.

That is true, but it doesn't make faith equal to evidence.

I never said it was.

No, but you say we use faith in our lives all the time, and we never think twice about it. But often, evidence and faith collides. And a lot of people stick to faith over evidence then. A lot of people wear their faith like a badge of pride, saying openly that their faith is so strong that they "know" stuff. THAT is putting faith over evidence. I miss thought that you ment something along those lines "we use faith so often that you can't argue with it" kinda thing.

More than once has evidence and faith said different things, are we to trust a gut feeling and what you "feel to be true", over hard evidence and our senses?

Why can't I believe in evolution and God?

Did I say you couldn't? But what if the God you believe in (your parents taught you about) cannot exist at the same time as evolution? Would you pick evolution or God then?

That is why I find logic and evidence better than faith.

People will always have faith in something that can't be proven, whether it's God or not. It's unavoidable.

Yes, and it is also unavoidable that their faith will always be be in harmony with logic and reason. At some times, they collide. For example, if you think all life could only come from God, and that God is the only one capable of creating something like life and giving it a soul. Now, suddenly some scientists manages to create life out of non-living matter such as plastic and rock. It kinda ruins the idea that all life MUST comes from God.

Ofcourse, I'm not saying you can't have faith AND reason, but, at times these will collide, and way too many (if you ask me) choose faith over the evidence right in front of their eyes.

At 3/28/07 10:52 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/26/07 03:58 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Never think twice about it? Are you so sure that theists never question what they believe and why?

I'm actually confident they do, yeah

So don't tell me or other theists that we've never thought twice about it.

I'm not saying religious people never question what they believe, but when an atheist has a situation where they want to believe in something that can't be proven, they don't step back and say: "Woah, better not be faithful here".

Do you truly believe that atheists think on a higher level of logic than theists? We are just as if not more philisophically in tune with our universe than atheists. As a matter of fact, I was just discussing the beginning of time on the Creation of the Universe thread. Dude, you're way off on that claim.

At 3/28/07 11:54 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Do you truly believe that atheists think on a higher level of logic than theists? We are just as if not more philisophically in tune with our universe than atheists. As a matter of fact, I was just discussing the beginning of time on the Creation of the Universe thread. Dude, you're way off on that claim.

I think that agnostics are more logical than either, seeing as how they neither insist upon nor outright deny the existence of god.

Therefore, on a subject such as the beginning of the universe, we won't say stuff along the lines of "Well, science can't currently explain every last detail of the nature of existence, therefore my explanation must be true," nor do we say "Well, I don't know, but I'm sure that there was no God involved, because there's no evidence of God, therefore there must be no God. However, I have no evidence to support this."

I think that agnostics are more logical than either, seeing as how they neither insist upon nor outright deny the existence of god.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ayer_meta physics.html

I think this guy would agree.

At 3/27/07 08:35 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/27/07 07:50 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Unlike others I don't run around trying to convince anyone that "God has spoken to me"
The way your post is worded, it looks like your entire religion could have had its start by a schizophrenic.
No wonder as I get older, they all (religions) seems more & more retarded.

You just generalized my entire religion off of one post an anonymous user made on an internet forum. Now.....what seems more retarded to you?

;
Actually the post was made by you, not an anonymous user.
I truely cannot see anything more retarded than placeing your "Faith" in the hands of some dead old fuck who was wanting to consolidate power into the church, creating (can you believe the size of the balls) gods chosen representitive on earth -the pope.
Can you comprehend the mass insanity of the christians who actually believe that..that Bullshit!

God did not create religions, mankind did.
Can you not see the difference there?
God doesn't choose a pope, the hierarchy of the damn religion does AND its as political as any form of goverment on earth (sad when someone has to point that out to you, come on, think for yourself)

I'm not for one second saying or even implying that an omniputent power doesn't exist.

I'm saying *sigh for the 1000th time*
Religion is an invention of man.
Being invented by man ,it is flawed.
All religions are flawed that's where the problem comes into play.
Its not that all religions are bad, they're not all bad, but they are all flawed.
So why not attempt to at least see that there are flaws, & don't allow religion to get in the way of our ability to think & reason for ourselves.

If your one of those who cannot face the fact your going to die, so you need the crutch or comfort of a place...heaven, reincarnation ,whatever,.
go with whatever floats your boat. But don't try to get those of us who realise if your religion is flawed chances are good so is your knowledge of what god really expects of us , as well as what comes after death.

Scientists may make mistakes, improper or incomplete information may cause errors, but at least when someone in a scientific feild realises there has been a mistake made, they change it & let everyone know. Religions try to show that because its written in this or that book ( in the case of the bible hundreds of years after the fact),that so & so seen this or so & so spoke to god with absolutely no proof it has to be true.

What can be more retarded than that.

At 3/28/07 01:56 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Actually the post was made by you, not an anonymous user.

And who am I? You don't know my name, my background, my religious beliefs, aspirations, nothing. You know I post under the name "Imperator", that's about it.....

I truely cannot see anything more retarded than placeing your "Faith" in the hands of some dead old fuck who was wanting to consolidate power into the church, creating (can you believe the size of the balls) gods chosen representitive on earth -the pope.

Alright, too easy. I'll let this one slide.

Can you comprehend the mass insanity of the christians who actually believe that..that Bullshit!

Over 2 billion people worldwide, about 33% of the world's population. That's quite a few "insane" people if you ask me.....

God did not create religions, mankind did.
Can you not see the difference there?

Sure. Can you explain why that's the case instead of just ranting?

God doesn't choose a pope, the hierarchy of the damn religion does AND its as political as any form of goverment on earth (sad when someone has to point that out to you, come on, think for yourself)

Agreed. Also you should note that there are only about 1 billion Catholics, and not all Christians are Catholics. Don't make me unleash Dre-Man on you.....

I'm not for one second saying or even implying that an omniputent power doesn't exist.

Hmmm....

I take it you're not going to see the irony of the statement you made here and your belief that religion is "retarded".........

Religion is an invention of man.

Explain how that's the case.

Its not that all religions are bad, they're not all bad, but they are all flawed.

But....some ARE bad seems to be what you are implying here? I'm curious, what religions in specific do you believe are bad? (Not that I don't already know the answer....).

So why not attempt to at least see that there are flaws, & don't allow religion to get in the way of our ability to think & reason for ourselves.

Erm....again, too easy. Alright fine.

Look up Ecumenical Council.

If your one of those who cannot face the fact your going to die, so you need the crutch or comfort of a place...heaven, reincarnation ,whatever,.

Pretty sure that statement contradicts itself.....

go with whatever floats your boat. But don't try to get those of us who realise if your religion is flawed chances are good so is your knowledge of what god really expects of us , as well as what comes after death.

Pretty sure that's a generalization. I'm not a Jehova witness. I don't get up at 6 am to pound on your door and ask if you've "Found Jesus".

And frankly, with how much Catholicism has permeated the world, I don't give a damn whether you go to Hell or not, or whether you believe or not. The word has been spread, and it's your choice at this point. That's my take anyways.

Scientists may make mistakes, improper or incomplete information may cause errors, but at least when someone in a scientific feild realises there has been a mistake made, they change it & let everyone know.

Human experimentation isn't exactly something that a simple 'oops, sorry" can fix.....

Religions try to show that because its written in this or that book ( in the case of the bible hundreds of years after the fact),that so & so seen this or so & so spoke to god with absolutely no proof it has to be true.

That....wasn't even a sentence I don't think.....
The fuck are you trying to say?

What can be more retarded than that.

Your generalizations. I'll be blunt this time, since you seemed to have missed the irony of the question I posed last time.

Over 2 billion people worldwide, about 33% of the world's population. That's quite a few "insane" people if you ask me.....

Correction. You were specifically targetting (yes, that's the correct term for what you did) Catholicism, not Christianity.

1 billion people worldwide. Still seems like a lot of "retarded" people.......

Grammer: That is very nice for you, but just because YOU haven't had the problem, doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Do you think that Super Conversative Religions Nuts who deny every single aspect of evolution and promote the literal creation in genesis will agree with you? When they face evidence against their faith, they will probably accuse the devil of planting the evidence there. Or liberal Atheist Gay Communist Hippies.

Dre-Man: You cannot prove that there is a God, and you cannot disprove that there is a God. The same applies to Goblins, Ghosts, fairies, Half-Gods and Vampires. Yet, nobody believes in them. How can you call it logical to believe in God then? I'm not saying it is dumb, or retarded or something to belive in God, only that is doesn't involve logic, but rather, faith.

Elfer: It all depends if you are pointing to weak atheist or strong atheist. Strong atheist are making a positive claim, "there is no God", while the weak atheist claims "there is no reason to belive there is a God". If I see no evidence for a God, is in unlogical for me to assume he isn't there? I'm not claiming I can prove it, but, only in the sense that I don't go around beliving every single unproven-to-exist thing really does exist, such as vampires and spirits.

morefngdbs: I agree. Even thought we cannot know if there is a God or not, we can easily see that all religions have heavy flaws. It doesn't make them useless, but at least I would think that the One True Religion who really is communicating with God and really has their holy scripture that is His will would be a tad better than everybody elses.

You are all being VERY BIASED! Look at yourselves! Your are trying to say which one of your religious beliefs is more logical and open minded than the other. that is completely unfair. You are trying to say that everyone that believes that way is more open minded. That's a very ignorant way to think. Everyone that was included in that argument makes me sick.

At 3/28/07 02:30 PM, WRB852 wrote: You are all being VERY BIASED! Look at yourselves! Your are trying to say which one of your religious beliefs is more logical and open minded than the other. that is completely unfair. You are trying to say that everyone that believes that way is more open minded. That's a very ignorant way to think. Everyone that was included in that argument makes me sick.

Oh, the irony. It burns!

Don't you realize that by your logic, all viewpoints are equal, including the viewpoint: "my viewpoint is better than all others" to your viewpoint: "all viewpoints are equal"?

It is kinda like saying, "All proof is unreliable! I have proof to support this claim!"

Oh, I stumbled over this the other day. Fits my reasoning why science beats faith:
Clicky

At 3/28/07 10:06 AM, Draconias wrote:
First of all, there is a distinction between "soft science" (sociology and the like) and "hard science" (physics, etc). You should not use "soft science" for an example of proof; technically, no proof in those fields is actually solid evidence.

Fair enough.

Just remember: believe experiments you hear, and have access to significant information about, until flaws have been shown in the experiment. Only believe theories when you have seen the evidence and agree, or the vast majority of the Scientific community has cannonized the theory.

You don't have to prove anything or do any tests, but be aware of what testing others are doing and what has been done already.

Thanks. That's kind of what I was trying to get at all along. Maybe it was the use of "faith" that threw everyone off. I was saying science uses a relative degree of faith, where we tend to believe the word of scientists due to the fact that their prestige as such merits that degree of authority. Maybe "hope" would have been a better word. In other words, the similarity I was trying (failing) to point out was that we believe them because it seems like they know what they're talking about.

If you tried to describe a physics concept to me that was any more complex that momentum I wouldn't understand. I would believe your conclusions, however, based on the "faith" I hold that you are more knowledgable in such matters, and that therefore, the theory is accurate. Again, maybe faith is too strong a word here, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. Religious belief and the role of the Priest caste works on a similar basis I believe. I think this is also why there is a certain amount of credibility people perceive in the literary works of religion.

Shit, we could just digress and talk about the lexicon of divine terms in a discussion of theology and religion (as well as the sciences) too.....

At 3/28/07 02:25 PM, Drakim wrote: Grammer: That is very nice for you, but just because YOU haven't had the problem, doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Do you think that Super Conversative Religions Nuts who deny every single aspect of evolution and promote the literal creation in genesis will agree with you? When they face evidence against their faith, they will probably accuse the devil of planting the evidence there. Or liberal Atheist Gay Communist Hippies.

Oh he's had the conflict, and he came out staunchly on his religion's side. He's in denial, however, so I'll probably get some angry retort to this post. Check out pages 25-30 for what I'm talking about.

Dre-Man: You cannot prove that there is a God, and you cannot disprove that there is a God. The same applies to Goblins, Ghosts, fairies, Half-Gods and Vampires. Yet, nobody believes in them. How can you call it logical to believe in God then? I'm not saying it is dumb, or retarded or something to belive in God, only that is doesn't involve logic, but rather, faith.

Again, pages 25-30... I tried this tack with Grammer, too... I wish you good luck. Most times religious folk just plug their ears and go "LALALALALA" or just deny the logic altogether, as though that would make it go away. They seem to feel as though if their faith isn't "logical" it is less valid, or "retarded"... which confuses me. Grammer got all pissy because he thought I was calling him illogical and stupid when I said that faith is illogical, and from that moment on, it was an argument not a debate...

Elfer: It all depends if you are pointing to weak atheist or strong atheist. Strong atheist are making a positive claim, "there is no God", while the weak atheist claims "there is no reason to belive there is a God". If I see no evidence for a God, is in unlogical for me to assume he isn't there? I'm not claiming I can prove it, but, only in the sense that I don't go around beliving every single unproven-to-exist thing really does exist, such as vampires and spirits.

Don't forget the pink unicorns that hold you to the earth in what "science" mistakenly calls "gravity". :P

hee hee, funny picture. lol

ok, i don't know if i support the picture, but i do find it very funny