| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Comments(28692):
#6391
-
timxcampbell (01/18/2013) [-] If God is infinitely strong, what would happen if He punched Himself in the forehead?
Supplemental question: Is it 'way too late at night and I should just go to sleep already?
Supplemental question: Is it 'way too late at night and I should just go to sleep already?
#6380
-
feelythefeel (01/18/2013) [-] You ever see those videos of stereotypical Jesus-Land citizens going crazy on Black Friday? Just think of the concentration of devoted Christians there when compared to, say, a charity drive. And that's something Jesus even said to do.
My two cents.
My two cents.
#6384 to #6382
-
feelythefeel (01/18/2013) [-] On a slightly related note, wouldn't it suck to get trampled to death for the sake of some stupid sob getting a TV discount? What about being killed before you're even born for much of the same?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqeY7j5TuuE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqeY7j5TuuE
#6392 to #6358
-
boomboyrage (01/18/2013) [-] I think it's absolutely repulsive that they do that, why? you might ask!, because Its not because its an advert, but its because scientology is NOT a religion by any simple sense, Its a cult, a cult that strips you of your cash, alienates you from family and friends, convinces you to distrust the very people that can steer you away from their little scam, and worst of all, waps this shit up in a little bow by giving no actual information on its practices than "look at how wonderful we are! don't you want to be a part of this!", the video has the comments and the ratings disabled to silence anyone that might dissagree with them, which is nothing compared to endless lawsuits, harrasment, and flat out fucking SPYING the commit in order to intimidate people who stand up against the cult "church"
Sorry if thats a bit of a rant, but whilst I may not "agree" with most religions, Scientology is one of the things that I truly fucking Loathe...
Sorry if thats a bit of a rant, but whilst I may not "agree" with most religions, Scientology is one of the things that I truly fucking Loathe...
#6337
-
GetOnMyHorse (01/17/2013) [-] What do you get when you cross an insomniac, a dyslexic and an agnostic?
One who stays awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog.
One who stays awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog.
#6330
-
N. Korean citizen (01/17/2013) [-]
If God isn't real then how come your bowels void when you die, so you can be clean for heaven?
Christians: 1
Atheists: 0
Shit: All over the floor
Christians: 1
Atheists: 0
Shit: All over the floor
#6393 to #6376
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-] Sigh I was hoping you would only quote a few, not the whole damn library XD But I have 20 minutes to spare, might as well go through them.
"Ancient Non-Christian Sources"
Tacitus:> Tacitus is generally considered an amazing source for historical information, it is usually coincided with massive amounts of official documentation to support the research and conclusions written. However, this is not the case when concerning a historical Jesus, there are no official documents presented as supporting links as with many other historical accounts mentioned through Tacitus, and gives the impression of simply being a recited story, than a factual event.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas:> How is this a source for Jesus? The event cited for "evidence" occurred 20 years after Jesus supposedly died and went to heaven, so why would he be mentioned in being apart of the riots?
Flavius Josephus:> Josephus is a widely accepted forgery in the specific section mentioning Jesus. Not only does the way he refers to Jesus not match up with his other writings or his core beliefs, but the writing itself has been analyzed to carry a different perception of time and not flow with the rest of the section. Something not seen anywhere else in the writing, it was concise and flowing up until that specific aspect where is seems the author just made a cut away, which is completely unlike anything else written.
Julius Africanus:> Simply a reaffirmation of the eclipse, I don't see how unknown science justifies a historical Jesus.
Pliny the Younger:> This source is simply a compilation of mentionings of followers of the messiah, there is nothing about Jesus.
Emperor Trajan/Emperor Hadrian/Lucian/Mara:> Again, same problem as Pliny, simply references to an ongoing event with no mention of Jesus.
"Ancient Non-Christian Sources"
Tacitus:> Tacitus is generally considered an amazing source for historical information, it is usually coincided with massive amounts of official documentation to support the research and conclusions written. However, this is not the case when concerning a historical Jesus, there are no official documents presented as supporting links as with many other historical accounts mentioned through Tacitus, and gives the impression of simply being a recited story, than a factual event.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas:> How is this a source for Jesus? The event cited for "evidence" occurred 20 years after Jesus supposedly died and went to heaven, so why would he be mentioned in being apart of the riots?
Flavius Josephus:> Josephus is a widely accepted forgery in the specific section mentioning Jesus. Not only does the way he refers to Jesus not match up with his other writings or his core beliefs, but the writing itself has been analyzed to carry a different perception of time and not flow with the rest of the section. Something not seen anywhere else in the writing, it was concise and flowing up until that specific aspect where is seems the author just made a cut away, which is completely unlike anything else written.
Julius Africanus:> Simply a reaffirmation of the eclipse, I don't see how unknown science justifies a historical Jesus.
Pliny the Younger:> This source is simply a compilation of mentionings of followers of the messiah, there is nothing about Jesus.
Emperor Trajan/Emperor Hadrian/Lucian/Mara:> Again, same problem as Pliny, simply references to an ongoing event with no mention of Jesus.
#6394 to #6393
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-] The Jewish Talmud:> Absolutely none of these aspects are attributed to Jesus.
-Jesus is never recorded (in the sources that actually do mention him and aren't forgeries) to have been charged with scorcery or leading isreal to apostacy. I believe the only things he was charged with was Blasphemy and claiming king of the jews.
-Strange how the one identifying measure of Jesus is his crucifixion, who knew he was actually hanged?
-Where in the accounts does it say Jesus was stoned?
"Gnostic Sources"
Literally all of these are refuted by the description given for "the gospel of thomas" :> "Contain many references to and alleged quotations of Jesus." Last time I checked, references and alleged quotations (especially after such a long passing of time) is not evidence for historicity.
"Lost works quoted in other sources"
Acts of Pontius Pilate:> There are no supporting court documents to relate Jesus being sentenced by Pontius, which is VERY strange considering the Romans were excellent record keepers. Essentially they embraced bureaucratic practices so missing a document as important as the case files for the execution of the self-proclaimed king of the jews, is very out of character for them.
Phlegon:> A laughable source that is so far separated for being a supporting argument for the historicity of Jesus.
"Ancient Christian Sources"
Please how these support the existence of a historical Jesus? As far as I can see these simply mention Jesus and at a time when christianity had become rampant.These are equivalent to signs outside churches mentioning Jesus being used as evidence for Jesus.
-Jesus is never recorded (in the sources that actually do mention him and aren't forgeries) to have been charged with scorcery or leading isreal to apostacy. I believe the only things he was charged with was Blasphemy and claiming king of the jews.
-Strange how the one identifying measure of Jesus is his crucifixion, who knew he was actually hanged?
-Where in the accounts does it say Jesus was stoned?
"Gnostic Sources"
Literally all of these are refuted by the description given for "the gospel of thomas" :> "Contain many references to and alleged quotations of Jesus." Last time I checked, references and alleged quotations (especially after such a long passing of time) is not evidence for historicity.
"Lost works quoted in other sources"
Acts of Pontius Pilate:> There are no supporting court documents to relate Jesus being sentenced by Pontius, which is VERY strange considering the Romans were excellent record keepers. Essentially they embraced bureaucratic practices so missing a document as important as the case files for the execution of the self-proclaimed king of the jews, is very out of character for them.
Phlegon:> A laughable source that is so far separated for being a supporting argument for the historicity of Jesus.
"Ancient Christian Sources"
Please how these support the existence of a historical Jesus? As far as I can see these simply mention Jesus and at a time when christianity had become rampant.These are equivalent to signs outside churches mentioning Jesus being used as evidence for Jesus.
#6385 to #6376
-
boomboyrage (01/18/2013) [-] Sorry jokeface, but noblexfenrir is correct, every one of those sources are either, way outside the time of jesus supposed life time, later interprolations, or flat out hoax's.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ
This should asess them.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ
This should asess them.
#6395 to #6385
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-] Well damn, Thank you for posting that although 20 minutes sooner would have been appreciated then I wouldn't have typed all that shit up XD
Either way, thanks for the source, it gave me a little bit more information that I can use.
Either way, thanks for the source, it gave me a little bit more information that I can use.
#6397 to #6396
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-] Well it would probably be attributed to people believing the hoax that there is massive amounts of evidence for Jesus when in reality, the "evidence" is connected to basic roots (Usually being the new testament, Tacitus, Josephus, and Pontius.).
Where as the evidence for ceaser is less in number but much more decisive in context and quality.
I remember an episode of Bullshit! where they compared the time diluted evidence for Jesus to the evidence for certain aspects of Elvis' life. Where not even 50 years after his death people were still unsure of whether or not he died.
Where as the evidence for ceaser is less in number but much more decisive in context and quality.
I remember an episode of Bullshit! where they compared the time diluted evidence for Jesus to the evidence for certain aspects of Elvis' life. Where not even 50 years after his death people were still unsure of whether or not he died.
#6399 to #6398
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-] and they committed the newtown killings to distract us from their real goal: They are stealing our livestock feed. www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsrepublic/news/local/article_7c540918-610a-11e2-82f4-001a4bcf887a.html
Look throughout history, 500 years ago we had alot more farmers, and better fed animals, and what do we see? No assault weapon deaths whatsoever.
But now? Industrialization has led to more cities and less independently owned farms and what else? More assault weapon deaths.
Obviously there is something Obama is hiding.
Look throughout history, 500 years ago we had alot more farmers, and better fed animals, and what do we see? No assault weapon deaths whatsoever.
But now? Industrialization has led to more cities and less independently owned farms and what else? More assault weapon deaths.
Obviously there is something Obama is hiding.
#6317
-
thirteenthdoctor (01/17/2013) [-] God is everything
That means that God is a rhyme with the word "orange"
"God" does not rhyme with "orange"
Therefore, god does not exist.
We can get off the internet now.
That means that God is a rhyme with the word "orange"
"God" does not rhyme with "orange"
Therefore, god does not exist.
We can get off the internet now.
#6386 to #6317
-
boomboyrage (01/18/2013) [-] God is a ryme for orange, therefore God is also an orange,
I ate an orange, therefore the orange is im my stomache
My stomache is a part of my body, therefore God is part of my body
All my body parts make up me, therefore I am every part of God
I am every part of God, there for I am GOD
Worship me.
I ate an orange, therefore the orange is im my stomache
My stomache is a part of my body, therefore God is part of my body
All my body parts make up me, therefore I am every part of God
I am every part of God, there for I am GOD
Worship me.
#6313
-
boomboyrage (01/17/2013) [-] A quick message for Zlamous!
Iv'e noticed that you seem to be mentioning
"radiometric dating assumes that elements decayed uniformly throughout earth's natural history, which is a baseless assumption" and I thought I might ive you a little information on the subject!
The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, it is supported by evidence:
1. The decay rates of radioactive nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measured. There have been experiments that attempted to change decay rates that didn't work. Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
2. Supernovae produce large quantities of radioactive isotopes. These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away, and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away.
3. The Oklo reactor was the site of a naturally occuring, spontaneous nuclear reaction 1.8 billion years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years.
4. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young Earth would have produced enough heat to melt the Earth.
Iv'e noticed that you seem to be mentioning
"radiometric dating assumes that elements decayed uniformly throughout earth's natural history, which is a baseless assumption" and I thought I might ive you a little information on the subject!
The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, it is supported by evidence:
1. The decay rates of radioactive nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measured. There have been experiments that attempted to change decay rates that didn't work. Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
2. Supernovae produce large quantities of radioactive isotopes. These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away, and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away.
3. The Oklo reactor was the site of a naturally occuring, spontaneous nuclear reaction 1.8 billion years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years.
4. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young Earth would have produced enough heat to melt the Earth.
#6503 to #6313
-
syntheticwatermelo (01/19/2013) [-]
When God created earth the days weren't literal 24 hour periods, but were actually the amount of time it took God to complete the task he was doing. The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, which means that the days couldn't have been actual days because there was no sun. This means that there could have been long periods of time in which many things could have occurred.
#6341 to #6313
-
zlamous (01/17/2013) [-] "The decay rates of radioactive nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measured. There have been experiments that attempted to change decay rates that didn't work"
but this is not proof that their decay rates never changed throughout their existence, just because scientists can't effect this doesn't mean nature couldn't have. Also, these elements could have been created with the APPEARANCE of age.
" These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rate"
unverifiable assumption..
" These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago."
God could have created the gamma rays already on their way to earth before he even created or caused the supernovae to give us an idea of how large the universe is.
"The Oklo reactor was the site of a naturally occuring, spontaneous nuclear reaction 1.8 billion years ago. "
the rest of that paragraph relies on this assumption
"Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young Earth would have produced enough heat to melt the Earth."
this is according to a paper from 2002 rite? not acurate.
but this is not proof that their decay rates never changed throughout their existence, just because scientists can't effect this doesn't mean nature couldn't have. Also, these elements could have been created with the APPEARANCE of age.
" These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rate"
unverifiable assumption..
" These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago."
God could have created the gamma rays already on their way to earth before he even created or caused the supernovae to give us an idea of how large the universe is.
"The Oklo reactor was the site of a naturally occuring, spontaneous nuclear reaction 1.8 billion years ago. "
the rest of that paragraph relies on this assumption
"Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young Earth would have produced enough heat to melt the Earth."
this is according to a paper from 2002 rite? not acurate.
#6402 to #6341
-
boomboyrage (01/18/2013) [-] 1. whenever you say "God could have just created them with the apperance of age" or any other reference to "god put it there" you're assuming that god exists and created the universe.
2. Why would god, the omnipitent, all loving god, decide "I know what! I'll make the universe 6 to 10 thousand years old, but I'll make it look just like the universe is way, WAY, older!" is he fucking retarded? or is he just trying to mess with us?
3."this is according to a paper from 2002 rite? not acurate." Compared to a 3000 year old book?
4.The Oklo reactors existnce is not an assumption, it still exists today.
2. Why would god, the omnipitent, all loving god, decide "I know what! I'll make the universe 6 to 10 thousand years old, but I'll make it look just like the universe is way, WAY, older!" is he fucking retarded? or is he just trying to mess with us?
3."this is according to a paper from 2002 rite? not acurate." Compared to a 3000 year old book?
4.The Oklo reactors existnce is not an assumption, it still exists today.
#6478 to #6402
-
zlamous (01/19/2013) [-] 1. the same you are assuming that your evidence leads to your pre-assumed conclusion.
2. God put stars millions of light years away so we could marvel at how large the universe is
3. The Bible is supported by massive amounts of historical evidence.
4.** the site of a naturally occuring, spontaneous nuclear reaction 1.8 billion years ago**
i was talking about this assumption, not the existence of the oklo reactor
2. God put stars millions of light years away so we could marvel at how large the universe is
3. The Bible is supported by massive amounts of historical evidence.
4.** the site of a naturally occuring, spontaneous nuclear reaction 1.8 billion years ago**
i was talking about this assumption, not the existence of the oklo reactor
#6560 to #6478
-
boomboyrage (01/19/2013) [-] Do you have even the slightest clue what a theory is? Or what an a assumption is?
When we find a mound of observations, a theory is the explanation that is best supporters by said observations, and that is the point where observations become evidence, scientists didn't know about carbon dating before it came to become a theory. You ARE making an assumption when you use god, because you are assuming that he exists, and you have yet to demonstrate that, all you seem to do is say "it's not an assumption" of "god can be demonstrated", just endless flat out claims of which you have yet to demonstrate.
"the bible is historically verified" I've seen you bring this up several times and still haven't seen you back it up whatsoever.
And finally, god placing shit really far away? He's the omnipotent creator of the universe is he not? Couldn't he just put them closer to us? It shouldn't be a problem for a god should it?
When we find a mound of observations, a theory is the explanation that is best supporters by said observations, and that is the point where observations become evidence, scientists didn't know about carbon dating before it came to become a theory. You ARE making an assumption when you use god, because you are assuming that he exists, and you have yet to demonstrate that, all you seem to do is say "it's not an assumption" of "god can be demonstrated", just endless flat out claims of which you have yet to demonstrate.
"the bible is historically verified" I've seen you bring this up several times and still haven't seen you back it up whatsoever.
And finally, god placing shit really far away? He's the omnipotent creator of the universe is he not? Couldn't he just put them closer to us? It shouldn't be a problem for a god should it?
#6371 to #6341
-
feelythefeel (01/18/2013) [-] Oh look, it's zlamous. Well, might as well give you your -5 for the day, be sure to come back tomorrow for more.
#6359 to #6355
-
cleverguy (01/18/2013) [-] I hate to break it to you, but yes, it is. you are the one attacking science so the burden of proof lies on you. i cannot accept your word as absolute truth without proof. we've observed these gamma waves and what they reveal about radioactive decay (directly observed by the way). we did not (and by we i mean everyone, including you) observe by any means God's hand in their creation.
#6387 to #6365
-
boomboyrage (01/18/2013) [-] Tell you what zlamous!
Lets assume that everything your saying about Radioactive dating is corrcect, (which I don't for a second think is the case), I would LOVE to hear why the idea that god created everything Isn't an assumption, and how you have demonstrated god.
Lets assume that everything your saying about Radioactive dating is corrcect, (which I don't for a second think is the case), I would LOVE to hear why the idea that god created everything Isn't an assumption, and how you have demonstrated god.
#6561 to #6480
-
boomboyrage (01/19/2013) [-] 1.The universe isnt full of design, your just asserting that is, you can't just call something design in order to say there had to be a designer, we recognise design because it contrasts with what occours naturally, and you believe that EVERYTHING was designed, so you have no point of contrast.
2. Even assuming that you point was valid, this dosen't point to a specific god, it could,still be Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster.
2. Even assuming that you point was valid, this dosen't point to a specific god, it could,still be Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster.
#6544 to #6543
-
cleverguy (01/19/2013) [-] those are very subjective words you're using. the universe isn't necessarily a thing of perfect beauty. there is just as much of a chance, if not a much better chance, that the universe and all life came about as a random chance event as that a God-being designed it. just because its shallow and boring doesn't mean that it's not extremely possible.
#6314 to #6313
-
boomboyrage (01/17/2013) [-] 5. Different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates for the same rock. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways and at different rates. It is highly unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records.
6. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism.
I'm just posting this because you seem to mention this shit in half your posts, just because you dropped out of school and haven't a clue what your talking about, dosen't mean you should try drag anyone else down with you.
6. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism.
I'm just posting this because you seem to mention this shit in half your posts, just because you dropped out of school and haven't a clue what your talking about, dosen't mean you should try drag anyone else down with you.
#6342 to #6314
-
zlamous (01/17/2013) [-] " It is highly unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent."
keep in mind that every material on earth has the same designer, God. so it's not surprising that materials have similar properties and react similarly to different tests
"The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. "
how do u know that the fundamental constants of the universe haven't changed?
keep in mind that every material on earth has the same designer, God. so it's not surprising that materials have similar properties and react similarly to different tests
"The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. "
how do u know that the fundamental constants of the universe haven't changed?
#6411 to #6342
-
boomboyrage (01/18/2013) [-] As for the first one, you again make the "god made it that way assumption/clami", and as for the second one, I would direct you to the supernova SN1987A (while it dosen't show us all the way back to the beginning of the universe, it still blows young earth creationism out of the water) but you you already ignored that with the "god made it appear with age claim", why do every sigle one of your claims and refutations slowly break down and end up falling back on "because god", this is the main reason that argueing with you is mindless.
#6308
-
doctorwatson (01/17/2013) [-] I don't understand why Obama would let all these filthy homosexuals and sinners live.
America was made as a white Christian nation. It's time we make it one again.
America was made as a white Christian nation. It's time we make it one again.
#6259
-
thezillis (01/17/2013) [-]
I've got a challenge for this board of science chaps and pious theists
Debate the existence of god, but only in the form of rhyme.
I'm an antitheist. Start by telling me why religion is good, or agreeing with me.
In rhyme
Debate the existence of god, but only in the form of rhyme.
I'm an antitheist. Start by telling me why religion is good, or agreeing with me.
In rhyme
#6329 to #6259
-
feelythefeel (01/17/2013) [-] What is good, and what is bad,
I can tell that religion is more than a fad.
But what to believe in a world of lies,
is the truth that scares,
the truth that hides.
I can tell that religion is more than a fad.
But what to believe in a world of lies,
is the truth that scares,
the truth that hides.
#6264 to #6259
-
jokeface (01/17/2013) [-] You're speaking to my inner linguiphile.
All right, I'll see if I can go for a while.
Religion keeps the chaos at bay
And makes people behave in a dignified way
I know you think kindness and care are innate
But we believe wickedness is our natural fate.
See God instilled values and virtues in us
To enable us to muster civility and trust.
Without God we would be vicious and violent.
Shit, without God the universe would be empty and silent.
All right, I'll see if I can go for a while.
Religion keeps the chaos at bay
And makes people behave in a dignified way
I know you think kindness and care are innate
But we believe wickedness is our natural fate.
See God instilled values and virtues in us
To enable us to muster civility and trust.
Without God we would be vicious and violent.
Shit, without God the universe would be empty and silent.
#6290 to #6264
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-] You're good at this, I can tell,
But I'll give my argument a rhyming shell.
Religion is nothing more than a simple facade,
Derived from ignorance "What was that?-Must be god".
We had little information so this myth we conceded,
But we have evidence now, god is not needed.
We have science and technology that you must cast aside,
Because it is within these gaps that your god resides.
You're wrong to say without religion I bid you ill will,
Must I need a sky father to tell me not to kill?
Morality is evolved, survival is key,
I don't do to you what I don't want done to me.
I know you may attribute me to belligerence,
But all I simply ask is for evidence.
You say god is mysterious, and I reply even so,
Why can't we all concede to "I don't know"?
But I'll give my argument a rhyming shell.
Religion is nothing more than a simple facade,
Derived from ignorance "What was that?-Must be god".
We had little information so this myth we conceded,
But we have evidence now, god is not needed.
We have science and technology that you must cast aside,
Because it is within these gaps that your god resides.
You're wrong to say without religion I bid you ill will,
Must I need a sky father to tell me not to kill?
Morality is evolved, survival is key,
I don't do to you what I don't want done to me.
I know you may attribute me to belligerence,
But all I simply ask is for evidence.
You say god is mysterious, and I reply even so,
Why can't we all concede to "I don't know"?
#6256
-
stcronin (01/17/2013) [-] If you are not religious would you explain love as just chemicals reacting such as Oxytocin without any deeper meaning? Love is nothing more then chemicals reacting and hormones triggering things?
#6260 to #6258
-
stcronin (01/17/2013) [-] I wasn't suggesting you are incapable because of that mind set or think of it triviality I was just wondering if it has ever given you a spiritual experience or as you said "It is purely chemical"
So ty :) And I am a biochemist so I understand that response :)
So ty :) And I am a biochemist so I understand that response :)
#6216
-
cleverguy (01/17/2013) [-] zlamous never answered me when i asked him why he denies the fossil record as evidence of evolution. can someone tell me why this might be if he does not respond to this?
also sorry this isn't really about religion.
also sorry this isn't really about religion.
#6248 to #6244
-
cleverguy (01/17/2013) [-] well even if you don't believe that it is accurate on those grounds (which im sure is explained in some scientific paper somewhere, im just not exactly sure off the top of my head) radioactive dating isn't the only method of dating fossils. Fossils aren't dated for the sake of making Christians feel silly, i hope you know that. Archaeologists double check everything again and again. the results of their observations are not a coincidence or a mistake. no matter how much you deny it, their methods of dating ARE accurate and fossils ARE millions of years old.
Even if you sincerely do believe that scientists all over the world are utterly wrong, how do you explain fossils?
Even if you sincerely do believe that scientists all over the world are utterly wrong, how do you explain fossils?
#6255 to #6254
-
cleverguy (01/17/2013) [-] it is. it has been proven time and again. it is scientifically proven. it is the most accurate way to date minerals. elements do decay uniformly over millions of years. the reason you deny it is because you don't understand it and if that is the only reason you deny the fossil record, then there is nothing more to talk about.
#6261 to #6257
-
cleverguy (01/17/2013) [-] science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/geology-terms/radioactive-dating-inf o.htm
i want you to read this. its not that long. you must remember that half life is determined by observing a substance with radioactive isotopes in it that decay at a fixed rate and then doing some calculus to determine how long it would take for half of the particles to decay. this is advanced math and science. it takes into account almost anything you can think of.
i want you to read this. its not that long. you must remember that half life is determined by observing a substance with radioactive isotopes in it that decay at a fixed rate and then doing some calculus to determine how long it would take for half of the particles to decay. this is advanced math and science. it takes into account almost anything you can think of.
#6295 to #6263
-
N. Korean citizen (01/17/2013) [-]
i love how the theist who bases his belief on a magical scroll suddenly requires evidance for something that is aleredy established and prooven. how about the validity of your book? is there a good reason to think it is anything more than stories like in greek mythology?
or is the standard of evidance suddenly lower?
or is the standard of evidance suddenly lower?
#6229 to #6227
-
marinepenguin (01/17/2013) [-] I'd like to see how you think that the fossil record does not extend past recent history and into millions of years into the past.
It has been taken as scientific fact that animal and plant life have existed for at least a billion years.
Although, the flood you speak about you did happen, but it wasn't a constant rain like the story of Noah's Ark. It was a worldwide flood caused by the melting of glacial ice at the end of the last ice age, which made the oceans rise by a large degree. Areas like the North Sea, Persian Gulf, and much of the Mediterranean for example were areas of dry land before these floods. Although this event did not cause a substantial rise of animal extinctions, or really effect the fossil record majorly.
It has been taken as scientific fact that animal and plant life have existed for at least a billion years.
Although, the flood you speak about you did happen, but it wasn't a constant rain like the story of Noah's Ark. It was a worldwide flood caused by the melting of glacial ice at the end of the last ice age, which made the oceans rise by a large degree. Areas like the North Sea, Persian Gulf, and much of the Mediterranean for example were areas of dry land before these floods. Although this event did not cause a substantial rise of animal extinctions, or really effect the fossil record majorly.
#6239 to #6234
-
marinepenguin (01/17/2013) [-] Radiometric and Carbon dating have been found to be inaccurate after certain periods of times. Carbon dating is inaccurate after 10,000 years, and Radiometric is a bit older than that before it becomes inaccurate (I can't remember off the top of my head). But, they are not so far off that if some fossil shows that it is, say 10 million years old, it would still at least be a few million years old. It is still accurate enough to be able to deduce that life has existed for many, many millions of years.
#6246 to #6240
-
marinepenguin (01/17/2013) [-] Some elements half-lives are in fact millions of years long. A form of Beryllium called Be-10 has a half life of 1,600,000 years. Iodine-157 has a half-life of 15,700,000 years. So this shows that the Element itself has existed for at least double that time.
#6250 to #6247
-
marinepenguin (01/17/2013) [-] What I look at as absolute proof, you see as fautly logic.
What you see as absolute proof, I see as a lack of knowledge.
Plus looking at your other comments, this will only go in circles. Thus there is no point in continuing this debate.
(Also it's late, and I have school tomorrow)
What you see as absolute proof, I see as a lack of knowledge.
Plus looking at your other comments, this will only go in circles. Thus there is no point in continuing this debate.
(Also it's late, and I have school tomorrow)
#6288 to #6287
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-] Because you don't have proof, you have a flawed argument for a god and only the bible to support the christian form of one. Very weak evidence mate, and all my evidence if based on research except for when you base your argument around thought processes that aren't testable.
#6289 to #6288
-
zlamous (01/17/2013) [-] "you have a flawed argument for a god and only the bible to support the christian form of one."
I never used the Bible to prove the Christian God, i know thats circular reasoning, I used examples contemporaneous historical evidence to prove the validity of the Bible
I never used the Bible to prove the Christian God, i know thats circular reasoning, I used examples contemporaneous historical evidence to prove the validity of the Bible
#6296 to #6289
-
N. Korean citizen (01/17/2013) [-]
even if you validify historical events, most of the things people care about would still need more evidance, like evry miracle, most of what hapened to jesus, genesis and basically makes cristianity a religion.
the stuff you can historically verify is even quite sparse, even things like the isrealites as slaves is extereamly unlikely and would need more evidance.
you cannot validify the "magic" in the bible by having historical records for something else and validifying all of it.
the stuff you can historically verify is even quite sparse, even things like the isrealites as slaves is extereamly unlikely and would need more evidance.
you cannot validify the "magic" in the bible by having historical records for something else and validifying all of it.
#6291 to #6289
-
noblexfenrir ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-] and I have given enough evidence to prove the bible is not valid in that sense, the only this the bible can possibly be used to support is basic historic events and even those a skewed due to the mythical nature of the myths. This is no way supports the existence of a supernatural being more than the epic of gilgamesh supports the existence of a flower that will let you live forever.
#6271 to #6270
-
jokeface (01/17/2013) [-] Right. Now how do humans measure days? By the position of the Earth's rotation relative to the sun. So how could that many days have past without a sun for the Earth to be relative to?
My theory is that the unit of time that Genesis refers to as a "day" wasn't actually a "day" as we know it to be. I think a "day" for God could mean a temporal unit that lasts millions of years, but there was no name for that unit back then so it got translated eons later as "day".
If this is the case, then evolution could easily make sense, especially when you consider that the order of creation corresponds with scientific theories: Plant life first, then marine life, then land animals, then humans. And it in no way denies what evolution claims.
My theory is that the unit of time that Genesis refers to as a "day" wasn't actually a "day" as we know it to be. I think a "day" for God could mean a temporal unit that lasts millions of years, but there was no name for that unit back then so it got translated eons later as "day".
If this is the case, then evolution could easily make sense, especially when you consider that the order of creation corresponds with scientific theories: Plant life first, then marine life, then land animals, then humans. And it in no way denies what evolution claims.
#6214
-
tsoper (01/17/2013) [-] If religion did not exist, do you think we would even have civil order or better yet, would we even have a society and not just a bunch of barbaric tribes?
Also, how has religions power declined throughout the centuries. Politic and economic powers had taken over our society and they control us as we speak.
If you want to truely be uncontroled, you must live alone and trust no1.
Im coming to a conclusion that humanity as a whole will never agree on one single thing and will always have something or someone controling over us. If we are let free, there would be anarchy for a brief moment until religion or a social structure kicks in and reforms humanity. As long as we are happy, right..
Also, how has religions power declined throughout the centuries. Politic and economic powers had taken over our society and they control us as we speak.
If you want to truely be uncontroled, you must live alone and trust no1.
Im coming to a conclusion that humanity as a whole will never agree on one single thing and will always have something or someone controling over us. If we are let free, there would be anarchy for a brief moment until religion or a social structure kicks in and reforms humanity. As long as we are happy, right..
#6228 to #6214
-
marinepenguin (01/17/2013) [-] Religion helped form the first civilizations and was the cause for most order and government in early human history. It was the driving force that allowed humans to become what we are today. Now it is just something that gives people a sense of purpose, hope, and direction. Whether it is true or not does not matter in terms of our development as a species.
