Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #99 - biggrand
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
well it still wouldnt prove there's a bearded **** in the sky who bowls every once in a while
User avatar #188 to #99 - entarasu
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
atheist will remain atheist until the plane crash
User avatar #186 to #99 - dashdashdash
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
Watch those edges boi
User avatar #121 to #99 - shiifter
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
What a dick.
#105 to #99 - AnonymousDonor
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
boy i sure hope you're not referring to religion

cuz if so you should check your ****
User avatar #108 to #105 - biggrand
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
your parents really sucked if they told you anything other than angels go bowling when thunder strikes. . .
#111 to #108 - AnonymousDonor
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
oh they did
but even as a kid i knew it was just a pretense

the whole "man in the clouds" santy claus interpretation of religion is not only false but meant for children alone, as they are likely not experienced or wise enough to accept the fact that a dualist morality of "good" and "evil" is neither complete nor even correct
(and yes, to all those who still think of good and evil as completely separate states i am calling your sense of morality childish and naive)

it's a stepping stone to facilitate concepts in the mind to make the more complex notions easier to understand

do you guys not like the fact that i am not hating on religion?
then by all means thumb me down! red is my favorite color
#183 to #111 - anon id: cbf2dcd7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
You are pants-on-head retarded.
#278 to #183 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
gee thats a compelling argument
except mine is backed thoroughly with logic and reason

prove yours to me and i'll admit i was wrong
User avatar #114 to #111 - biggrand
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
I was simply stating that a rift in evolution based on fossil discovery by no means makes the theory of creationism any more legible, as evolution would still be a more reasonable explanation than creationism.
#118 to #114 - AnonymousDonor
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
but why would you automatically assume the two are even connected? even as opposites? ...all i saw was a post about science
but the thought that the two are opposed follows the same absolutist principles i mentioned before

and does so poorly, i might add, because evolution and creationism are entirely compatible
there's not a single concept in evolution that negates the possibility of a creator
and, in spite of the interpretations of some fundamentalists, there is nothing in creationism that disagrees with evolution
User avatar #124 to #118 - biggrand
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
I'm talking about the 7 days theory, if this is not the same as creationism then I am a fool.
#276 to #124 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
its not
and i'd hardly even call it a theory, considering it was compiled through multiple degrees over several centuries of mistranslations and backtranslations just to come to the english word "day"

and that's assuming the story was meant to be taken literally at all, which it most likely was not

creationism is simply the belief of intelligent design insomuch as something probably created us (and the entire universe) with a purpose in mind
that's it

all this man in the clouds and specificity of days is just semantics that facilitates the understanding; same with the whole santa claus "you go to heaven if you're good and hell if you're bad" shpeel