Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.

i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?

You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?

Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?

I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job

So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?

yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction

Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?

expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.

There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.

No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck

Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.

Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one

so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?

Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.

i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?

You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?

Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?

I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job

So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?

yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction

Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?

expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.

I am certain of my faith.

what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?

There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.

No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck

Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.

Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one

so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?

Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.

i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?

You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?

Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?

I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job

So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?

yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction

Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?

expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.

Really? Because I just looked up "faith" and it said "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody knows. I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.

but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your beliefs, or would you say that you have faith?

I am certain of my faith.

what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?

There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.

No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck

Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.

Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one

so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?

Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.

i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?

You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?

Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?

I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job

So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?

yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction

Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?

expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.

Hit the limit.
So. How did said tiny lifeforms get there?
And don't say the Big Bang, that's a crap argument.

the big bang is a valid theory. i do not say that the theory of an all-powerful, all-knowing being is a crap argument. the big bang just seems to make a little more sense to me.

That's the part where I explain.
If you have a jar, completely empty, and leave it for a billion years, assuming the seal doesn't break, what happens?

well let's see here. your generic run-of-the mill jar is going to be made of glass. typical glass is soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (SiO2) plus Na2O, CaO, and several minor additives. now these could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because there is evidence that elements were created via the big bang. nothingness had no container. nothingness's container was nothingness. now assuming you sealed that jar on earth, it would be filled with oxygen. the nothingness that emerged from the bag bang was not oxygen. your statement has little to no valid points.

>completely empty
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. NOTHING.
So what was the cause of the Big Bang? NOTHING.
You don't exist.

now there's a completely different argument right there. are we still on religion vs non religion, or are we now moving on to existence vs non existence?

Oh, so you don't think you exist?

i never said anything of the sort. what is your outlook on it?

it's ok. i respect your beliefs, my friend. and i know many religious people who respect my beliefs, as i respect theirs. thank you for being considerate.

I believe I exist because humanity was created by God.
But if there was no cause, there was no effect. Anyone who claims the Big Bang was a cause effectively claims their own nonexistence.

that's where i think you're wrong, my friend. anybody who believes in the big bang theory effectively claims that as the origin of their existence.

But it's not the cause. It's the effect.
Do you have any other theory to combat my claim?

It's infinitely harder to understand what caused the big bang occurred (And addressing a previous statement, the theory of the big bang states that there was a single molecule of infinite mass and density that collapsed into itself) just as impossible it would be to explain were god came from. Simply stating that god has always existed is a complete fallacy since everything has to come from somewhere and I think if you are going to argue where the first molecule came from you should first explain where god came from for fairness.

Someone I was arguing with before sent me a video saying that C14 dating wasn't used anymore. If you care, I can find it for you.

I don't have anything very specific at the moment, but I found this.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/archeology.htm

So archeological evidence is valid when disproving Moses yet the dinosaur bones that date back a 200 million years ago (far longer then the bible states) isn't?

Ah, here's an interesting bit.
How do you know your dating methods are accurate?

Because of carbon dating which has been scientifically proven to be accurate within a few hundred years of something that old.
How do you know the documents you believe disproves when Judaism began are accurate?

The scientific community no longer uses C14 dating.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

That's not true at all, they still do use C14 (Or K14) dating.
Also, that (very bias) source says nothing about C14 not being used.
The source also states that Carbon dating is a theory and thus discreditably. It is indeed a theory but it is a more scientifically backed up theory then anything stated in the bible. Gravity is also a theory but if I were to throw my keyboard I can guarantee that it will fall to the floor.

A clock without a maker is no clock at all.

Oh, then it would be "A clock without a craftsman." said by Dr. Manhattan

Again. Omnipotent. Google.

A claim of omnipotence means nothing without a show of such power. If that's the case I too am omnipotent. Prove I'm not.

you mean your claim that god exists?

My claim that the Big Bang could not have caused itself. That's paradoxical.

so is the theory that god created himself, or has always been

Created himself would be, yes. How is it paradoxical that God always existed?
I think you need to find the definition of omnipotent.

Who is to say god is omnipotent? None have met god face to face but only go off the word of a book written by people who claim to have met people who met Jesus. And if god has always existed why did Judaism only appear around 1800 BC when the earth (By biblical standards) has been around 2000 years before that?

Source, please.
I think your dating is off.

Here's a few backing up when Judaism began (With Abraham as the founder)
www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/religion/jewish.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
www.uri.org/kids/world_juda_basi.htm

Now on the 6000 year old earth:
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

one may say that the means necessary to start the big bang have always existed as well.

If an explosion is omnipotent, what happens?
I'm pretty sure I said don't say the Big Bang.

i'm not saying the explosion is omnipotent. i'm not claiming that anything is omnipotent, in fact.

Saying others can't use their own beliefs in this argument is like saying you can't say god did it.

That actually is militant agnostic.
If nobody knows what's true or what isn't, how do you know that nobody knows?

well actually, what militant actually means in the case of religion and non-religion is that they try and push their beliefs on other people with aggression without respecting the views of others, and without actually knowing if what they believe is true. agnostics cannot be militant, because if they state their beliefs, then they are stating fact (until the presence of a god is proven or dis proven, that is) because it is a fact that nobody can truthfully say that they know for sure, and the most they can say is that they have faith in their beliefs. faith is actually defined as "belief without evidence".

Really? Because I just looked up "faith" and it said "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody knows. I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.

but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your beliefs, or would you say that you have faith?

I am certain of my faith.

what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?

There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.

No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck

Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.

Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one

so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?

Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.

i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?

You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?

Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?

I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job

So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?

yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction

Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?

expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.

I am god and what is this?

Have you heard of militant agnostic? They're funny to me

I uh.. I don't think there's any such thing as a militant agnostic. The "i don't know and neither do you" philosophy is actually true, whether people like it or not, because we have yet to present evidence of the existence or non-existence of a god, and therefore, nobody does know. I'm an Agnostic Atheist because I accept the fact that nobody knows for sure, but I personally do not believe in a god.

Hit the limit.
So. How did said tiny lifeforms get there?
And don't say the Big Bang, that's a crap argument.

the big bang is a valid theory. i do not say that the theory of an all-powerful, all-knowing being is a crap argument. the big bang just seems to make a little more sense to me.

That's the part where I explain.
If you have a jar, completely empty, and leave it for a billion years, assuming the seal doesn't break, what happens?

well let's see here. your generic run-of-the mill jar is going to be made of glass. typical glass is soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (SiO2) plus Na2O, CaO, and several minor additives. now these could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because there is evidence that elements were created via the big bang. nothingness had no container. nothingness's container was nothingness. now assuming you sealed that jar on earth, it would be filled with oxygen. the nothingness that emerged from the bag bang was not oxygen. your statement has little to no valid points.

>completely empty
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. NOTHING.
So what was the cause of the Big Bang? NOTHING.
You don't exist.

now there's a completely different argument right there. are we still on religion vs non religion, or are we now moving on to existence vs non existence?

Oh, so you don't think you exist?

i never said anything of the sort. what is your outlook on it?

it's ok. i respect your beliefs, my friend. and i know many religious people who respect my beliefs, as i respect theirs. thank you for being considerate.

I believe I exist because humanity was created by God.
But if there was no cause, there was no effect. Anyone who claims the Big Bang was a cause effectively claims their own nonexistence.

that's where i think you're wrong, my friend. anybody who believes in the big bang theory effectively claims that as the origin of their existence.

But it's not the cause. It's the effect.
Do you have any other theory to combat my claim?

It's infinitely harder to understand what caused the big bang occurred (And addressing a previous statement, the theory of the big bang states that there was a single molecule of infinite mass and density that collapsed into itself) just as impossible it would be to explain were god came from. Simply stating that god has always existed is a complete fallacy since everything has to come from somewhere and I think if you are going to argue where the first molecule came from you should first explain where god came from for fairness.

Someone I was arguing with before sent me a video saying that C14 dating wasn't used anymore. If you care, I can find it for you.

I don't have anything very specific at the moment, but I found this.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/archeology.htm

So archeological evidence is valid when disproving Moses yet the dinosaur bones that date back a 200 million years ago (far longer then the bible states) isn't?

Ah, here's an interesting bit.
How do you know your dating methods are accurate?

Because of carbon dating which has been scientifically proven to be accurate within a few hundred years of something that old.
How do you know the documents you believe disproves when Judaism began are accurate?

The scientific community no longer uses C14 dating.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

That's not true at all, they still do use C14 (Or K14) dating.
Also, that (very bias) source says nothing about C14 not being used.
The source also states that Carbon dating is a theory and thus discreditably. It is indeed a theory but it is a more scientifically backed up theory then anything stated in the bible. Gravity is also a theory but if I were to throw my keyboard I can guarantee that it will fall to the floor.

A clock without a maker is no clock at all.

Oh, then it would be "A clock without a craftsman." said by Dr. Manhattan

Again. Omnipotent. Google.

A claim of omnipotence means nothing without a show of such power. If that's the case I too am omnipotent. Prove I'm not.

you mean your claim that god exists?

My claim that the Big Bang could not have caused itself. That's paradoxical.

so is the theory that god created himself, or has always been

Created himself would be, yes. How is it paradoxical that God always existed?
I think you need to find the definition of omnipotent.

Who is to say god is omnipotent? None have met god face to face but only go off the word of a book written by people who claim to have met people who met Jesus. And if god has always existed why did Judaism only appear around 1800 BC when the earth (By biblical standards) has been around 2000 years before that?

Source, please.
I think your dating is off.

Here's a few backing up when Judaism began (With Abraham as the founder)
www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/religion/jewish.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
www.uri.org/kids/world_juda_basi.htm

Now on the 6000 year old earth:
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

one may say that the means necessary to start the big bang have always existed as well.

If an explosion is omnipotent, what happens?
I'm pretty sure I said don't say the Big Bang.

i'm not saying the explosion is omnipotent. i'm not claiming that anything is omnipotent, in fact.

Saying others can't use their own beliefs in this argument is like saying you can't say god did it.

That actually is militant agnostic.
If nobody knows what's true or what isn't, how do you know that nobody knows?

well actually, what militant actually means in the case of religion and non-religion is that they try and push their beliefs on other people with aggression without respecting the views of others, and without actually knowing if what they believe is true. agnostics cannot be militant, because if they state their beliefs, then they are stating fact (until the presence of a god is proven or dis proven, that is) because it is a fact that nobody can truthfully say that they know for sure, and the most they can say is that they have faith in their beliefs. faith is actually defined as "belief without evidence".

Really? Because I just looked up "faith" and it said "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody knows. I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.

but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your beliefs, or would you say that you have faith?

I am certain of my faith.

what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?

There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.

No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck

Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.

Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one

so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?

Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.

i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?

You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.

ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?

Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?

I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job

So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?

yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction

Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?

expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.

don't get why they're cutting the movie in two, totally could fit in one...

philsoraptor.jpg

what does one do,

if they can't wait?

I couldn't go see it in theaters when I was a kid T_T
It came out when I was in 8th grade, and I had to have surgery done a few days before it came out. I didn't even care I needed surgery, I was more disappointed I couldn't see Return of the King.

HAH!

used to. now i'm in college and don't go, and then when i go back home to visit, my parents don't care if i go or not. it's nice to go on occasion, but it definitely did.

oh cool. you an agnostic?

i did cause i know your pain. and conformation is a word, so it probably wouldn't have helped you much, but it's just not the right word lol

did you go through the same thing?

used to. now i'm in college and don't go, and then when i go back home to visit, my parents don't care if i go or not. it's nice to go on occasion, but it definitely did.

oh cool. you an agnostic?

orcs must die, on steam