Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Chinook]

No I didn't have to. Just wanted to.

yes or no: it's illogical to believe in watch maker from another universe.

No. That's what I said. It's not a question of logic. It violates no logical proofs to make that assertion.

[RD2191]

http://www.skeptiko.com/the-thinking-atheist-backs-down-from-science-debate/

[RD2191]

Faggot in your little video chickens out. :lol

[Avante]

Once upon a time there were no living beasts or fowl on the earth, the only living things lived in the sea. Then one day a male and a female thingy crawled out of the abyss, (yep a male and female on the same beach at the same time). As time went by, these little thingys became ants and dogs and cats and elephants and cows and monkies and....humans.

Oh hell yes now theres some believable shit.

[spurraider21]

Once upon a time there were no living beasts or fowl on the earth, the only living things lived in the sea. Then one day a male and a female thingy crawled out of the abyss, (yep a male and female on the same beach at the same time). As time went by, these little thingys became ants and dogs and cats and elephants and cows and monkies and....humans.

Oh hell yes now theres some believable shit.
you join robdiaz in the "i dont know how evolution works" club

[Avante]

you join robdiaz in the "i dont know how evolution works" club

Trust me little man, I'm just as tight on that topic as I am sprinters/blues cats. Sure I was poking fun at it. Ya see it's called...The THEORY of evolution ...for a reason, a ton of holes in it, a TON!!!!!!!!!!!!

When totally different species of things can all be traced back to having the same origins we have a problem.

[pgardn]

When totally different species of things can all be traced back to having the same origins we have a problem.

No, actually we don't, in science.
It has a multitude of explanations, that make sense, to people who understand evolution.
There are still discussions of the particulars, but I doubt you know them.

If you equate your statement above to your proficiency in track, then you don't know squat about track.

Please list your holes also. Educate the board since you might have decided to dive into the deep end lacking the ability to dog paddle.
Gotta go outta town will be back tonite most likely, look forward hopefully to a good list. If you know your stuff, it has the possibility of being very meaningful.

[pgardn]

2x posting

[pgardn]

Going back and rereading what various posters are posting, we seem to have different definitions for the same words. This creates a problem and illustrates to me the inadequacy of our language in some of these discussions.

Faith
Fact
Law
Theory
Belief
Reality...

[Blake]

If I was trolling would I ever admit it?

I've never understood why people pretend to be retarded on a messageboard.

Is it really that fun for you to get randomguy to post 20 youtubes and a 10 page response?

To each his own I guess.

[Blake]

No. That's what I said. It's not a question of logic. It violates no logical proofs to make that assertion.

would you agree that believing in the tooth fairy is illogical?

So that I don't forget my question, I'm going to assume you do.

my watch maker question is this:

IYO, At what point did the watch maker let the universe run on it's own? At the very beginning?

[Brazil]

Orcas have no natural predators.

Orcas are fucking underated tbh
They fucking hunt white sharks

[spurraider21]

Orcas are fucking underated tbh
They fucking hunt white sharks
:tu

and dipshit sea world trainers

[Brazil]

:tu

and dipshit sea world trainers

:tu

a shame dat sea worlds entertaining people with Orcas... that's their reward to be highly intelligent animals... that's an interesting paradox btw, you don't show off white sharks because they are pure instinct but you use Orca, a beast that should stay in the wild

[Blake]

:tu

and dipshit sea world trainers

Lol

[Blake]

Orcas are fucking underated tbh
They fucking hunt white sharks

p3xmqbNsRSk

Incredible

[mouse]

He literally points to scripture in the bible... there is no misrepresentation here.... He points them out by scripture.... He was himself a teaching Theologian, far more qualified in the "faith" than you ever will be. What more do you want?

Dude we all get, it you hate religion you despise the Bible.

Now get back to trying to prove your here because two apes fucked.

[silverblk mystix]

It does matter in this discussion. On a cosmological scale, nothing we say matters, however for this discussion it's important to understand why you seem to arbitrarily draw the line at defining the god you believe set things in motion. Things are in motion, and infinite regress is a real bitch to deal with so there has to be a start, and the Big Bang is as far as we've gone back so far. So the mind has to decide that either the Big Bang was uncaused or it was caused. Since we don't know of any uncaused causes, it appears parsimonious to assume it was caused. That implies a causer, and any causer that can exist and act outside of the 1st act is, for all intents and purposes, equal to any god concept that holds any meaning. That's all fine and good, however it only leads to more problems than it solves. How is a prime mover able to escape our need for a cause, if not in reality at least in our explanation? Why can't we allow known things to escape that cause requirement? For example, why can't matter and energy have always existed (always being a time based measurement, meaning you cannot say "before that" with any sensible meaning)? Why is accepting that harder than accepting that a god exists in another realm that had a reason to start a universe? Why would a god start a universe? Why would a god exist without the universe? When did the god's home area come into existence? Is there time between the events of this god? Is this god omnipresent (can't escape that one if he's not confined by time). Is he omnipotent? (can't escape that one if he can create worlds without being affected by them). Is he omniscient? Does he know what loss feels like?

Basically, an unknowable thing is unknowable. How do you know of it?




Pretty much the ultimate knowledge of "god" right there -


all of this and we are all still as blind to "god" as we have ever been and will ever be.

[silverblk mystix]

Why would you consider it possible without evidence to support it? Sounds more like hope.


It is called "the unknown"

[Blake]

Pretty much the ultimate knowledge of "god" right there -


all of this and we are all still as blind to "god" as we have ever been and will ever be.

you're claiming unknowable knowledge yet implying that a God exists all in the same post.

It's either unknowable or it's knowable. Pick a lane.

[Chinook]

would you agree that believing in the tooth fairy is illogical?

So that I don't forget my question, I'm going to assume you do.

my watch maker question is this:

IYO, At what point did the watch maker let the universe run on it's own? At the very beginning?

No. Believing in the tooth-fairy is not a question of logic. Beliefs don't come from logic. They come from empiricism. Do I think that believing in the tooth fairy is supportable or a legitimate explanation for phenomena? Nope. But that's not the same thing as thinking something is illogical. Believing that a bachelor is married is illogical, because it violates self-evident truth. Believing in something without sufficient evidence violates not such truths.

To your question, yeah. That's what I think is most likely to have occurred.

[Blake]

No. Believing in the tooth-fairy is not a question of logic. Beliefs don't come from logic. They come from empiricism. Do I think that believing in the tooth fairy is supportable or a legitimate explanation for phenomena? Nope. But that's not the same thing as thinking something is illogical. Believing that a bachelor is married is illogical, because it violates self-evident truth. Believing in something without sufficient evidence violates not such truths.

To your question, yeah. That's what I think is most likely to have occurred.

I don't care if your beliefs come from empiricism or from mom and dad.

Why you started believing what you do is rather irrelevant in considering whether or not it's logical to continue believing that way.

That said, you have no more empirical reason to believe in a watch maker than you do the tooth fairy.

If you have to make up a story about the origin of the universe, it's just not logical to believe in it.


As far as the question: so if the watch maker started the universe and let it go, the logical conclusion there is that earth and it's inhabitants are just happy coincidences that just happened to spring into existence based on the rules of this universe. Agree or disagree?

[RD2191]

:lolBlake talking out of his ass.

[Chinook]

I don't care if your beliefs come from empiricism or from mom and dad.

Why you started believing what you do is rather irrelevant in considering whether or not it's logical to continue believing that way.

That said, you have no more empirical reason to believe in a watch maker than you do the tooth fairy.

If you have to make up a story about the origin of the universe, it's just not logical to believe in it.


As far as the question: so if the watch maker started the universe and let it go, the logical conclusion there is that earth and it's inhabitants are just happy coincidences that just happened to spring into existence based on the rules of this universe. Agree or disagree?

You can care or not care. It won't help your understanding of logic. Belief does not come from logic. Truth does. That's a distinction you don't seem to get. A belief in evolution is not logical. A belief that you have hands isn't logical. That's a completely different thing altogether.

Probably. Depends on the knowledge level of the maker. If he is omniscient, then we and everything else were known about and intended. But if he isn't, then we may well be coincidental.

[Blake]

:lolBlake talking out of his ass.

You were a C- public school student weren't you.

[Blake]

You can care or not care. It won't help your understanding of logic. Belief does not come from logic. Truth does. That's a distinction you don't seem to get. A belief in evolution is not logical. A belief that you have hands isn't logical. That's a completely different thing altogether.

Wut? A belief in evolution is completely logical thanks to empirical evidence.

You have zero empirical evidence to support a watch maker belief.

That alone makes it an illogical belief.




Probably. Depends on the knowledge level of the maker. If he is omniscient, then we and everything else were known about and intended. But if he isn't, then we may well be coincidental.

so back to "dunno".

[RD2191]

Wut? A belief in evolution is completely logical thanks to empirical evidence.

You have zero empirical evidence to support a watch maker belief.

That alone makes it an illogical belief.



so back to "dunno".
:lol

[RD2191]

http://www.baldeaglegeotec.com/geonotes/RedHill/fish.jpg
:lol

[Chinook]

Wut? A belief in evolution is completely logical thanks to empirical evidence.

You have zero empirical evidence to support a watch maker belief.

That alone makes it an illogical belief.



so back to "dunno".

No, damn it. That's not how it works. Empirical evidence does not determine logic. Empirical evidence determines belief. Did you not read the previous pages where we all agreed on that? You're acting like rob right now, not understanding what you're talking about but just pushing on anyway.

[RD2191]

:wakeup

[xmas1997]

At this point it might be helpful to bring up some more of the "isms".

agnosticism (a belief that no one can know if there is a god or not),

weak/empirical agnosticism (atheist or theist that still has some strong doubts about the existence or non existence of a god),

strong agnosticism (someone who believes that we will never know whether a god exists or not and that doesn't lean toward there being one or not),

apatheism (apathy towards the existence of a god),

non-theism (disbelief in a god or gods),

anti-theism (against all belief in a god or gods),

atheism (the disbelief in any god or gods),

strong/explicit atheism (atheist with no doubt about the non-existence of a god),

weak/implicit atheism (atheist with "some strong" doubts about the non-existence of a god),

ignosticism/igtheism (theological position that every other theological position assumes too much about a god),

theism (belief in a god or gods),

deism (within theism, a belief in a higher authority but not a "god" per say, takes the position that the universe was created by some hypothetical deity, but that it does not intervene in the operation of the universe, and, usually, that it does not particularly take notice of humans any more than it takes of any other aspect of the universe),

post-theism (also within theism, belief that we have developed beyond our need for a god),

autotheism (belief that even though God is all around us and everywhere at the same time, God is inherently "within" oneself (within all of us) and that each of us has the duty to become as perfect or divine and as "selflessly" as we possibly can).

[RandomGuy]

If you wanna talk about morals you must first admit that humans are not animals and therefore did not evolve from an ape. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

You are the one saying the bible has all the answers. Surely your expert scholarship has introduced you to the topic.

I would not care to admit to anything I didn't think was true any more than you would.

Is slavery moral or not?

[Blake]

No, damn it. That's not how it works. Empirical evidence does not determine logic. Empirical evidence determines belief. Did you not read the previous pages where we all agreed on that? You're acting like rob right now, not understanding what you're talking about but just pushing on anyway.

You're getting bogged down in semantics.

Yes or no: do you have empirical evidence to support your watch maker belief?

No?

What's the logic in believing in something without some kind of empirical evidence?

[RandomGuy]

What a stupid generalization. Faggot.

It was unfair. My apologies.

I would not give up on my beliefs if threatened with violence either.

I would, however, give up my beliefs if shown reasonable arguments and evidence that they were wrong. That is where we differ. I care about the truth, and being honest. You do not.

[silverblk mystix]

you're claiming unknowable knowledge yet implying that a God exists all in the same post.

It's either unknowable or it's knowable. Pick a lane.



Didn't imply anything actually.

If something is "unknowable" that means no knowledge.

[xmas1997]

You were a C- public school student weren't you.

Quit trolling.


Wut? A belief in evolution is completely logical thanks to empirical evidence. You have zero empirical evidence to support a watch maker belief. That alone makes it an illogical belief. so back to "dunno".


More trolling.



No, damn it. That's not how it works. Empirical evidence does not determine logic. Empirical evidence determines belief. Did you not read the previous pages where we all agreed on that? You're acting like rob right now, not understanding what you're talking about but just pushing on anyway.

Blake is trolling you, that is all he ever does, he knows nothing about the topic and never did, plus he never ADDs anything constructive to the discussion.
His schtick is to make fun of you, distort or twist out of context what you say, or misquote and make false accusations of you, for his own amusement, even though he has absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about.

[RandomGuy]

Trust me little man, I'm just as tight on that topic as I am sprinters/blues cats. Sure I was poking fun at it. Ya see it's called...The THEORY of evolution ...for a reason, a ton of holes in it, a TON!!!!!!!!!!!!

When totally different species of things can all be traced back to having the same origins we have a problem.

You can also join Rob in the "don't know what a theory is" club, if you want to, obvious trolling aside.

If you can neither accurately state what the theory of evolution is, or even what a theory is for that matter, why should anyone take such statements seriously?

[Chinook]

You're getting bogged down in semantics.

Yes or no: do you have empirical evidence to support your watch maker belief?

No?

What's the logic in believing in something without some kind of empirical evidence?

There is no such think as getting bogged down in semantics during a philosophical debate. The term logical is one of the most powerful out there. It means a hell of a lot more than simply advisable or reasonable.

Yes. The fact that we've never observed an uncaused effect. I have no reason to believe such a thing exists in our universe.

A belief is not logical or illogical. Only relations of ideas can be logical or illogical. It's like asking what's the math behind the belief you have hands. It doesn't make sense.

[RandomGuy]

:lol

Shocking. How do you explain atavisms?

[RandomGuy]

There is no such think as getting bogged down in semantics during a philosophical debate. The term logical is one of the most powerful out there. It means a hell of a lot more than simply advisable or reasonable.

Yes. The fact that we've never observed an uncaused effect. I have no reason to believe such a thing exists in our universe.

A belief is not logical or illogical. Only relations of ideas can be logical or illogical. It's like asking what's the math behind the belief you have hands. It doesn't make sense.

I have no reason to believe the "cause" of the universe is some creator or sentient actor. I would then ask, what caused the creator, if that were indeed the case, and off we go on the infinite regression.

A gust of wind can cause a deck of cards to fall over. That doesn't mean the wind is sentient.

Our universe is.

That is as far as I will go, until given some evidence otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

There is no such think as getting bogged down in semantics during a philosophical debate. The term logical is one of the most powerful out there. It means a hell of a lot more than simply advisable or reasonable.

Yes. The fact that we've never observed an uncaused effect. I have no reason to believe such a thing exists in our universe.

A belief is not logical or illogical. Only relations of ideas can be logical or illogical. It's like asking what's the math behind the belief you have hands. It doesn't make sense.

Secondly, cause and effect require time.

We have no idea if time existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

[Blake]

Didn't imply anything actually.

If something is "unknowable" that means no knowledge.

You implying that God is unknowable implies the existence of a God.

Think.

[xmas1997]

You're getting bogged down in semantics. Yes or no: do you have empirical evidence to support your watch maker belief? No? What's the logic in believing in something without some kind of empirical evidence?

Just so you can put this in order, although I doubt you will understand any of it:


log·ic
noun \ˈlä-jik\

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

reasoning
noun

: the process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment

: the ability of the mind to think and understand things in a logical way
Full Definition of REASONING
1
: the use of reason; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason
2
: an instance of the use of reason : argument

em·pir·i·cal
adjective \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\

: based on testing or experience
Full Definition of EMPIRICAL
1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4
: of or relating to empiricism

http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/the-meaning-of-empirical-evidence-22212/

Empiricism is the basic practice of science. Science can be described as empirical because it relies on direct experience or observation in order to describe or explain phenomena. In other words, a scientific or empirical approach is inductive, and bases its explanations upon that which can be directly observed in a replicable or repeatable manner.

The requirement concerning empirical observations being potentially replicable is key. This is what differentiates science from mystical or religious traditions. Science does not rely on dreams, or visions, or faith in the authority of sacred texts or spiritual beings as a basis for knowledge. That's why science does not recognize the existence of the human soul, for example, since it cannot be observed. Similarly, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, since God is generally believed to be transcendent (i.e. as existing beyond nature, and therefore potential observation).
"Empirical evidence" is confined to only those phenomena which more than one person can observe.

truth
noun \ˈtrüth\

the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true

: the quality or state of being true

: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true
plural truths
Full Definition of TRUTH
1
a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>
c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4
capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually


be·lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief

[Blake]

A belief is not logical or illogical. Only relations of ideas can be logical or illogical. It's like asking what's the math behind the belief you have hands. It doesn't make sense.


Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." - H. L. Mencken

I concur with Mencken.

[RandomGuy]

You mean sinners who refused to follow Gods laws? And as a believer, God is the ultimate judge, so in my eyes God had reason to do what he did. Therefore God is not evil.

What about the infants who couldn't know what God's laws were?

What was the basis of their judgment?

What their parents did?

Original sin? Sorry the entire concept of original sin is fucking stupid too. That bible God somehow found it made more sense to sacrifice himself to himself than to forgive the descendants of a man and woman who ate a piece of fruit after listening to a talking snake is, on its face, ridiculous.

[xmas1997]

faith
[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

[spurraider21]

No, damn it. That's not how it works. Empirical evidence does not determine logic. Empirical evidence determines belief. Did you not read the previous pages where we all agreed on that? You're acting like rob right now, not understanding what you're talking about but just pushing on anyway.


:wakeup
:lol

[Blake]

xmas we all have access to a dictionary. Get out of the way please.

[xmas1997]

faith
[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

[Chinook]

I have no reason to believe the "cause" of the universe is some creator or sentient actor. I would then ask, what caused the creator, if that were indeed the case, and off we go on the infinite regression.

A gust of wind can cause a deck of cards to fall over. That doesn't mean the wind is sentient.

Our universe is.

That is as far as I will go, until given some evidence otherwise.

Wr talked about infinite regression last night. You'd probably find my answers unsatisfactory, but they're there for you to peruse.

As far as sentience goes, I'd argue that the prime mover would probably be sentient as that's the only way a cause can't be a reaction.

[xmas1997]

xmas we all have access to a dictionary. Get out of the way please.

Then quit trolling.

[Chinook]

I concur with Mencken.

Don't even know who the hell that is.

[Chinook]

Secondly, cause and effect require time.

We have no idea if time existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

I'm confused about time now. Last night, I was assured to time is a construct of the human mind to state two events did not occur simultaneously. Now, events are dependent on time. Color me puzzled.

[xmas1997]

Don't even know who the hell that is.

No doubt about that.

H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
by Doug Linder (2004)
Journalist H. L. Mencken described himself as “absolutely devoid of what is called religious feeling.
A recent Mencken biographer calls him “one of the last American intellectuals to speak out forcefully, pungently, and satirically against the follies of religion.”

[xmas1997]

I think you got close, or as close as anyone can get to a definition of the dimension of "time" and science appears to support your view of it.

Time is represented through change, such as the circular motion of the moon around Earth. The passing of time is indeed closely connected to the concept of space.

According to the general theory of relativity, space, or the universe, emerged in the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. Before that, all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot. That dot also contained the matter that later came to be the sun, the earth and the moon -- the heavenly bodies that tell us about the passing of time.

Before the Big Bang, there was no space or time.

"In the theory of relativity, the concept of time begins with the Big Bang the same way as parallels of latitude begin at the North Pole. You cannot go further north than the North Pole," says Kari Enqvist, Professor of Cosmology.

One of the most peculiar qualities of time is the fact that it is measured by motion and it also becomes evident through motion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050415115227.htm

[Blake]

Then quit trolling.

posting dictionary terms is your way of getting me to quit trolling?

[xmas1997]

However this may be closer to the truth since practically everything is illusory.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-an-illusion/

Is Time an Illusion?
The concepts of time and change may emerge from a universe that, at root, is utterly static
By Craig Callender

As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.

Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.

[xmas1997]

God and Time

Any theistic view of the world includes some notion of how God is related to the structures of the universe, including space and time. The question of God’s relation to time has generated a great amount of theological and philosophical reflection. The traditional view has been that God is timeless in the sense of being outside time altogether; that is, he exists but does not exist at any point in time and he does not experience temporal succession. What may be the dominant view of philosophers today is that he is temporal but everlasting; that is, God never began to exist and he never will go out of existence. He exists at each moment in time.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

[silverblk mystix]

You implying that God is unknowable implies the existence of a God.

Think.


You are not paying attention , are you?


I said "god" is unknowable...

Everyone else is saying god is ...whatever...


I never even made the "jump" that the word "god" is an actual "thing"

Why would I ever argue on something unknowable.


None of us are even past - STEP #1


Yet EVERYONE is arguing about STEP #23, STEP #29, STEP #763


When no one bothered or knows what "god" is - and they never will.

So pay attention;

This "god" that all us blind humans are arguing about has nothing at all to do with a real -


(_______ insert labels here ________ )


So the ultimate knowledge of this "topic" is that it is unknowable.


The rest is all "theories, formulas,concepts,stabs in the dark, guesses, opinions"



:lmao:lmao:lmao

[mouse]

I care about the truth, and being honest. .

If that was true you would have supported my arguments about lies in the textbooks.

[Blake]

You are not paying attention , are you?


I said "god" is unknowable...

smh.

Ok, yes or no: there is a higher power

[xmas1997]

smh.

Ok, yes or no: there is a higher power

Just trying to help you become part of the discussion rather than trolling it.

[xmas1997]

You are not paying attention , are you?
I said "god" is unknowable...
Everyone else is saying god is ...whatever...
I never even made the "jump" that the word "god" is an actual "thing"
Why would I ever argue on something unknowable.
None of us are even past - STEP #1
Yet EVERYONE is arguing about STEP #23, STEP #29, STEP #763
When no one bothered or knows what "god" is - and they never will.
So pay attention;
This "god" that all us blind humans are arguing about has nothing at all to do with a real -
(_______ insert labels here ________ )
So the ultimate knowledge of this "topic" is that it is unknowable.
The rest is all "theories, formulas,concepts,stabs in the dark, guesses, opinions"
:lmao:lmao:lmao

You make some excellent points.

I think you can have "some" TRUE knowledge of the "unknowable",
But not a "complete" knowledge, otherwise God would not be unknowable.

[xmas1997]

Pretty much the ultimate knowledge of "god" right there -


all of this and we are all still as blind to "god" as we have ever been and will ever be.


It is called "the unknown"

And if there were not at the very least SOME knowledge or inkling of the "unknown or unknowable" (GOD), then the concept of God would never have been conceptualized in the first place, don't you think?

[silverblk mystix]

smh.

Ok, yes or no: there is a higher power


Too many idiotic assumptions.

LOL higher power...now in your puny human mind - you want to classify this "thing" - this "god" as some "higher power"

You are too far ahead already - by ahead - I mean your assumptions are idiotic and full of falseness. You assumed this "thing" was something separate from the universe. Maybe it is maybe it is not - maybe it is the universe.

Then you made another idiotic leap and tried to classify it as either having a higher power - or not. Idiotic - because - you still have no clue what this "thing" is - but you are trying to pigeonhole another person to swallow your idiotic premise - on top of the rest of your idiotic assumptions.


Too much stupid to even consider you as being anywhere near "being awake" yet.

[silverblk mystix]

And if there were not at the very least SOME knowledge or inkling of the "unknown or unknowable" (GOD), then the concept of God would never have been conceptualized in the first place, don't you think?


To have gone thousands of years and only arrived at "it is unknowable" -


this "god-thing" is pretty damn impressive!!!!!!!!!

[Blake]

Just trying to help you become part of the discussion rather than trolling it.

Spamming isn't helping anyone.

[Blake]

I think you can have "some" TRUE knowledge of the "unknowable",


smh

[Blake]

Too many idiotic assumptions.

LOL higher power...now in your puny human mind - you want to classify this "thing" - this "god" as some "higher power"

You are too far ahead already - by ahead - I mean your assumptions are idiotic and full of falseness. You assumed this "thing" was something separate from the universe. Maybe it is maybe it is not - maybe it is the universe.

Then you made another idiotic leap and tried to classify it as either having a higher power - or not. Idiotic - because - you still have no clue what this "thing" is - but you are trying to pigeonhole another person to swallow your idiotic premise - on top of the rest of your idiotic assumptions.


Too much stupid to even consider you as being anywhere near "being awake" yet.

Define "awake"

If you need help, you can borrow xmas' dictionary.

[xmas1997]

Pretty much the ultimate knowledge of "god" right there -


all of this and we are all still as blind to "god" as we have ever been and will ever be.


To have gone thousands of years and only arrived at "it is unknowable" -


this "god-thing" is pretty damn impressive!!!!!!!!!

Not only impressive, but improbable too, especially considering how early in mankind's collective psyche the concept first originated, that makes it even more impressive.
So yes, that should be the first question one considers.
The second question that needs to be thought about is, if indeed God exists, then does He want us to know about Him, and to what degree?

EDIT: How do you know God is unknowable if nothing can be known of God, isn’t that something you know about him?

[xmas1997]

Define "awake"

If you need help, you can borrow xmas' dictionary.

The dictionary was strictly for you since you are so confused about this.

[xmas1997]

To have gone thousands of years and only arrived at "it is unknowable" - this "god-thing" is pretty damn impressive!!!!!!!!!


I think we are going about this in the correct manner, rather than leaving it as an "unanswerable" question simply because God is "unknowable".

Does God (the unknowable essence) exist?

That’s the real point of this discussion.

Also another point is that we don’t have to get stuck with the idea that “God is a mystery (unknowable).”

Instead, we can be encouraged that there are certain kinds of rational filters which allow us to systematically evaluate the different ways in which God may have revealed Himself and some kind of message to us.

And in doing this, we will be far more educated, culturally aware, and well-informed for having conducted an investigation in the first place.

We shouldn't hide behind the idea that “spiritual things are a big mystery (unknowable)" to avoid the hard and careful work of answering such important questions.

If there is a God who can be known, that is one of the most important things to know!

If there isn’t, that makes a big difference too.

Either way, we need to make an informed decision IMHO.

[DMC]

We disagree on the extent to which the piece makes sense.

Which is why I asked you to give your reasoning. Instead you've only said it makes more sense to say a god did it than to say nothing did it or that it wasn't actually done.

[DMC]

Playing the guitar, I don't consider that knowledge about the physical universe. I consider understanding simple harmonic motion, wave interference, resonance, etc.. Knowledge about the physical universe; Helping one understand how the guitar works is more knowledge than playing, which is a craft even though we say, I KNOW how to play the guitar. Knowing how to play does not necessarily lead to the fundamental physical rules of how the instrument works. I should really call this an art.

So in this way science is very limited. Science cannot tell you how it feels to experience loss, but it can sure delve into the question of why loss can be so "painful" to the a Human nervous system from an evolutionary perspective. What purpose loss, envy, love, might play from an evolutionary point of view and which part of the brain needs to be excited to illicit the aforementioned responses.
I think we are in agreement about the types of knowledge, but they do exist and they aren't all related to science.

[silverblk mystix]

I think we are going about this in the correct manner, rather than leaving it as an "unanswerable" question simply because God is "unknowable".

Does God (the unknowable essence) exist?

That’s the real point of this discussion.

Also another point is that we don’t have to get stuck with the idea that “God is a mystery (unknowable).”

Instead, we can be encouraged that there are certain kinds of rational filters which allow us to systematically evaluate the different ways in which God may have revealed Himself and some kind of message to us.

And in doing this, we will be far more educated, culturally aware, and well-informed for having conducted an investigation in the first place.

We shouldn't hide behind the idea that “spiritual things are a big mystery (unknowable)" to avoid the hard and careful work of answering such important questions.

If there is a God who can be known, that is one of the most important things to know!

If there isn’t, that makes a big difference too.

Either way, we need to make an informed decision IMHO.


Maybe humans should continue to "seek"


but on the other hand - the other side of the coin....


some mystics say;

"don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions"

[DMC]

Well, my source Xmas says god is the ultimate parodox...

Kidding about that. What do you mean about my conclusions of god being from within time?

What I mean is that the problems you seem to think exist are because you're both in time and trying to remote view the "timeless" on a timeline. Regression is time based, so infinite regression would be until the beginning of time. If you violate that concept, you lose meaning when you say "what happened before that?". There is no before if there is no time.


But the inverse is true as well. When time ends, it stops. So there's a start that we consider to be 13 Billion years ago, and there's an end we predict will be Billions upon Billions of years in the future. Between the first event of the universe and the last, there is a theoretically measurable gap of time. We can estimate that gap now despite not being able to observe any but a minute fraction of it.

There is a gap now. At the end of time there will never have been one.

[xmas1997]

Maybe humans should continue to "seek"
but on the other hand - the other side of the coin....
some mystics say;
"don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions"

I think somewhere in the middle between the two courses of actions you mention above is the proper path, the happy median.
Too much, and too little, of anything is not good for you.

[spurraider21]

a lot of it just seems like yet another god of the gaps tbh. we don't understand the beginning or end of time, so to alleviate that, we will invent a "timeless" entity that did it all.

its possible that said entity exists, but it seems baseless to assume that it does indeed exist

[Chinook]

Which is why I asked you to give your reasoning. Instead you've only said it makes more sense to say a god did it than to say nothing did it or that it wasn't actually done.

Indeed. I can understand why you would disagree with that, but I don't get why you see that as a non-answer, rather than a bad one.


What I mean is that the problems you seem to think exist are because you're both in time and trying to remote view the "timeless" on a timeline. Regression is time based, so infinite regression would be until the beginning of time. If you violate that concept, you lose meaning when you say "what happened before that?". There is no before if there is no time.

Okay. But then you are supposing the beginning of time is somehow special. We can agree that infinite regression is based in time, but that doesn't do a lot of work. We need a good reason to suppose that the regression ends half-way through a cycle (the Big Bang being an effect) rather than at a cause.


There is a gap now. At the end of time there will never have been one.

Sure, but there's a gap now, and the instant before time ends, there will still be that gap. It will be measurable. Anyway, I don't agree that time is simply a gap between events. I don't think that makes sense. I can see time only being measurable as a gap. But I understand it to be a necessary quality for existence. It's not like light or sound in that it must be perceived to exist.

[Chinook]

a lot of it just seems like yet another god of the gaps tbh. we don't understand the beginning or end of time, so to alleviate that, we will invent a "timeless" entity that did it all.

its possible that said entity exists, but it seems baseless to assume that it does indeed exist

The "god of gaps" idea as I understand it is just people trying to appeal to higher authority to explain mysteries which can be explored empirically. Since no one ever thinks we can observe, test or measure outside of existence, it's quite a bit more severe. Essentially, it's hard to call the beginning of existence a gap.

But obviously, I would think that.

[DMC]

Indeed. I can understand why you would disagree with that, but I don't get why you see that as a non-answer, rather than a bad one.

It's a non answer because it stops short. You prefaced your diesm statement by saying you only believe what science has discovered to be likely true, yet you believe in a god and science hasn't touched that one.

Why are you going back "before" time. Don't you realize that's a nonsensical concept?


Okay. But then you are supposing the beginning of time is somehow special. We can agree that infinite regression is based in time, but that doesn't do a lot of work. We need a good reason to suppose that the regression ends half-way through a cycle (the Big Bang being an effect) rather than at a cause.

Why do you need to consider that the Big Bang ends halfway through a cycle? Do you think time was linear during the Big Bang? It's not like you had space, and then a singularity, and then the BB happened. It's like the Big Bang happened. There's no "and then". I realize it's difficult to wrap your mind around it, but we are not programmers of the universe and we cannot view it from a remote perspective though we pretend we can. Our thoughts are time based, we cannot think of anything that isn't also time based (except concepts).


Sure, but there's a gap now, and the instant before time ends, there will still be that gap. It will be measurable. Anyway, I don't agree that time is simply a gap between events. I don't think that makes sense. I can see time only being measurable as a gap. But I understand it to be a necessary quality for existence. It's not like light or sound in that it must be perceived to exist.

So you believe in Newtonian time? Time is absolutely a gap between events. Otherwise, I'd like to see you describe it without using events. I'd like to see even a concept of an eventless time existence.

[xmas1997]

Before the Big Bang, there was no space or time.

"In the theory of relativity, the concept of time begins with the Big Bang the same way as parallels of latitude begin at the North Pole. You cannot go further north than the North Pole," says Kari Enqvist, Professor of Cosmology.

One of the most peculiar qualities of time is the fact that it is measured by motion and it also becomes evident through motion.

[DMC]

The "god of gaps" idea as I understand it is just people trying to appeal to higher authority to explain mysteries which can be explored empirically. Since no one ever thinks we can observe, test or measure outside of existence, it's quite a bit more severe. Essentially, it's hard to call the beginning of existence a gap.

But obviously, I would think that.

Not really. The god of the gaps is how theists tend to regress their god back into the shadows of the unknown as science reveals the previously unknown, that was attributed to god. It's how the church recognized evolution only after it was irrefutable, and accredited it to god whereas before it was against the concept of a god.

In the OT God was in the skies, Satan was in the ground. In the NT Jesus ascended to heaven but only after he descended into hell. Now that we know what's inside the Earth and what's above the planet, God suddenly exists in a different realm, as does Satan. The supernatural always regresses back to the shadows of the unknown. They must, else they go poof.

[RD2191]

Not really. The god of the gaps is how theists tend to regress their god back into the shadows of the unknown as science reveals the previously unknown, that was attributed to god. It's how the church recognized evolution only after it was irrefutable, and accredited it to god whereas before it was against the concept of a god.

In the OT God was in the skies, Satan was in the ground. In the NT Jesus ascended to heaven but only after he descended into hell. Now that we know what's inside the Earth and what's above the planet, God suddenly exists in a different realm, as does Satan. The supernatural always regresses back to the shadows of the unknown. They must, else they go poof.
:lol

[pgardn]

You prefaced your diesm statement by saying you only believe what science has discovered to be likely true, yet you believe in a god and science hasn't touched that one.




So you believe in Newtonian time? Time is absolutely a gap between events. Otherwise, I'd like to see you describe it without using events. I'd like to see even a concept of an eventless time existence.

The bolded above is of huge importance.

Science is a way of understanding the natural world WITHOUT the use of the supernatural. For the life of me, I don't understand why people try to utilize science, or some perverted form of science, to prove the existence of the supernatural.

Science says " I cannot use the supernatural for explanations, that's not how I work, I can't touch that."

The belief that supernatural events occur is outside the purview of science. The belief in the supernatural influencing the natural world requires an entirely different type of belief system. It's not better or worse, it's different. So why is it so incumbent upon for example creationists, to use a belief system that uses magic to explain natural phenomena? This is stepping off a cliff.

As for the second part of the quote above... Me too. It would be most interesting. And if one accomplished this I can't see how we would call it time. Make up a new word.

[xmas1997]

The bolded above is of huge importance.

Science is a way of understanding the natural world WITHOUT the use of the supernatural. For the life of me, I don't understand why people try to utilize science, or some perverted form of science, to prove the existence of the supernatural.

Science says " I cannot use the supernatural for explanations, that's not how I work, I can't touch that."

The belief that supernatural events occur is outside the purview of science. The belief in the supernatural influencing the natural world requires an entirely different type of belief system. It's not better or worse, it's different. So why is it so incumbent upon for example creationists, to use a belief system that uses magic to explain natural phenomena? This is stepping off a cliff.

As for the second part of the quote above... Me too. It would be most interesting. And if one accomplished this I can't see how we would call it time. Make up a new word.

That is not to say that science "should not" touch or study the supernatural, rather it is saying that they haven't yet.

When someone is adamantly opposed to the concept of the supernatural, they limit only themselves, not the concept.

Scientists have "faith" in their theories.

This is at the core of their compulsion to continue to learn and blatantly challenge previously held beliefs.

When did curiosity cease being an integral element of discovery?

[spurraider21]

Scientists have "faith" in their theories.
you posted this earlier as a definition of faith... belief that is not based on proof

this is not what scientists do

[xmas1997]

you posted this earlier as a definition of faith... belief that is not based on proof

this is not what scientists do

And I agree with that. In that instance I was using it as a "figure of speech", but you are technically correct, "faith" excludes the need for proof, whereas science requires proof.

However I used that "figure of speech" because "most" people do take science on "faith" because it is much easier to trust a scientist's evaluations for things than it is to go and test things for themselves.

But the rest of my statement stands IMHO.

[Blake]

That is not to say that science "should not" touch or study the supernatural, rather it is saying that they haven't yet.

smh

[xmas1997]

smh

When someone is adamantly opposed, i.e. closed minded, to the concept of the supernatural, they limit only themselves, not the concept.

So I repeat, when did curiosity cease being an integral element of discovery in science?

This is what happens when you try to take peoples' statements out of context, they come back to slap you in the face.

[Blake]

You're slapping yourself

[pgardn]

That is not to say that science "should not" touch or study the supernatural, rather it is saying that they haven't yet.



No.

Just No.

I repeat, science does not deal with the supernatural. If the supernatural follows natural rules, we don't refer to it as supernatural.

If we can observe, measure, model, use math and logic to describe physical phenomena, without using magic, we are using science. Once you start making up rules, you believe the natural world works without using the aforementioned, you are NOT using science. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. There is nothing WRONG (morally) with a value system saying the Bible says this about about how humans came to be. Just realize you are using religion to answer a question that can be approached without the use of the supernatural. So choose your questions carefully. Tell me what science says about the punishment for stealing?

Now if you use the religious explanation of how humans came to be, knowing there are better explanations using a value system (which puts very high value on the reasonable nature of scientific enquiry), then repent. And realize science has no prescription on how many Hail Marys you should say in penance.

Why is this so difficult?

[Blake]

Don't even know who the hell that is.

how about David Hume?

Just curious, what do you think of the way he craps all over your watch maker belief?

[RD2191]

When someone is adamantly opposed, i.e. closed minded, to the concept of the supernatural, they limit only themselves, not the concept.

So I repeat, when did curiosity cease being an integral element of discovery in science?

This is what happens when you try to take peoples' statements out of context, they come back to slap you in the face.

[xmas1997]

You're slapping yourself

You're the one being closed minded and limiting yourself, not I,
So go ahead, keep slapping yourself, I don't mind, mine is open.

[Blake]

No.

Just No.

I repeat, science does not deal with the supernatural. If the supernatural follows natural rules, we don't refer to it as supernatural.

If we can observe, measure, model, use math and logic to describe physical phenomena, without using magic, we are using science. Once you start making up rules, you believe the natural world works without using the aforementioned, you are NOT using science. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. There is nothing WRONG (morally) with a value system saying the Bible says this about about how humans came to be. Just realize you are using religion to answer a question that can be approached without the use of the supernatural. So choose your questions carefully. Tell me what science says about the punishment for stealing?

Now if you use the religious explanation of how humans came to be, knowing there are better explanations using a value system (which puts very high value on the reasonable nature of scientific enquiry), then repent. And realize science has no prescription on how many Hail Marys you should say in penance.

Why is this so difficult?

based on observations of xmas' behavior, I empirically predict a long winded post full of gibberish forth coming.

[pgardn]

The idea of action at a distance was once explained using the supernatural. If you say God created gravitational fields (a scientific model), I can't rule that out using science. But I can, being a reasonable human being, ask if saying God created gravitational fields is really necessary. If one feels it is, fine by me. But that's me, my judgement. My own judgement NOT using science. I would rather say there is a connection between mass and gravitational fields, this is more useful TO ME so that one can ask FURTHER questions using science.

I dont think the above should be difficult either.

[xmas1997]

based on observations of xmas' behavior, I empirically predict a long winded post full of gibberish forth coming.

No, that is what we have you here for, gibberish.
:lmao

[Blake]

No, that is what we have you here for, gibberish.
:lmao

Oh the rubber glue argument. Who could have predicted that.

[phyzik]

Just because you read a book doesn't mean you understand it. All he's doing is trying to claim God is evil because bad shit happens. Okay, what are atheists doing to help the children starving in Africa? All this dude is doing is telling people that believing in the Bible is stupid. Yeah, he is really helping humanity.

And why are you so angry about what I believe?

You are misinterpreting anger vs concern. Who, in their right mind, would choose to believe a fairy tail Knowing there was verifiable evidence that unequivocally disproves said persons beliefs?

I don't even know why I am arguing with you.... Even with the most concrete evidence, you will still choose to ignore it.

[RD2191]

You are misinterpreting anger vs concern. Who, in their right mind, would choose to believe a fairy tail Knowing there was verifiable evidence that unequivocally disproves said persons beliefs?
disprove God?

[spurraider21]

disprove God?
doesn't disprove god, but rather strongly refutes much of the bible, thus potentially disproving the judeo-christian god

[phyzik]

disprove God?

I don't have to Disprove God, you have to PROVE him.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as the saying goes....

I am not the one making outlandish claims, you are... prove them.

[RD2191]

I don't have to Disprove God, you have to PROVE him.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as the saying goes....

I am not the one making outlandish claims, you are... prove them.
Not true. You're the one saying God does not exist. And by your logic, prove that fish can eventually turn into a man.

[RD2191]

doesn't disprove god, but rather strongly refutes much of the bible, thus potentially disproving the judeo-christian god
What are you talking about?

[phyzik]

Not true. You're the one saying God does not exist. And by your logic, prove that fish can eventually turn into a man.

1) There is no scientific measurable piece of evidence that "God" exists... therefore I have to prove nothing.... It is on the person who insists that God exists to validate their claim.

2) Evolution never said fish turned into man... you are, yet again, misunderstanding the theory of evolution.... Please at least read about it before making yourself look like a total fucking idiot.

There is no point in arguing evolution with someone who doesn't even understand Evolution...

It would be like arguing the internals of a combustion engine with someone who doesn't even know how to pump gas into the tank.

[RD2191]

1) There is no scientific measurable piece of evidence that "God" exists... therefore I have to prove nothing.... It is on the person who insists that God exists to validate their claim.

2) Evolution never said fish turned into man... you are, yet again, misunderstanding the theory of evolution.... Please at least read about it before making yourself look like a total fucking idiot.
No, you prove that God does not exist.

LOL. we've been through this a million times. If you go far back enough, evolution teaches that humans came from fish. As I said before, show me.

[RD2191]

http://natureworld.ru/misc/evolution/cont_evolution/cont_evolution_02.jpg

[xmas1997]

Quit trolling again.

[RD2191]

:lol

[phyzik]

No, you prove that God does not exist.

LOL. we've been through this a million times. If you go far back enough, evolution teaches that humans came from fish. As I said before, show me.

*sigh*

How many times is this going to take?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

[RD2191]

*sigh*

How many times is this going to take?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils
:lolWow, skulls of humans and apes. Big whoop.

[phyzik]

:lolWow, skulls of humans and apes. Big whoop.

You have already pretty much stated that, regardless of the evidence, you still wont accept it, so I am done...

I have proven my point and you lost because you just refuse to accept the facts. there is no further argument for me to continue with except to allow you to pander on with your false beliefs.

Not going to happen.

Score one for Science.





Unless you want to have a true debate about the bible.... My challenge is still open.

[RD2191]

You have already pretty much stated that, regardless of the evidence, you still wont accept it, so I am done...

I have proven my point and you lost because you just refuse to accept the facts. there is no further argument for me to continue with except to allow you to pander on with your false beliefs.

Not going to happen.

Score one for Science.
Prove to me that a fish can turn into a human. Oh, that's right, you can't because it can't be observed.

[DMC]

:lolWow, skulls of humans and apes. Big whoop.
How many kids do you have, btw?

[phyzik]

Prove to me that a fish can turn into a human. Oh, that's right, you can't because it can't be observed.

My debate challenge is still open if you want to accept. You can even lead off with this asinine beliefs about evolution.

[RD2191]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Lucy_blackbg.jpg

[phyzik]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Lucy_blackbg.jpg

Debate? come on!!!

[RD2191]

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/Lucy%20Body_0.jpg

[RD2191]

Scientist got all of that from a couple of bones and skull fragments. ROFLMAO

[phyzik]

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/Lucy%20Body_0.jpg

Scared?

[RD2191]

:lmao:lmao

[RD2191]

:lmao

[RD2191]

:lmao:lol:lmao

[phyzik]

Scientist got all of that from a couple of bones and skull fragments. ROFLMAO

Debate me then.

[RD2191]

Scientist got all of that from a couple of bones and skull fragments. ROFLMAO
:rollin

[RD2191]

Debate me then.
http://s.mlkshk.com/r/CEK

[RD2191]

"Science":lol

[phyzik]

http://s.mlkshk.com/r/CEK

What is the matter? Are you scared that I will demolish your beliefs so you have to post pics of nerds?

Are you THAT fearful of your beliefs being shattered?

Is your belief not STRONG enough to hold up to scrutiny?


You can post pics of nerds/atheist all you want... it doesn't bother me one bit.... it just confirms that your belief is as fragile as wet toilet paper.

[RD2191]

What is the matter? Are you scared that I will demolish your beliefs so you have to post pics of nerds?

Are you THAT fearful of your beliefs being shattered?

Is your belief not STRONG enough to hold up to scrutiny?
Demolish like I just did to yours using only 2 pictures? :lol

[RD2191]

Yes, 25 guests, that is how the theory of evolution works, assumption.

[phyzik]

Demolish like I just did to yours using only 2 pictures? :lol

ummm.... what?

What did you exactly "destroy" about me? You are the one back peddling.

[RD2191]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382024055212/Five-Homo-erectus-skulls--009.jpg

[RD2191]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382025135818/Reconstruction-of-Homo-er-009.jpg

[RD2191]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/PSM_V52_D027_Old_tom_australian_aboriginal.jpg

[phyzik]

I .........


I don't get it.......


What are they supposed to mean.....

[RD2191]

Fucking amazing. Still alive.

[RD2191]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

[RD2191]

:wakeup

[RD2191]

If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis,H ergaster and possibly H habilis.

[RD2191]

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

[RD2191]

"Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches," said White:lol

[phyzik]

If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis,H ergaster and possibly H habilis.

And you know what would happen with an Atheist like me and all others?

"well, shit... we got THAT wrong, lets move on!"

How about your 2000 year old book?

Seriously... If Jesus made himself present unequivocally, say having a display in the sky... I would shrug my shoulders and still disown his immoral ass for condemning millions of children to death every year... fuck him and his so called "morals"... They are not good enough for MY morals.

[DMC]

This is how evolution works: a 20 something year old on a Thursday night not getting any pussy just trying to be an interesting troll as he multiposts the same shit over and over. You'll not procreate.

[RD2191]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382025135818/Reconstruction-of-Homo-er-009.jpg
Notice the ape like features given to the skull for no particular reason other than to fit into the theory of evolution. Come on guests.

[RD2191]

This is how evolution works: a 20 something year old on a Thursday night not getting any pussy just trying to be an interesting troll as he multiposts the same shit over and over. You'll not procreate.
Son, I've gotten more pussy than you could ever dream of. White women love me.

[RD2191]

And you know what would happen with an Atheist like me and all others?

"well, shit... we got THAT wrong, lets move on!"

How about your 2000 year old book?

Seriously... If Jesus made himself present unequivocally, say having a display in the sky... I would shrug my shoulders and still disown his immoral ass for condemning millions of children to death every year... fuck him and his so called "morals"... They are not good enough for MY morals.
Okay buddy, what are you doing to save the children? I'll wait.

[phyzik]

Okay buddy, what are you doing to save the children? I'll wait.

I donate $50 every paycheck automatically through my employer to UNICEF.

[RD2191]

I donate $50 every paycheck automatically through my employer to UNICEF.
Making shit up. :lol

[phyzik]

Making shit up. :lol

Not making it up... I get a nice tax write off every year for it. =p

[DMC]

Son, I've gotten more pussy than you could ever dream of. White women love me.
Who doesn't love good lawn care?

[RD2191]

Who doesn't love good lawn care?
I don't mind a bush, tbh.

[RD2191]

Not making it up... I get a nice tax write off every year for it. =p
:lol

[Blake]

Not true. You're the one saying God does not exist. And by your logic, prove that fish can eventually turn into a man.

By your logic an adult man and woman both poofed into existence.

Lol magic

[xmas1997]

I don't mind a bush, tbh.

Rob, owning and destroying the trolls as usual.
Even though I don't totally agree with you it is still funny how you trap them in their own words.
:lmao

[Blake]

No, you prove that God does not exist.

LOL. we've been through this a million times. If you go far back enough, evolution teaches that humans came from fish. As I said before, show me.

Prove that an adult human can be poofed into being.

[xmas1997]

:lol

You demolished them all and especially blake who is still yammering. :lmao

None of them have disproved God.

Plus none of them have even proved that God is "extraordinary".

He is not extraordinary, at least not to us, He is just God.

If it is so important and offensive to them, then they need to prove it and so far I have not seen one iota of proof.

And Christ said we would do those things, and greater.

And we are, everyday.

Nothing extraordinary about any of that.
:lmao

[Blake]

None of them have disproved God.

Nobody needs to.



And Christ said we would do those things, and greater.

And we are, everyday.

Nothing extraordinary about any of that
:lmao

So now you literally believe what the Bible says.

Make up your mind.

[silverblk mystix]

My debate challenge is still open if you want to accept. You can even lead off with this asinine beliefs about evolution.



http://s.mlkshk.com/r/CEK





:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


phyzik pwned!!!

[Blake]

http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/beware-of-hell.jpg

that's me.

[RD2191]

http://s.mlkshk.com/r/CEK





:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


phyzik pwned!!!
:lmao

[silverblk mystix]

:rollin:rollin

[RD2191]

Rob, owning and destroying the trolls as usual.
Even though I don't totally agree with you it is still funny how you trap them in their own words.
:lmao
Yes, but you respect what I believe and I do the same for you. I don't go around calling you a "fucking illogical idiot" just because we believe something different.

[xmas1997]

Yes, but you respect what I believe and I do the same for you. I don't go around calling you a "fucking illogical idiot" just because we believe something different.

That is the way it is supposed to be, not being disrespectful morons.
If blake and his troll buddies gave people the respect that normal decent people deserved, then they would get it back, but they don't, so they don't deserve anything but condescension.
It's called karma, they get back what they put out.
And then they cry about it and wonder why others call them trolls, plus make false accusations of trolling, and resort to insults and ridicule.
They are the epitome of hypocrisy.
And it is amusing to the rest of us decent posters, so we laugh AT them and make fun of their ignorance, instead of with them.
The only ones who laugh WITH them are their fellow trolls, and they don't count, they lack any credibility whatsoever.
Now they will come back at me with more trollish BS in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
:lmao

[xmas1997]

Nobody needs to.



So now you literally believe what the Bible says.

Make up your mind.

No, you are making another one of your false assumptions again.
I can believe something based on faith, and not be dependent on some book.
And because I have a confirmation of that belief in a book does not make it reasonably logical that you can infer everything in that book follows logically, or literally.
This is where your false logic breaks down into an ad hominem.
You have faith too, we all do, or do you deny that?

[RandomGuy]

If that was true you would have supported my arguments about lies in the textbooks.

Your understanding of science is limited and erroneous. I could not support arguments based on ignorance and misconceptions about physical reality.

Almost without exception the things you post are either flat out wrong, or so poorly reasoned as to be barely worth serious attention.

If I hadn't shown you repeatedly and as patiently as possible how mistaken you are about data, and seriously entertained the nonsense you believe for years, I might have cushioned that a bit. You don't learn, and don't care to ever correct your views, no matter how wrong they are shown to be.

You obviously don't care about the truth either, otherwise you might have actually bothered to learn what the theory of evolution actually says, instead of making things up to say about it.

[RandomGuy]

Wr talked about infinite regression last night. You'd probably find my answers unsatisfactory, but they're there for you to peruse.

As far as sentience goes, I'd argue that the prime mover would probably be sentient as that's the only way a cause can't be a reaction.

On what basis do you say the "prime mover would probably be sentient"? How do you know?

[RandomGuy]

You mean sinners who refused to follow Gods laws? And as a believer, God is the ultimate judge, so in my eyes God had reason to do what he did. Therefore God is not evil.

What about the infants who couldn't know what God's laws were?

What was the basis of their judgment?

What their parents did?

Original sin? Sorry the entire concept of original sin is fucking stupid too. That bible God somehow found it made more sense to sacrifice himself to himself than to forgive the descendants of a man and woman who ate a piece of fruit after listening to a talking snake is, on its face, ridiculous.



4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

[RandomGuy]

No, you prove that God does not exist.

LOL. we've been through this a million times. If you go far back enough, evolution teaches that humans came from fish. As I said before, show me.

Prove purple unicorns that poop ice cream don't exist.


KayBys8gaJY

You claim God exists, it is your burden.

I dont' have to claim anything either way, and that burden is still yours. It is intellectually dishonest to ask someone to prove something they don't claim.

I do not claim "God does not exist".

[spurraider21]

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding

:lmao "dont use your brain. just believe what the book tells you, no questions asked"

[leemajors]

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding

:lmao "dont use your brain. just believe what the book tells you, no questions asked"

Catholic and Protestant Churches alike have profited greatly off of this.

[DMC]

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding

:lmao "dont use your brain. just believe what the book tells you, no questions asked"


Catholic and Protestant Churches alike have profited greatly off of this.

It's more of an effect than a cause. The world is full of mentally lazy people and they naturally will gravitate to a system that dissuades critical examination. That way an idiot can be as right as a genius.

"Don't inspect the goods, just trust the salesman"

[RandomGuy]

How can the theory of evolution be tested when it takes millions of years for a species to evolve? How can a fish evolving to a walking land animal be tested?

"it takes millions of years for a species to evolve"

It doesn't. Factually incorrect.

Police don't need to see a crime happening to determine what happened, and scientists don't need to see a fish turn into a land animal to know that happened either.

The faster a species' reproductive cycle, the easier it is to see them evolve, and we have dozens of cases of observed evolution that I am aware of.

You haven't looked for that kind of evidence, have you?

[RandomGuy]

Catholic and Protestant Churches alike have profited greatly off of this.

Funny how the people with the most to gain seem to know the most about "what God wants us to do/believe". Pass the plate, brother Lee. :D

[RandomGuy]

He didn't. I don't think he commented on it. As far as I know most slaves were captives of wars and such. Even the Israelites were slaves at one point.

So, slavery is moral then?



If you wanna talk about morals you must first admit that humans are not animals and therefore did not evolve from an ape. Otherwise shut the fuck up.


You are the one saying the bible has all the answers. Surely your expert scholarship has introduced you to the topic.

I would not care to admit to anything I didn't think was true any more than you would.

Is slavery moral or not?

Let's see how long it will take to answer this one. Took about four days and five times to finally find a bullshit excuse that amounted to "but that was before Jesus".

I guess I can shrug off that much, but that still doesn't leave bible God off the hook for being evil psychopath.

Jesus thought slavery was perfectly fine, as far as I could tell, as long as you didn't kill your slaves.

[DMC]

You demolished them all and especially blake who is still yammering. :lmao

None of them have disproved God.

Plus none of them have even proved that God is "extraordinary".

He is not extraordinary, at least not to us, He is just God.

If it is so important and offensive to them, then they need to prove it and so far I have not seen one iota of proof.

And Christ said we would do those things, and greater.

And we are, everyday.

Nothing extraordinary about any of that.
:lmao

So your god is the same as any other god. Nothing extraordinary about your god. Why then must you have no other gods before that one?

[DMC]

Let's see how long it will take to answer this one. Took about four days and five times to finally find a bullshit excuse that amounted to "but that was before Jesus".

I guess I can shrug off that much, but that still doesn't leave bible God off the hook for being evil psychopath.

Jesus thought slavery was perfectly fine, as far as I could tell, as long as you didn't kill your slaves.

Rob doesn't give a shit about any of it, however the default position for most Christians is that, since you don't believe like they do, you shouldn't be able to discuss or critique the Bible. Only believers can do that, as if the book itself doesn't really exist until you join the fraternity of believers.

[Blake]

Catholic and Protestant Churches alike have profited greatly off of this.

"wait, you want me to give 10%?"

"don't try to figure out why God needs money."

[RandomGuy]

It's more of an effect than a cause. The world is full of mentally lazy people and they naturally will gravitate to a system that dissuades critical examination. That way an idiot can be as right as a genius.

"Don't inspect the goods, just trust the salesman"

THat is the way the brain works. It takes conscious effort to examine underlying assumptions, and look for data that contravenes your existing beliefs.

One can tell a lot about the quality of someone's intellect and character by simply watching how they respond to being challenged.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158758&highlight=confronted+with+evidence


The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”

These findings open a long-running argument about the political ignorance of American citizens to broader questions about the interplay between the nature of human intelligence and our democratic ideals. Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.

One can see that play out here.

[DMC]

THat is the way the brain works. It takes conscious effort to examine underlying assumptions, and look for data that contravenes your existing beliefs.

One can tell a lot about the quality of someone's intellect and character by simply watching how they respond to being challenged.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158758&highlight=confronted+with+evidence



One can see that play out here.

Much of what you see here is just people fucking around. I don't think you see a lot of real opinions here, but you do see some and often those people, when shown facts that disagree with their beliefs, will abandon the thread or even the forum. Those who keep at it are just entertaining themselves. They've been led to believe by too much time on forums that being a troll is a worthy cause because any thread with a conversation deeper than shoes or whores needs to be disrupted. It's fun watching the pseudo-intellectuals struggle to answer intentionally silly questions and chase off-bubble comments in order to level them out.

[Blake]

No, you are making another one of your false assumptions again.
I can believe something based on faith, and not be dependent on some book.
And because I have a confirmation of that belief in a book does not make it reasonably logical that you can infer everything in that book follows logically, or literally.
This is where your false logic breaks down into an ad hominem.
You have faith too, we all do, or do you deny that?

gibberish

[RandomGuy]

Rob doesn't give a shit about any of it, however the default position for most Christians is that, since you don't believe like they do, you shouldn't be able to discuss or critique the Bible. Only believers can do that, as if the book itself doesn't really exist until you join the fraternity of believers.

It bothers them when non-believers know the bible better than they do, that's for sure.

You can see the cognitive dissonance here as well.

Assumptions:
"Atheists don't know anything about the bible"

Evidence:
An atheist can quote scripture, proving he has read the bible.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ALERT!!

Rather than give up the original belief, one simply modifies it with the least amount of mental effort possible.

New Assumption:
"Atheists haven't REALLY read the bible." (the "no true scotsman fallacy") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The hard part would be to really wonder how anyone could read the bible and not think it was the best.

It is very enlightening to see such people talk about other holy books. Suddenly, when it isn't their book, they can critique the nonsense for what it is.

[RandomGuy]

Much of what you see here is just people fucking around. I don't think you see a lot of real opinions here, but you do see some and often those people, when shown facts that disagree with their beliefs, will abandon the thread or even the forum. Those who keep at it are just entertaining themselves. They've been led to believe by too much time on forums that being a troll is a worthy cause because any thread with a conversation deeper than shoes or whores needs to be disrupted. It's fun watching the pseudo-intellectuals struggle to answer intentionally silly questions and chase off-bubble comments in order to level them out.

I have found that even trolls can't keep up the trollness constantly. That kind of pretending takes effort to. Reality will sneak in around the edges.

[xmas1997]

So your god is the same as any other god. Nothing extraordinary about your god. Why then must you have no other gods before that one?

What other gods? Are there other gods out there that you are aware of?


gibberish

Do you deny you have faith?

[Blake]

Do you deny you have faith?

Yes I deny I have faith in magic.

What's your point

[silverblk mystix]

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding

:lmao "dont use your brain. just believe what the book tells you, no questions asked"


Funny that lazy people read that and think it means ^ ...that ^


I read that and it makes perfect sense- maybe if your brain was not on auto-pilot because of your laziness and false ideas - you would understand it also.


Here is some help for you lazy ignorant robots;


Trust in the LORD = lose all your programming, false ideas, beliefs, conditioning - and allow yourself to return to a place called "love" "god" "love" "peace" "understanding" "wakefulness"

with all your heart = get rid of ALL the programming - all of it - from your culture, school, parents,friends,society,culture, etc...


Lean NOT on your own understanding = means - get rid of all that rubbish they taught you because it made you fuckin' blind - this is why your "understanding" is blind/false/inaccurate -


But - most sleeping people would rather crucify the messenger and remain in their robotic, sleeping state.


Only morons/idiots/blind moron idiots - read the scriptures and completely miss the message/truth/love/wisdom.


"PROVE" that the above is "inaccurate" -

ok

"sleeping scientists"

[RD2191]

Funny that lazy people read that and think it means ^ ...that ^


I read that and it makes perfect sense- maybe if your brain was not on auto-pilot because of your laziness and false ideas - you would understand it also.


Here is some help for you lazy ignorant robots;


Trust in the LORD = lose all your programming, false ideas, beliefs, conditioning - and allow yourself to return to a place called "love" "god" "love" "peace" "understanding" "wakefulness"

with all your heart = get rid of ALL the programming - all of it - from your culture, school, parents,friends,society,culture, etc...


Lean NOT on your own understanding = means - get rid of all that rubbish they taught you because it made you fuckin' blind - this is why your "understanding" is blind/false/inaccurate -


But - most sleeping people would rather crucify the messenger and remain in their robotic, sleeping state.


Only morons/idiots/blind moron idiots - read the scriptures and completely miss the message/truth/love/wisdom.


"PROVE" that the above is "inaccurate" -

ok

"sleeping scientists"
:tu

[xmas1997]

Yes I deny I have faith in magic.

What's your point

My point is you do have "faith", faith in science or something else!

[Blake]

Funny that lazy people read that and think it means ^ ...that ^


I read that and it makes perfect sense- maybe if your brain was not on auto-pilot because of your laziness and false ideas - you would understand it also.


Here is some help for you lazy ignorant robots;


Trust in the LORD = lose all your programming, false ideas, beliefs, conditioning - and allow yourself to return to a place called "love" "god" "love" "peace" "understanding" "wakefulness"

with all your heart = get rid of ALL the programming - all of it - from your culture, school, parents,friends,society,culture, etc...


Lean NOT on your own understanding = means - get rid of all that rubbish they taught you because it made you fuckin' blind - this is why your "understanding" is blind/false/inaccurate -


But - most sleeping people would rather crucify the messenger and remain in their robotic, sleeping state.


Only morons/idiots/blind moron idiots - read the scriptures and completely miss the message/truth/love/wisdom.


"PROVE" that the above is "inaccurate" -

ok

"sleeping scientists"

Gibberish

[silverblk mystix]

Gibberish


Waiting for you to "prove" that it is wrong since you agreed with the moronic statement I was "correcting"

[Blake]

My point is you do have "faith", faith in science or something else!

Yes I have faith in certain things based on evidence.

I have no faith in a god.

You're an idiot.

[xmas1997]

Yes I have faith in certain things based on evidence.

I have no faith in a god.

You're an idiot.

How do you KNOW it is based on evidence, were you there, did you run the experiments, did you postulate the math involved?

All of that, yet you still have "faith" in what science tells you is true!

Otherwise how can you believe it?

Because you have no "proof", other than your faith.

[Blake]

Waiting for you to "prove" that it is wrong since you agreed with the moronic statement I was "correcting"

so you make a claim but you want someone else to disprove it.

you can fuck yourself, lazy idiot.

[Blake]

How do you KNOW it is based on evidence, were you there, did you run the experiments, did you postulate the math involved?

All of that, yet you still have "faith" in what science tells you is true!

Otherwise how can you believe it?

Because you have no "proof", other than your faith.

You're trying to equate faith in science to faith in spaghetti monster.

It leads to failure. It should be easy to figure out why, but if you can't, it's an easy google too.

[xmas1997]

so you make a claim but you want someone else to disprove it.

you can fuck yourself, lazy idiot.

Where is your "proof" that justifies your faith in what science says is true, and validates why you believe in science?

No, all I am saying is you have NO PROOF that validates your belief that justifies your faith in science.

[spurraider21]

Lean NOT on your own understanding = means - get rid of all that rubbish they taught you because it made you fuckin' blind - this is why your "understanding" is blind/false/inaccurate
:lmao the fucking irony

[Blake]

Where is your "proof" that justifies your faith in what science says is true, and validates why you believe in science?

No, all I am saying is you have NO PROOF that validates your belief that justifies your faith in science.

Science says the earth is round. There are actual pictures of a round earth.

It's easy to have faith the pictures are valid.

I'm done holding your hand on this one. Either ask someone else or google it, moron.

[silverblk mystix]

so you make a claim but you want someone else to disprove it.

you can fuck yourself, lazy idiot.


Pretty stupid that it needs to be explained but here it is;


Spurridiot made the claim that a bible quote means something.


I proved it was false already.

You are still struggling to respond accurately due to your re-tardness.

Try to keep up.

Idiot.

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao the fucking irony


My statement is 100% accurate - but you have been programmed - and are unable to see simple truth.

All your so-called "education" has completely blinded you to truth "knocking on your door"


You cannot find any inaccuracies in my post - none - period.

[Blake]

Pretty stupid that it needs to be explained but here it is;


Spurridiot made the claim that a bible quote means something.


I proved it was false already.

You are still struggling to respond accurately due to your re-tardness.

Try to keep up.

Idiot.

I don't keep up with gibberish.

[spurraider21]

My statement is 100% accurate - but you have been programmed - and are unable to see simple truth.

All your so-called "education" has completely blinded you to truth "knocking on your door"


You cannot find any inaccuracies in my post - none - period.
its ironic because it explains you to a tee. you were fed a story that has made you blind to actual studies, science, and critical thinking. you accept the ridiculous without questioning it. brainwashed

[Blake]

My statement is 100% accurate - but you have been programmed - and are unable to see simple truth.

All your so-called "education" has completely blinded you to truth "knocking on your door"


You cannot find any inaccuracies in my post - none - period.

Prove he's blind.

[silverblk mystix]

its ironic because it explains you to a tee. you were fed a story that has made you blind to actual studies, science, and critical thinking. you accept the ridiculous without questioning it. brainwashed


Unfortunately for you - it is the opposite.

I went through double the conventional education that you will ever reach.

Then, instead of like you idiots, I understood that this conventional education was just the beginning.

You idiots - thought that graduating meant "putting your mind to sleep" and live the rest of your lives with this knowledge.

I kept going and understood that a college degree was only the beginning.

Did your life stop?
Did the world end?


Then you aren't done learning and truth is still out there and escaping you every moment that you "cling" to this "education" as being the ultimate truth.

Someday you might understand this - but I doubt it - you are completely happy to accept that your college professors knew everything there was to know and completely swallowed this minimal information and stopped right there.

[silverblk mystix]

Prove he's blind.


Go fuck yourself cuck.

[xmas1997]

Prove he's blind.

The blind thinking you can show the way, that's you.
So since you have a picture that the earth is round, you blindly believe everything else science says.
And because a professor tells you something, and then tests your ability to remember what he told you, you automatically "believe" what he said was the truth.
What "faith" you must have, to trust some total stranger to the point of believing everything they say is true.
You also believe those on here who tell you things, all in the name of "almighty" science.
Do you even get an inkling of what you are "really" doing?

[spurraider21]

Unfortunately for you - it is the opposite.

I went through double the conventional education that you will ever reach.

Then, instead of like you idiots, I understood that this conventional education was just the beginning.

You idiots - thought that graduating meant "putting your mind to sleep" and live the rest of your lives with this knowledge.

I kept going and understood that a college degree was only the beginning.

Did your life stop?
Did the world end?


Then you aren't done learning and truth is still out there and escaping you every moment that you "cling" to this "education" as being the ultimate truth.

Someday you might understand this - but I doubt it - you are completely happy to accept that your college professors knew everything there was to know and completely swallowed this minimal information and stopped right there.
i just got my bachelors at ucla and am starting law school in 10 days :lol

you graduated sunday school

[xmas1997]

i just got my bachelors at ucla and am starting law school in 10 days :lol

you graduated sunday school

Uh, don't look now, but I think you just proved his point, although I am quite sure that was not your intention.
:lol

[spurraider21]

Uh, don't look now, but I think you just proved his point, although I am quite sure that was not your intention.
:lol
his "point" is meaningless and baseless. an uneducated prick saying "THAT education is pointless" is like a poor person saying "money doesn't buy happiness"

sour grapes

[Blake]

Go fuck yourself cuck.

you make a claim and then run away.

You have a low IQ and you're a thin skinned pussy.

Awful combination for a messageboard.

[Blake]

The blind thinking you can show the way, that's you.
So since you have a picture that the earth is round, you blindly believe everything else science says.
And because a professor tells you something, and then tests your ability to remember what he told you, you automatically "believe" what he said was the truth.
What "faith" you must have, to trust some total stranger to the point of believing everything they say is true.
You also believe those on here who tell you things, all in the name of "almighty" science.
Do you even get an inkling of what you are "really" doing?

gibberish.

[xmas1997]

gibberish.

Oh, so then you don't have faith in science after all?

[spurraider21]

faith means not requiring evidence. nobody being scientific has "faith" in science

[silverblk mystix]

i just got my bachelors at ucla and am starting law school in 10 days :lol

you graduated sunday school


So, you are still at a bachelors level...


Let me know when you progress about another 10 years - then you might understand.


Probably not.

[xmas1997]

faith means not requiring evidence. nobody being scientific has "faith" in science

Wrong, you do not have any evidence that science is right, yet you believe it anyway, thus you have faith in it.

[Blake]

So, you are still at a bachelors level...


Let me know when you progress about another years - then you might understand.


Probably not.

nobody but your lap dog xmas believes you to be smart on any level.

Nobody.

[Blake]

Wrong, you do not have any evidence that science is right, yet you believe it anyway, thus you have faith in it.

It's a flimsy use of the word faith, but it's a logical "faith" though.

Faith in a supernatural sky daddy is illogical. There's zero observational basis for such faith.

[spurraider21]

Wrong, you do not have any evidence that science is right, yet you believe it anyway, thus you have faith in it.
completely false statement

[spurraider21]

So, you are still at a bachelors level...


Let me know when you progress about another years - then you might understand.


Probably not.
what degree is required to be a rental cop?

[xmas1997]

It's a flimsy use of the word faith, but it's a logical "faith" though.

Faith in a supernatural sky daddy is illogical. There's zero observational basis for such faith.

Faith has nothing to do with logic, that has already been established here.
Now you are using an ad hominen.

[ohmwrecker]

This thread is mind-numbingly stupid. Congrats on 70+ pages.

[xmas1997]

completely false statement

What evidence do you personally possess then that science is right, where is your proof?

[spurraider21]

What evidence do you personally possess then that science is right, where is your proof?
science is completely based on evidence and observation. to say science has no evidence is like saying science has no science. its just fundamentally wrong

[RD2191]

Evolution is not a science. Sure there is evidence for other science/sciences but not evolution.

[spurraider21]

Evolution is not a science. Sure there is evidence for other science/sciences but not evolution.
the fossil records and genetic records absolutely are evidence.

[RD2191]

There are very very few fossils of anything really, especially ape/men or common ancestors or whatever bullshit. Truth is most people just go with it because they're afraid of being made fun of or mocked if they believe anything else. Most people just wanna fit it, even if that means believing in something that has very little evidence.

[spurraider21]

There are very very few fossils of anything really, especially ape/men or common ancestors or whatever bullshit. Truth is most people just go with it because they're afraid of being made fun of or mocked if they believe anything else. Most people just wanna fit it, even if that means believing in something that has very little evidence.
and yet you accept that your belief is entirely based on faith with no evidence

[RD2191]

Bro, most are bone fragments which some douche decided to add human characteristics to just to fit into their theory.

[xmas1997]

science is completely based on evidence and observation. to say science has no evidence is like saying science has no science. its just fundamentally wrong

I am not saying that science has no evidence.
I am saying that YOU personally have no evidence!
Thus you are depending on someone else' word for things.
Someone else' word is not evidence.
Consequently you are depending on your faith.
Get it right.

[RD2191]

and yet you accept that your belief is entirely based on faith with no evidence
I never denied that. But evolution also takes faith to believe in.

[spurraider21]

I never denied that. But evolution also takes faith to believe in.
some evidence > no evidence

[xmas1997]

and yet you accept that your belief is entirely based on faith with no evidence

You are doing the same thing, except substituting science in place of God.
The resultant is the same, neither you or he has any evidence, so you are both doing so out of faith.

[spurraider21]

I am not saying that science has no evidence.
I am saying that YOU personally have no evidence!
Thus you are depending on someone else' word for things.
Someone else' word is not evidence.
Consequently you are depending on your faith.
Get it right.
everything in science can be tested and observed. i haven't personally verified that the speed of light is exactly what the books tell me it is (3x10^8 m/s) but if i conducted a valid experiment i would get the same figure

[spurraider21]

You are doing the same thing, except substituting science in place of God.
The resultant is the same, neither you or he has any evidence, so you are both doing so out of faith.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science

[Avante]

We own a parrot, how in the hell was this bird ever a pollywog?

[silverblk mystix]

The OP cannot even spell Falsehoods - (thread title)

yet claims "superiority"



:lmao:lmao:lmao

[xmas1997]

some evidence > no evidence

Only to a degree. But logic does not work that way.
You cannot infer that since you have proof that a vegetable is green that ALL vegetables are therefore green.
I don't think you have ANY evidence tbqh.

[spurraider21]

We own a parrot, how in the hell was this bird ever a pollywog?
your parrot was never a pollywog. it was born a parrot and died a parrot

[Blake]

Faith has nothing to do with logic, that has already been established here.
Now you are using an ad hominen.

It's been argued but not established.

[spurraider21]

Only to a degree. But logic does not work that way.
You cannot infer that since you have proof that a vegetable is green that ALL vegetables are therefore green.
I don't think you have ANY evidence tbqh.
i never made such inference. science constantly corrects itself. it is dynamic, and always seeks improvement. newton's laws of gravity are brilliant, yet they fail at the atomic level. new equations and corrections are made, and our understanding is still far from perfect, but clearer than it ever has been.

while science is dynamic and open to correction/change, the bible is static. science from just 100 years ago is being corrected and improved. the bible hasn't improved for thousands of years and is so far off that it is ridiculous at this point

[xmas1997]

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science

No, I do not.
We were not talking about science, nor about God.
We were talking about "FAITH" which is believing without evidence.
Or did you forget about that?

[Blake]

The OP cannot even spell Falsehoods - (thread title)

yet claims "superiority"



:lmao:lmao:lmao

You unintentionally gave out all of your personal information on this messageboard, Tino.

Me getting cheated on doesn't come close to beating that for stupidity.

[silverblk mystix]

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science


Still waiting for you to find any inaccuracies in my post correcting your stupidity;




http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7545789#post7545789)
Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding

:lmao "dont use your brain. just believe what the book tells you, no questions asked"




Funny that lazy people read that and think it means ^ ...that ^


I read that and it makes perfect sense- maybe if your brain was not on auto-pilot because of your laziness and false ideas - you would understand it also.


Here is some help for you lazy ignorant robots;


Trust in the LORD = lose all your programming, false ideas, beliefs, conditioning - and allow yourself to return to a place called "love" "god" "love" "peace" "understanding" "wakefulness"

with all your heart = get rid of ALL the programming - all of it - from your culture, school, parents,friends,society,culture, etc...


Lean NOT on your own understanding = means - get rid of all that rubbish they taught you because it made you fuckin' blind - this is why your "understanding" is blind/false/inaccurate -


But - most sleeping people would rather crucify the messenger and remain in their robotic, sleeping state.


Only morons/idiots/blind moron idiots - read the scriptures and completely miss the message/truth/love/wisdom.


"PROVE" that the above is "inaccurate" -

ok

"sleeping scientists"

[Avante]

your parrot was never a pollywog. it was born a parrot and died a parrot

If all life on this planet originated from the sea......now think.

[spurraider21]

No, I do not.
We were not talking about science, nor about God.
We were talking about "FAITH" which is believing without evidence.
science and faith are unrelated. science fundamentally requires evidence and observation, whereas faith by definition does not deal with evidence in the slightest

[RD2191]

The OP cannot even spell Falsehoods - (thread title)

yet claims "superiority"

:lol

:lmao:lmao:lmao

[spurraider21]

If all life on this planet originated from the sea......now think.
are we talking specifically about the parrot you owned? it was born a parrot, and it died a parrot

[silverblk mystix]

You unintentionally gave out all of your personal information on this messageboard, Tino.

Me getting cheated on doesn't come close to beating that for stupidity.


Well, lets examine that;


My info revealed that I was an employed regular guy with a home.


Your info revealed that your wife had no respect for you and humiliated you mercilessly while you and your poor kid had to watch.



I think I am alright being called names by you.



:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Blake]

No, I do not.
We were not talking about science, nor about God.
We were talking about "FAITH" which is believing without evidence.

there are different definitions of faith. You're trying to shove faith in science with faith in god. It's not the same at all.

And yes, you do have a horrible misunderstanding of science.

[Avante]

When will the creatures we have today evolve into something else?

[Blake]

Well, lets examine that;


My info revealed that I was an employed regular guy with a home.


Your info revealed that your wife had no respect for you and humiliated you mercilessly while you and your poor kid had to watch.



I think I am alright being called names by you.



:lmao:lmao:lmao

That's another lie.

Truth is, you're an idiot.