• God is not the Creator, claims academic
    564 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bigdoggie;17782048]It is a shame that you require an imaginary omniscient being to empower you to learn.[/QUOTE]"Special" people normally still have imaginary friends later in life, I think
[QUOTE=bigdoggie;17782048]It is a shame that you require an imaginary omniscient being to empower you to learn.[/QUOTE] Using God at exams shouldn't be allowed. It's cheating.
I used to have the same feelings he had, that there was an unshakable feeling inside of me that told me that a higher power existed, then I woke up and realized that it was all a crock of shit, maybe he will too, one day.
If only FP had an IQ requirement.
[QUOTE=ilolled;17782207]If only FP had an IQ requirement.[/QUOTE] you can have a high IQ and still be an idiot
Ah, yes. Controversy is always appealing to the simple minded sheep of science.
[QUOTE=Falineir;17782337]Ah, yes. Controversy is always appealing to the simple minded sheep of [B]religion[/B].[/QUOTE] :colbert:
Hahaha you're getting more and more angry.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;17782354]:colbert:[/QUOTE] That makes no sense, I'm not in support of clashing with science at every chance I get.
[QUOTE=Falineir;17782337]Ah, yes. Controversy is always appealing to the simple minded sheep of science.[/QUOTE] wat.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy[/url] See for yourself.
I was talking about the "the simple minded sheep of science" part.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;17781864] I feel him in summer morning, when I walk in dewy grass, sun shining on the sky. I feel him in church, when priest does the rituals. I feel him when I am in school. Being in me, powering me to learn. I feel him right now. .[/QUOTE] that's called a mental disorder
[QUOTE=Van-man;17774333]And you get your own 72 virgins. I mean Hot Damn, who doesn't want their own 72 hot babes to screw when they're dead.[/QUOTE]it could be misread maybe its a 7 foot 2 persian or a bunch of nerds playing WOW
[QUOTE=sp00ks;17782536]I was talking about the "the simple minded sheep of science" part.[/QUOTE] Ah, what I meant by that is that you easily accept the words of those who you consider to be 'smarter than you' or 'closer to the truth' than you. The simple fact is that people of science still bow to physical people. People are imperfect, they can be biased, they can be corrupted, they can be just downright egomaniacs, if there was a scientific principle that had always been there and apparent since the beginning of time, such as Gravity, then even I'd stick to it. There is nothing in the Bible that says that Science is wrong, not a single verse lashes out at people who try to make cars with cleaner engines or people who even believe aliens exist (I believe in aliens btw). I'm not going to say that I'm holier than you, because I'm not. All in all, deciding to believe someone else who you don't truly know anything about simply based on a sheet of paper with a fancy scribble on it, is simplistic. When you think of religion does your mind automatically go to the Roman Catholic Church, btw?
[QUOTE=Falineir;17783034]Ah, what I meant by that is that you easily accept the words of those who you consider to be 'smarter than you' or 'closer to the truth' than you. The simple fact is that people of science still bow to physical people. People are imperfect, they can be biased, they can be corrupted, they can be just downright egomaniacs, if there was a scientific principle that had always been there and apparent since the beginning of time, such as Gravity, then even I'd stick to it. There is nothing in the Bible that says that Science is wrong, not a single verse lashes out at people who try to make cars with cleaner engines or people who even believe aliens exist (I believe in aliens btw). I'm not going to say that I'm holier than you, because I'm not. All in all, deciding to believe someone else who you don't truly know anything about simply based on a sheet of paper with a fancy scribble on it, is simplistic. [/QUOTE] This is where the scientific method come in. We have strict guidelines surrounding what is required of a theory, or whatnot, to become accepted. If something is put into question, we have the ability to repeat the test and see if it yields the same result. Religious doctrines do not have this repeatability, followers are putting blind faith into books which cannot be tested for authenticity. On the other hand people who follow science and putting "faith" into something that can be repeated and tested multiple times and can be considered fact.
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;17783110]This is where the scientific method come in. We have strict guidelines surrounding what is required of a theory, or whatnot, to become accepted. If something is put into question, we have the ability to repeat the test and see if it yields the same result. Religious doctrines do not have this repeatability, followers are putting blind faith into books which cannot be tested for authenticity. On the other hand people who follow science and putting "faith" into something that can be repeated and tested multiple times and can be considered fact.[/QUOTE] Have you tested these things [i]yourself[/i]?
[QUOTE=Falineir;17783202]Have you tested these things [i]yourself[/i]?[/QUOTE] As said, we have the ability to do so if it really struck a fancy The fact is these things *are* testable. Religion is not.
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;17783328] Religion is not.[/QUOTE] that's a really broad generalization and doesn't make very much sense
[QUOTE=Doriol;17783377]that's a really broad generalization and doesn't make very much sense[/QUOTE] God created man. How can you test or observe that? What evidence is there to support this claim? Is there anything besides blind faith that can be used to justify this claim? Religious doctrines are different then science, because when something in science is proven wrong, scientists (in most cases) will try to find the correct answer. When a more plausible theory is found, it will replace older ones. Religion cannot say that some ideas within their doctrines are wrong, as it undermines their authority. Their authority rests on books that have been written in the past, and to say that there is a chance that they may be incorrect strikes fear into their hearts. So when new information comes along, it is either outright denied, or buried.
Religion is pretty dumb.
[QUOTE=Falineir;17783202]Have you tested these things [i]yourself[/i]?[/QUOTE] Why would you, lots of other people, who know more about it than we currently do, already did it.
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;17783467]God created man. [/QUOTE] abrahamic religion =/= all religion
[QUOTE=Doriol;17783668]abrahamic religion =/= all religion[/QUOTE] it was an example, my friend i am fully aware of that my point still stands
I don't see the big deal. It's just one of the many different interpretations out there.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;17783489]Why would you, lots of other people, who know more about it than we currently do, already did it.[/QUOTE] You ignored my point. [QUOTE=siberpredaht;17783328]As said, we have the ability to do so if it really struck a fancy The fact is these things *are* testable. Religion is not.[/QUOTE] So did you. You need to test these things [b]yourself[/b]. I have tested my faith in god more times than I can readily count. Every time I've prayed, something good happened, or something bad didn't happen. I have the proof and have seen it firsthand, and if you say I'm lying when I'm talking about my own experiences, then you'll be doing nothing but being rude and closed minded. You can't pick and choose examples when your dealing with [i]everything[/i].
[QUOTE=Falineir;17783931] You need to test these things [b]yourself[/b]. I have tested my faith in god more times than I can readily count. Every time I've prayed, something good happened, or something bad didn't happen. I have the proof and have seen it firsthand, and if you say I'm lying when I'm talking about my own experiences, then you'll be doing nothing but being rude and closed minded. You can't pick and choose examples when your dealing with [i]everything[/i].[/QUOTE] that's absolutely absurd i have no need to test these things (that would require thousands upon thousands of hours), but if i felt they were deceptive i could surely do so that's the difference between my beliefs and yours - i CAN test them, you cannot. and they would provide observable results unlike yours
The debate on whether God exists is still a non-valid one. There is no valid evidence to prove or disprove God. People that present evidence that says 'God doesn't exist' can be retorted by the fact that God created that piece of evidence as a test of will etc. If a religious person presents evidence in favor of God, there will always be some sort of logical explanation. In short, everyone that's getting their panties in a wad while debating on whether or not God exists is wasting their time. Instead, he or she should be doing something productive for others and/or him or herself.
[QUOTE=billeh!;17784056]The debate on whether God exists is still a non-valid one. There is no valid evidence to prove or disprove God. People that present evidence that says 'God doesn't exist' can be retorted by the fact that God created that piece of evidence as a test of will etc. If a religious person presents evidence in favor of God, there will always be some sort of logical explanation. In short, everyone that's getting their panties in a wad while debating on whether or not God exists is wasting their time. Instead, he or she should be doing something productive for others and/or him or herself.[/QUOTE] Quoted for truth.
[QUOTE=billeh!;17784056]The debate on whether God exists is still a non-valid one. There is no valid evidence to prove or disprove God. People that present evidence that says 'God doesn't exist' can be retorted by the fact that God created that piece of evidence as a test of will etc. If a religious person presents evidence in favor of God, there will always be some sort of logical explanation. In short, everyone that's getting their panties in a wad while debating on whether or not God exists is wasting their time. Instead, he or she should be doing something productive for others and/or him or herself.[/QUOTE] That which is asserted without evidence, can be refuted without evidence. If I say you have an invisible, untouchable, undetectable vagina on your forehead, it'd be pretty safe to say that that is incorrect, even though you cannot prove it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.