Page 2 of 3

Re: Why There Almost Certainly Is a God

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:00 am
by robertdreed
Evolutionary theory depends on the existence of linear time.<br><br>Quantum physics demonstrates that linear time is an illusion.<br><br>Reconcile THAT with a materialistic explanation, Richard Dawkins. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Not even going to waste my time.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:39 am
by nomo
<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Im not even going to waste my time with an intricate reply to your post. It strikes me as patently obvious that your position is, well, your position. Period.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Oh, is that how it is now? And I am supposed to RESPECT that? No way, slim. My position is indeed my position, and the fact is that <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I am right</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>you are wrong</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->: religion is a dangerous delusion, and religious people are literally creating <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>hell </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->on earth because of their retarded beliefs. Don't want to respond to that? Why not? Guilty conscience, perhaps?<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br>You see, if you cannot see the analogy between 9/11 and "Science", then what is the point.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>What is that even supposed to mean? What the hell does 9/11 even have to do with science? Those were a bunch of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>religious </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->fanatics who flew those planes into the buildings.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Darwinism suggests that we evolved from an Ape/early hominoid around 200,000 years ago, and yet in Egypt, there is a sophisticated temple buried below approximately 200,000 layers of Silt. Im sure you can get Dawkins to confirm that the nile used to flood once per year and leave a layer of silt as it left.<br><br>Which is interesting, because by this kind of reckoning, it would appear that not only were the apes extremely good architects and builders, but hell, even they believed in a superforce.<br><br>How would someone like Dawkins respond ?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Do you have a link to this nonsense? Why would "someone like Dawkins" respond to this ridiculous conjecture?<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>He'd say "that fact is nonsense, and If I didnt say that, Id lose my fat salary, special titles, and have to downsize to a terraced house in no mans land"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Unless you provide a link with the science to back it up, yes, indeed, slim, this is indeed nonsense. Misguided make believe. <p></p><i></i>

Re: oh that Dawkins

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:42 am
by nomo
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>People like Dawkins have no finesse; I'd call them simpletons, really. </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>And your "finesse" is what, exactly? Calling him a <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>simpleton</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->?<br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src= ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>Please, the guy provides a most logical, indeed highly scientific refuation of the illusion that is religion, and it is one thing for you to disagree, but not because he doesn't have the same "finesse" as you claim you have.<br><br>In other words, debate him on the arguments, otherwise, respectfully stay out of the discussion. <p></p><i></i>

Religious fanatics.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:46 am
by slimmouse
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Those were a bunch of religious fanatics who flew those planes into the buildings.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Ive gotta make this brief,since I really cant see the point.<br><br> Porkchopeatincokesnortinlapdancefrequentinstripperforgirl<br>friendgamblinmuslims.<br><br> Do us all a favour. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Religious fanatics.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:56 am
by nomo
Oh, right, I forgot, Mohammed Atta was on coke, therefore he can't be a fanatic. Gotcha.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Religious fanatics.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:40 pm
by AlicetheCurious
Slimmouse, you forgot to mention that Atta and many of the others were also heavy drinkers of alcohol... <br><br>And nomo, forget the coke for now, how do you explain Muslim fanatics who are getting ready to die, busily spending their last hours on earth doing all the things that are GUARANTEED to lead to eternal hellfire? <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:59 pm
by sln70
bullies don't get any play with me, you can save yourself the time from now on. <p></p><i></i>

Re: nomo

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:33 pm
by nomo
<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Religious people are deluded fools.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> If saying that makes me a "bully" in your eyes, then yes, better not play with me, because I <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>will </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->say it again.<br><br>But if you want to learn something in a place like this, you're better better advised to check your petty sensitivities at the door.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Just for the record.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:44 pm
by slimmouse
<br> Just for the record, and to qualify my position on "religion".<br><br> Nomo, you obviously arent a fan of my work, since if you had read anything I have written lately, you would understand that I understand the history of organised religion to a reasonable degree.<br><br> Organised religion is a system of control, and is all to often a far cry from anything spiritual, which is a completely different argument.<br><br> And the bottom line is this. I dont begrudge anyone their atheism. But those of us who accept their is a higher force of creation - as opposed of course to a guy with a white Robe and a beard, who is opposed by a bloke with Horns and a red catsuit - generally accept that this force, which incidentally encompasses both the DARK and the LIGHT is but one, often reffered to as ALL THAT IS.<br><br> As I tried to point out in my first response to this thread, both religion and science have been co-opted by those who have ruled ever since for their own personal ends.<br><br> Did you know for instance that the ancestral bloodlines of the royal elites go directly back to Constantine of Rome, who along with a select few others EDITED the fucking bible ?<br><br> As Mike Rivero might say ; Imagine my shock.<br><br> As for some links to archeological findings dating back to around the time when Darwinists suggest we actually morphed from monkeyman to man, there is an excellent series of Videos by John Anthony West, recently reposted by Dude Homoslice ( scroll down the page some)<br><br> There you will find reference to Oseiron complex, found at the back of the Abydos temple, when the pharaoh (Seti, I think) went to expand this temple, and in digging the footings came across Oseiron, and thus made the temple L - shaped - The only one of its kind in Egypt incidentally.<br><br> What West doesnt tell you however is that the silt deposits found covering the abydos temple, which only go half way down the walls of this particular building go back 54,000 years.<br><br> So, you can imagine how many subseqent layers would be found, were you to dig to the bottom of yet another building below the level of Abydos.<br><br> Darwin is for the birds.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Darwin is for the birds?

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:47 pm
by sln70
Yes! The finches, wasn't it?<br><br>I believe Darwin first conceived of his theory while observing the slight differences between finches .. or something. At least that's the lore I've read.<br><br>Funny how Darwin himself wouldn't have survived had he himself been thrust into a true 'survival of the fittest' scenario. It was all thanks to Daddy's money - a decidedly unnatural advantage - that he rose to any sort of position among his species.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

dorkins argues that we create realities

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:40 pm
by nashvillebrook
"humans invent their own realities to make sense of the infinitely complex worlds they are in"<br><br>okay then. <br><br>what can we say about the reality that Dorkin creates? is it a place you'd want to live? if it's all for grabs, why not create something interesting... with fewer assholes?<br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: dorkins argues that we create realities

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:04 am
by Joe Hillshoist
Anyone who has a true idea of evolution, and selection understands creationism as pushed by the Intelligent design crowd is probably rubbish.<br><br>Evolution happens, and occurs because enviromental factors affect selection, parties breed and the most successful traits for an environment dominate after large periods. There may be many other things going on as well, but for all the flaws of Darwins work, he was the first to notice and publicise the trend in the English speaking world.<br><br>But any farmer would know that. Natural selection is one process, but unnatural selection is another, if you like humans do it.<br><br>Think about the changes in plant life as a result of human interaction, the evolution in plant life to favour traits that the most dominant factors in their ecosystem (humans, usually farmers) require.<br><br>Just cos Dawkins is a fundie with issues about conflicting Dogma, well he's no different to any of the Fundies that insist their interpretation of God is the only one (in the face of any amount of evidence).<br><br> <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:37 am
by El Tedo
<br>This thread is so depressing.<br><br>Why is "God" the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>only</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> thing in the world one has to <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>prove <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>doesn't</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> exist</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->? <br><br>Isn't the fact that God cannot be seen, heard, touched, nor has the slightest detectable effect on reality enough to put this question to rest for any sane person? Does it matter at all if a "Supreme-being Creator" exists or not if it does absolutely nothing? Its like fussing over a particular grain of sand on the other side of the world, it may, technically, in theory, be possible that its there- but who cares?<br><br>It's stupid to say that Dawkin's is a "fundie". He's not making any claims at all. He's merely observing the undeniable fact that the being described as "God", is totally undetectable, and therefore practically speaking, does not exist. Why is that so hard to swallow. Its reality, accept it, or prove otherwise. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Goddamn

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm
by nomo
Obviously you can't "prove" a negative. But what you <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>can</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> do is assess the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>probability</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->of a supernatural all intelligent creator, and to put it bluntly: that probability is close to zero.<br><br>And you cannot claim that questions about God can never be answered by science, for if a God <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>does</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> exist and is responsible for creating the universe, then that would be en entirely different universe than science tells us exists. And in that case, science would most certainly have a duty to investigate the probability of those claims.<br><br>On the other hand, theologians have no expertise at all whatsoever about questions regarding the cosmos. If science isn't supposed to question theology (though I believe it most certainly has to), then conversely theologians, and by extension all religious people, should very much indeed refrain from speculating about things they and their field cannot possibly know <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>anything </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->about.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Just for the record.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:36 pm
by nomo
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Nomo, you obviously arent a fan of my work, since if you had read anything I have written lately, you would understand that I understand the history of organised religion to a reasonable degree.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I most certainly can't say that I'm a "fan" of your work. And I wasn't talking about the history of organized religion. I was talking about the belief in God by itself being a logical fallacy, and a dangerous delusion.<br><br>I deeply mistrust anybody who claims to act based "faith." I most certainly won't take anybody seriously who draws conclusions from some sandpit in Egypt that go against all we already do know for certain about our ancient history.<br><br>Darwin. Not just for birds anymore, dude.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>