Something controversial, but interesting.

[ExAm]

I found this (http://tim.maroney.org/Essays/Even_If_I_Did_Believe.html) while browsing Reddit. Personally, I think it's very interesting. This thread is for discussion about this piece, NOT ARGUMENT. Devout Christians may want to avoid this thread.

EDIT: And another (http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com//node/363?q=log/node/363&q=node/363)

EDIT: On reasons for being an Atheist
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Gervais_essay.jpg

EDIT: Damn, image left :(

[nooBBooze]

Interesting but not entirely new [at least to me] points there.
I've never read the bible though because
1. i hate antiquated language
2. i hate lack of clarity in any philosophical work
3. i hate that this particular work [of fiction], wich at max is a less than decent philosophical book, is granted universality in our society
4. i hate this hype thats going on about christianity right now. i dont want to reheat stereotypes but srsly, americans really seem to be outright obsessed with this topic wheter they are speaking out in favor or against it. Also, pop culture seens to be drenched in bible fanboyisms as seen in most of the recent movies [i am legend anyone?], books and music. srsly, wtf.

nice find btw

[Pooky]

Interesting read. It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already more or less believe, but confirmation backed by proof is nice.

[Bastinka]

The bible needs a works cited page. :downs:

I like it, I'll read more of it tomorrow when I'm sippin' coffee in the morning. Nice find and +rep.

[Chainsy]

Ehhh, Halo used extreme religious inferences from the bible. For example, the flood in halo was to wipe out the universe, much like the flood god sent wiped out humanity, but the forerunners built the "ark" to save them, much like the ark in the bible saved noah. The dawn marked the end of the flood as in the bible dawn came and a rainbow showed.

[Warsaw]

And Master Chief's name was John and his number was 117, in reference to John 11:7.

[jngrow]

People are going to believe what they are going to believe, it will never change. And it's not that we shouldn't discuss it, it just gets really old after a while.

That said, it was a pretty interesting read, and approached the topic in an interesting way.

[Hotrod]

I read a bit of it, since I have some work to do, but I'll finish the rest later, but so far, it has been interesting. Like jngrow said, people will believe what they will believe, and most things can't change that completely, though a lot of stuff may influence those beliefs. Everybody sees things in a different way, and it's interesting to see other's opinions and views.

[DaneO'Roo]

This thread needs some Bill Hicks

R370YkYhV0w

mHey5g56CIs

Be educated.

[LlamaMaster]

I didn't read it. Not because I'm a Christian that covers his ears, screams, and trys to drown out anything from ripping open a loop hole in in his faith, but because I'm FUCKING SICK OF THIS SHIT. For fucking fucks sake, anti-christians just can't shut the fuck up about how right they are. Shit people, at least the Christians I've met know when when people don't want to hear their crap. Not to say Christians don't try to convert people, but I'VE NEVER SEEN A GROUP TRY HARDER TO CONVERT PEOPLE THAN ATHEIST.

On the internet at least.

[Bodzilla]

it's not about converting, it's about helping people break free of being unquestioning clones

[LlamaMaster]

it's not about converting, it's about helping people break free of being unquestioning clones
:eyesroll: Same damned thing. If people wanted to hear it, they would look for it.

[Chainsy]

Its a filler for what we fear: death. But not the dying in itself, but what happens after you die. Humanity, being a self centered race, who thinks they have some meaning in the whole universe, thinks that it just cant end there, and to fill the void of the inevitable, the knowing that one day we shall die, they created god and hence, life after death. Im not saying life after death is in-correct, but to me it just seems like the flailing of excuses to soften up the drowning knowledge that your life will end, no matter what. May sound mean, may sound rude, but one of our primitive instincts is to avoid injury, and the ultimate injury is death, if there was life after death, why would we be built in such a way to fear it, as we would continue on living anyways? :\

[Heathen]

it's not about converting, it's about helping people break free of being unquestioning clones

Or about freeing people from their sin and from burning in hell?

I gotta agree with llama.
Im atheist, but Im all for faith. It lets people live on who would otherwise get frustrated with life. They at elast have something to believe in.

[ExAm]

STOP. THIS. SHIT. RIGHT. NOW.

THIS THREAD WAS NOT MEANT TO TRY TO CONVERT ANYONE. REFER TO THE FIRST POST. IF YOU DID NOT WANT TO SEE IT, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BOTHERED WITH THIS THREAD. THIS THREAD IS FOR INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC BY PEOPLE WILLING DO DISCUSS THE TOPIC. I'LL NOT HAVE ANYONE RUIN IT BY POINTLESSLY ARGUING.

[Heathen]

No, no. Now you got me wrong. I wasn't saying that the topic was trying to convert anyone. If that was what LlamaMaster was saying then I was mistaken. I meant that I am tired of atheist that put down religious people and force their beliefs on people.

I wasn't pointing those fingers at anyone here though.

Here, I saw this on television and I was like "Damn, that was my brain he just said"

Dane Cook. He goes off topic so it takes a while.

ztzmcEGwdYQ

[ExAm]

That wasn't directed at you. It was directed at LlamaMaster, or anyone who would go flying off the fucking handle because of a fucking essay that they were WARNED that they didn't have to read in the first place. It was ALSO directed at the people who were retaliating against him by railing on his faith.

This is NOT a discussion about what one should or shouldn't believe, this is a discussion about the bible itself, and the perception of the idea of a God.

[Pooky]

I didn't read it. Not because I'm a Christian that covers his ears, screams, and trys to drown out anything from ripping open a loop hole in in his faith, but because I'm FUCKING SICK OF THIS SHIT. For fucking fucks sake, anti-christians just can't shut the fuck up about how right they are. Shit people, at least the Christians I've met know when when people don't want to hear their crap. Not to say Christians don't try to convert people, but I'VE NEVER SEEN A GROUP TRY HARDER TO CONVERT PEOPLE THAN ATHEIST.

On the internet at least.

Uuuuuuhhhh.......

You must have a really warped perception of Christianity if you don't know that Christians are the biggest group in known reality about convincing people that their beliefs are correct (and of course that any dissenting belief is heresy).

[Heathen]

I agree there too.

[ExAm]

Uuuuuuhhhh.......

You must have a really warped perception of Christianity if you don't know that Christians are the biggest group in known reality about convincing people that their beliefs are correct (and of course that any dissenting belief is heresy).
Damn it, this is exactly what I don't want in my thread. Take it to PMs.

[Pooky]

Damn it, this is exactly what I don't want in my thread. Take it to PMs.

Why, I don't have anything else to say about it. :S

Also, since the article is religious in nature, what the hell are people supposed to discuss about it if not religion?

[n00b1n8R]

Well what exactly did you want? :raise:

E: Pooky, gtfo my spot

I didn't read it. Not because I'm a Christian that covers his ears, screams, and trys to drown out anything from ripping open a loop hole in in his faith, but because I'm FUCKING SICK OF THIS SHIT. For fucking fucks sake, anti-christians just can't shut the fuck up about how right they are. Shit people, at least the Christians I've met know when when people don't want to hear their crap. Not to say Christians don't try to convert people, but I'VE NEVER SEEN A GROUP TRY HARDER TO CONVERT PEOPLE THAN ATHEIST.

On the internet at least.
Your right, posting it on some obscure part of the internet that none of us had ever seen untill today is really hard core preaching.

[ExAm]

Why, I don't have anything else to say about it. :S

Also, since the article is religious in nature, what the hell are people supposed to discuss about it if not religion?What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be arguing with him over anything, we should be discussing the topic.

[Heathen]

What does John 11:7 have to do with the Halo universe?

iirc it was about going back to Judaea after two days....

[ExAm]

Master Chief's name is John, his number is 117. You should know this :/

EDIT: misunderstood, sorry.

[n00b1n8R]

I just read John 11:7 from some online bible.

It sounds like something a stoner would write :lmao:

[nooBBooze]

Lol id say you guys read way too much into this. John is just a generic [and honestly overused] name used in way too much movies/games.

[ExAm]

But the combination of the name John and the number 117 leaves a virtual obligation to explore some kind of connection.

[Bodzilla]

Or about freeing people from their sin and from burning in hell?

I gotta agree with llama.
Im atheist, but Im all for faith. It lets people live on who would otherwise get frustrated with life. They at elast have something to believe in.
I knew you'd say that but from a purely scientific stand point and the given nature and history of the bible......

i'll leave sleeping dogs lie though, hell as long as your happy.

But it's always nice to have an eye opener and have someone question your beliefs because subconsciously you will question yours at the same time.

[n00b1n8R]

Hey guys since there's way more literature about santa and very little fire and brimstone compared to the christian god, I'm going to start the church of santology. Anybody want to join?

[Heathen]

Unfortunately, my birth father (who is a genius of a man, although farther across that line of Insane-Genius than you would want) thwarted my toothfairy and santa beliefs as a child.

Said he wouldn't have my mother stuffing shit into my head like a goddamn preacher.

He really said this.

[n00b1n8R]

Bet he was popular with the religious reli's :lol:

[Heathen]

Bet he was popular with the religious reli's :lol:
he was big into the Quran.

Just googling his name is cool for me.
He lives in Mexico right now and I only lived with him for 6 months in 7th grade.
Google Jeff Moehring...

[Syuusuke]

Ohk...

When he talks about how God Yahweh (whatever) does not feed, give money, clothe, take care of the poor and man would have to do so, maybe it has something to do with the fact that he "left" the Earth (I'm trying my best to remember stuff from the bible) and he had to depend on mankind to do things for him. Maybe that's why we see a lot of undesirables, because God had to depend on man to do it for him, and a lot of those people don't do it.

Maybe the same way he used Jesus as a God-man figure? I would say the reason he's not pushing out more baby Jesus' out of different types of virgin Mary's are because in this society, I don't think he would live the same way as Jesus back in the B.C. days. (Also has to do with the fact that God may have to use man as a medium to do his work). Besides, I doubt a modern day Jesus would work out with the way the world is in now.

Can I get away with one more?

Waves (not light, screw light for now) can only travel through a medium. I think that's what God is like, a wave, and he has to use man (the medium) to get be "visible" to other people.

BTW, this is just some thinking, I'm not trying to agree/disagree. Or maybe I am and I don't know that, what the hell, whatever.

[ILLEGALcheatsMAN]

I understand what you are saying.


But what if the bible was actually made, not to keep faith in people or to stop them from having sin, but what if god (if there is a god) made the bible come into reality, solely for the perpose to make mankind more civilized, by scaring them half to death about hell. He would perposly make part or all of it up and keep loopholes in it so that once people figured out that it could not be true and forget it, mankind would already be civilized by the teachings of the bible

[ExAm]

Heh, that would be interesting

[nooBBooze]

But what if the bible was actually made, not to keep faith in people or to stop them from having sin, but what if god (if there is a god) made the bible come into reality, solely for the perpose to make mankind more civilized, by scaring them half to death about hell. He would perposly make part or all of it up and keep loopholes in it so that once people figured out that it could not be true and forget it, mankind would already be civilized by the teachings of the bible
That would imply that [most of the] civilazation[s] is [are] based on faiths derived from the bible or protogospels that formed the basis of it wich is obviously not true.

[I_Am_Error117]

Wow wow wow. Stop. Pause. Listen.

It appears none of you all Christian or not ahve actually read the Bible enough to talk about it. The way you all coment on it is like if you watch thirty seconds of a movie and go and tell all of your friends the movie is great. How can you say that without watching the entire film? Right so how can one judge the Bible by what others say or by what small portions you have read. Ok so maybe you read the whole Bible cover to cover? Right, now did you asorb what you read? Ok maybe you really looked into it but when you didn't understand what a passage ment did you consult a pastor or somone from the church for help? Right beacuse that would mean you were showing intrest in it and that would be bad. Hmmm. Ok since you don't want to do all that work I'll sumarize the Bible. How about that.

Right so the Bible is divided into two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Old Testament:

Ok in the begining there was nothing, it was God and nothing. He was all alone. So he created Heaven, Earth, the Universe and all of its contents. Then he created man and woman. Right so they lived in the garden of eden an utopia of sorts a perfect world where no one did anything wrong. Now there was one tree of which they could not eat from, but they were tempted by the devil. The devil was an angel that becmae jelaous of God's limitless power so he became evil and tried to destoy God. So God cast him out of Heaven. The devil tempted the woman and man into eating from this tree. They ate the fruit from the tree and sin entered the world. So God killed a sinless animal to forgive their sins, this animal took their punisment for them. So they were cast out of the garden and thrown into the sinful world by God. Ok, so they reproduced and eventually their offspring formed civilizations. These civilizations became corupt and incredibly evil, to the point where only one man, Noah, and his family were still loyal to God. So God destroyed all the earth in a flood. He destoyed everything except Noah, his family and one male and female of every type of animal. Ok so now God had started over. Now after the world had repopulated God chose a man that would be the father of his nation, Isreal. So the nation of Isreal became a powerful nation. But eventualy the nations sin tore them apart and they became very sinfull so God allowed them to become under oppresion by other nations to show them that God controls their lives, and that the should worship him and him alone. Now God spoke that their would be man sent by God to forgive their sins. This man would take the place of the animals that they had to kill to forgive their sins.

New Testament:

Now Isreal became oppresed by the Romans. Now God sent Jesus to Earth to die on the cross. Jesus preached and was eventually killed on the cross. THe point of Jesus dieing was so that he would take the place of the animals that the Isrealites had been killing. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice because he was a sinless and was human not an animal. THis caused controversy among the Isrealites becasue some belived Jesus was their messiah, while others did not belive. Those who did not belive thought that Jesus was supposed to end their oppresion adn become a great earthly king and such. After his death Jesus rose again to show that he had conqured death and that he was the ultimate sacrice. Afterwards Jesus ascended into Heaven fufilling Gods will. Those who belived Jesus became Christians while the others did not. Jesus spoke of his second coming, he said that he would come back and would send the evil into hell and those who belived wwould go to heaven. Jesus said anyone who belived in his death and resurection and belived in his fogiveness could be saved, wheter you were a Isrealite or anyone else it didn't matter.

So there you go Jesus isnt about some cult or some crazy dude like Nostradamus. He is about forgivness. By beleiving in Jesus you redeem you self from the punishment you should recive for you sin and in return get the gift of eternal life in the perfect palce, Heaven.

So thats what the Bible is about. Its not some crazy philosiphy book and it doesnt have a ton of rules. so instead of judging it on what you have heard/ what you "know". Think about how truthful your judgement is. Ok? All im saying is "You can't judge a book by its cover."

[Heathen]

thb I have read the entire bible because I like the fact that I know more about Christianity than most christians. I am unbiased about the bible but found it to be a depressing read.

Overall?http://www.modacity.net/forums/images/rating/rating_2.gif2/5

[I_Am_Error117]

thb I have read the entire bible because I like the fact that I know more about Christianity than most christians. I am unbiased about the bible but found it to be a depressing read.

Overall?http://www.modacity.net/forums/images/rating/rating_2.gif2/5


Fair enough. But not evryone who claims to be a christian is one. But that's just the way the cookie crumbles i suppose.

[Tweek]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH religion.

isnt that the thing where you've got an imaginary friend?
i used to have an imaginary friend when i was FIVE, but then i found out he wasn't real.

[nooBBooze]

Post

1. yes you can judge it by its cover [basic contents and storys of the bible really are common knowledge]. millions of christians never read it but still their faith is accepted as legit.
2. i dont think you grasped the concept of philosphy. look it up
3. your argument really is just a personal opinion. that book is way to contradictiory and implicit to allow for a precicely defined way of worshiping or even just defining god. you say its about jesus granting us redemption, some old lady says it about god killling off gay people, us soldiers and sending the victims of 9/11 to eternal damnation [video was posted here a long time ago]. Both of those opinions are legit as they both refer to the bible wich really alows any interpretation. whos to say whos right then?
4. [off topic] recently scientists have discovered ancient scriptures that suggest that jesus didnt let himself be curcified for the sins of man but for the liberation of the tribes of isreael but dont quote me on that i see if i can dig up an english link.


btw, about time we got another relgion thred going.:)

[Tweek]

blag

btw, about time we got another relgionmentalpatient thred going.:)

ftfy

[blind]

Ok in the begining there was nothing, it was God and nothing. He was all alone. So he created Heaven, Earth, the Universe and all of its contents.
Why did he do this?

[TVTyrant]

1.This topic kind of reminds me of this:http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?p=240317 That thread=EPIC LOLS

2.IMO, as an agnostic I refuse to simply put my trust into the idea that there is a god, and also into the idea that there isn't one. To say there isn't one is to say that 4 billion (counting all major religions of course) people are wrong. And some of those people are just as intelligent as you or I. But, on the other hand, to say there is one is to say that I believe that people can walk on water and ascend from the grave and cure the dead. So that's pretty ridiculous too. So I stand in the middle, simply because I refuse to believe something that unbelievable, but I also refuse to believe that that many people are wrong.

3.Though I respect peoples faith and beliefs/opinions, people who are pushy about make me do this :mad: and then start yelling. Especially religion/atheism. Religious nuts are often douches who have nothing better to do than yell in my face about how wrong I am and how I'M going to hell and blah blah blah...Atheists are always like "How can you be in the middle? You either believe or you don't etc. etc.". Fucking annoying.

[I_Am_Error117]

Why did he do this?
Well what would you do if you were the only thing in existance and had limitless power? He got lonely sorta. He wanted something to show his love to.

[TeeKup]

Well what would you do if you were the only thing in existance and had limitless power? He got lonely sorta. He wanted something to show his love to.

Or hatred.

[Heathen]

Well what would you do if you were the only thing in existance and had limitless power? He got lonely sorta. He wanted something to show his love to.

But got sick of that shit fast. Us and our lazy dependance, ingrateful ways, and nakedness. So now he hides from us.

[§partan 8]

Some questions for people that believe in evolution. These are not mine I found them on a website.





Questions for Evolutionists
Author: Various
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man�s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory�it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.


Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body�s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don�t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren�t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn�t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?


I'm just wondering what modacity thinks about these questions.

[Bastinka]

Uhm dude :google:.

Also, I wouldn't question someones beliefs.. No one ever questioned yours, and really I hate to see people like you. -rep

If your gonna say god is the one who created you, wheres the proof? You accept him, others don't. Why object to what someone does if your just gonna get a faceload of ass, shit and piss thrown at you for it. Seriously, gtfo. No offense, but I REALLY hate that.

EDIT: Btw way to show the obvious copy and pasting.

[blind]

Well what would you do if you were the only thing in existance and had limitless power? He got lonely sorta. He wanted something to show his love to.
Is he perfect?

[Mass]

Evolution is not a good theory it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science
...

Anyway, I can't answer the majority of those questions, as I am not a scientist, and I don't know why I should be expected to understand all facets of the infinite (at least for the sake of argument) universe. I can answer a few of them and that is far more than enough for me to dismiss it all as simple minded rubbish.

How would the answer to the question of where matter came from be any less reasonable when answered by a proponent of the theory of evolution, I mean let's look at this:

"Matter exists because matter exists"

"Matter exists because God created it and God exists because he exists"

Gotta throw in that extra step, that augmentation obviously adds infinite credibility when compared to the former.

[thehoodedsmack]

Some questions for people that believe in evolution. These are not mine I found them on a website.





Questions for Evolutionists
The hell is an evolutionist? Points off at the beginning for making shit up.

Author: Various
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man�s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory�it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
B-B-B-BULLSHIT!

Where did the space for the universe come from? It didn't. Space has always existed. You're working with the idea that "at first, there was nothing", and that's just plain retarded.
Where did matter come from? Big bang, d'uh.
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? Where did the universe's NATURAL CONSTANTS come from? By using the term "laws", you're making it seem like someone sat down and decided on them.
How did matter get so perfectly organized? Wat? Clarify this question.
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? See above.
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? Trial and error. Anything that can happen will, given enough time.
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Evolution. Yeesh.
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Cells aren't capable of sexual reproduction. Stop being stupid, please.
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) Species are born with the URGE to reproduce. I'm guessing whoever wrote this question was a eunuch.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) I don't think there's been many cases where mutation made something better than the original, nor do I think the person making these questions knows half of what they're talking about.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? No.
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? Reword. Can't understand what you're getting at.
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) No such thing as a single celled plant. Or a three celled ANYTHING, if I recall....
Single-celled animals evolve? I'm sorry, when did they EVOLVE? This isn't fucking POKEMON! Evolution is a neverending thing! Life doesn't "level up"!
Fish change to amphibians? Another retarded question. Did you honestly expect someone to be there watching when it happened?
Amphibians change to reptiles? See above.
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) YOU'RE RETARDED!!! Who ever claimed that birds evolved from reptiles? Apart from the idea that some dinosaurs became birds, which CAN be backed up if you did a bit of research!
How did the intermediate forms live? ... Like their predeccessors? Are you under the impression that they have to sit down, and take some time out of their busy schedule to evolve?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:

Whales evolve? Prehistoric whales.
Sea horses evolve? I'm not a marine biologist, go look it up yourself.
Bats evolve? Probably broke up somewhere around where flying squirrels came into play, and got a little better at the whole flying deal.
Eyes evolve? VISION IS NOT A FUCKING LIFE-FORM!!!
Ears evolve? LOOK UP, DUMBASS!!!
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? WARGARBHL!!!
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body�s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it? tl;dr, these aren't questions to ask on the internet, unless you're under the impression that we're all Ph.D's in this shit.
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? Because "God dit it" is dumb, while evolution has a nice scientific ring to it.
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? You mean like chameleons? That's adaptation, genius.
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. Says who? We've evolved the most sophisticated communications ability ever. Emtions are just part of it.
*How did photosynthesis evolve? Because plants need to live. Adaptation.
*How did thought evolve? You mean to say "Why do we think". Stop asking stupid crap. No idea why we think. It's why "Evolutionism" doesn't explain everything, as you seem to think people think it does.
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that? Huh? You mean roses and lilies and crap? That's just physical properties.
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What? EVOLUTIONIST ISN'T A REAL TERM! Evolution can't explain time, matter, space, etc. It's a scientific principle, not a belief system!
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium? A what? I WASN'T ALIVE FIFTY YEARS AGO! How am I supposed to hypothesize a response to a time period I would have to have grown up in?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true? Show me some predictions of macroevolution, and I'll tell you, PROFESSOR.
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human? WHAT?!?!?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing? No, I told you that in the first few questions.After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?) They reflect my BELIEFS, not my religion. Way to load words, smart guy.
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"? Just as much faith. However, my answers happen to have a bit of proof behind them.
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did? Yes, it's quite possible, now tell me what created "His" universe, and suddenly I'm wearing the smart pants again.
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact? Mmmmmmmmmmyes. Yes it is.
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)? A lifestyle where one doesn't spend their existence trying to say otherwise...
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught. Obviously not...
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.). That's their choice. You'll find people can believe in both.
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average. Yeah, this happens ALL the time...
They are too proud to admit they are wrong. Et tu, doofus?
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda. HELL NO! Tell one of the presidential candidates to say they're an atheist. C'mon. Do it.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don�t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)? Disproven? You mean like the "Atheist's Nightmare" video? Yeah, you guys keep up with that.
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)? I think some place in the states voted to have creationism taught in one of their schools. Personally, I think it's all quackery.
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening." If I'm wrong? If there IS a God? You tell me, I don't know much about the man.
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview. Because they're afraid it'll create more people like YOU! It isn't fact, it shouldn't be presented as such. If kids want to learn this stuff, they can take a world religions course.
Aren�t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn�t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness? Yeah. Right now. Do it. Wait, where is he? Oh right, doesn't exist. Forgot. No, I'll stick with being right, thanks.I'm just wondering what modacity thinks about these questions.

Done. That took a while. These aren't directed at you, §partan 8, but whoever wrote them.

[§partan 8]

These aren't directed at you, §partan 8, but whoever wrote them.

Thank you at least there’s one person here that actually reads everything before they reply.

[Heathen]

Some questions for people that believe in evolution.

Questions for the otherside:

Where the bloody hell did God come from?

[nooBBooze]

hey error, id'l like to know what you'd use to counter my points. Not for the lulz, not to expose anyone, just to get a fertile, possibly civilized discussion started:)


Thank you at least there’s one person here that actually reads everything before they reply.
If you post it, then you approve of it hence you can be held accountable for it. at leats with those introduction/explanation you provided that post with that is.

[Con]

Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain mans questions about the universe.
I'm just wondering what modacity thinks about these questions.
Yes, those people are called ignorant creationists. I fail to see what a lot of these questions have to do with evolution. Maybe those misguided creationists should stop attacking what they don't understand?

[n00b1n8R]

Who ever claimed that birds evolved from reptiles? Apart from the idea that some dinosaurs became birds, which CAN be backed up if you did a bit of research!
You just answered your own question silly. :downs:

As for proof that evolution occours? How the fuck do you think bacteria develop immunity to medications and then become superbacteria? Is there a god going around and updating them just to kill people?

[Bodzilla]

§partan 8 (http://www.modacity.net/forums/member.php?u=509)

Never ever under any circumstances do you have any right to call me an Evolutionist.
It's a Word that has been made Purely to fabricate the illusion that people who dont believe in god have a Belief in some other Form.

And that is an out right fucking lie. We Support Evidence, Facts and logic.

I'm an Atheist NOT a Evolutionist.

remove that now.

[ExAm]

Once again, we're not here to attack the people behind the beliefs, we're here to discuss THE BELIEF ITSELF.

[Bodzilla]

Once again, we're not here to attack the people behind the beliefs, we're here to discuss THE BELIEF ITSELF.
Calling an atheist an "Evolutionist" is the same as calling a black person a monkey.

and quite frankly is he wants to get involved in those Games, he can go and get fucked.

[Tweek]

atheism isnt a belief.

in fact, it's NOT BELIVING.

there's no such thing as "believing in not believing" that's a fucking paradox.
your stupid christian arguements are flawed, wake up and smell the exhaust fumes.

this thread rules, another mindless display of redardedness, stupidity and ignorance.

[DaneO'Roo]

Anybody ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved?

-Bill Hicks

[nooBBooze]

atheism isnt a belief.

in fact, it's NOT BELIVING.

there's no such thing as "believing in not believing" that's a fucking paradox.
your stupid christian arguements are flawed, wake up and smell the exhaust fumes.

Agnostic here, you're doing it wrong, Sir.
Atheism is infact a belief as it implies there can't be anything beyond our physical world. this of course, can never be fully proven and therefore asumming there is no metaphysics is infact a believing. :eng101:

tl;dr: i love drama threads

[Tweek]

no, it's not, it's just that it's not proven yet.

prove to me that there is, and ill happily rearrange my thinking to incorporate this new discovery.

untill then, don't fucking insult me.

[nooBBooze]

no, it's not, it's just that it's not proven yet.

:eng101:

[Hotrod]

Well, I'm the kind of guy that always looks at every side of an argument, and there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet : Couldn't it be possible that you're both wrong? What if there was a God and evolution? What if God was the one that made evolution happen? What if it's not 100% science and not 100% religion, but some of both?

Every time I see religious people and atheists debate, it's always one side, or the other, maybe it's possible that you're both right, yet wrong at the same time.

I don't mean to try to change anybody's beliefs with this post, so please don't take it that way. I just want to add another "dimension" to this "friendly" debate.

[Mass]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not a belief system. Therefore, "Evolutionism" would be a massively improper way to describe the its proponents.

Neither is atheism a belief system. They are both beliefs.
They are specific components of a personal belief system.

[Bodzilla]

I don't mean to try to change anybody's beliefs with this post, so please don't take it that way. I just want to add another "dimension" to this "friendly" debate.
Neither do i, but the second people start making up derogatory words to insult and downplay evolution they can wake the fuck up and smell the rose's.

and i'll gladly be he one to tell them so. Why should I be civil in a debate where other people clearly have no respect for my opinion.
i'll happily respect another persons opinion if it is right for them, but as soon as there opinion trys to discredit mine then..............

:wankfest:.jpg

[Con]

Anybody ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved?

-Bill Hicks
http://asylu.ms/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/evolve.png
>_>

[blind]

Wru Error?
Is god perfect?

[Pooky]

You know something I've always wondered about the Big Bang theory?

Where the fuck did all this super concentrated matter that supposedly exploded come from?

[TVTyrant]

Questions for both sides (I'm not flaming, I just want tio see some responses out of you guys...)

1.Like Pooky said, where did the super-concentrated matter come from to start the big-bang?

2.If creationism were true, wouldn't there be Dinosaurs? I mean, almost all of the animals we have today were around 7,000 years ago :eyesroll:

3.How do scientists know the age of the universe? The Discovery channel said 30,000,000,000 years, but how do they know or estimate this?

4.If we are expected to believe the bible, than wouldn't that mean we should go kill all non-jews in Israel? I mean, God said (in the bible) to murder every man, woman, and child in order to take back Canaan.

[Hotrod]

Some of you say that space was always there, and that there was no "before the beginning". What I find hard to think of is that there wasn't a beginning to it all, since I'm used to everything always having beginning and an end. Also, another thing to think about, if God created everything, who created God? And where did all that matter come from? How was it created?

There are so many questions we can not answer, so no amount of debating will solve them, since for now, there is no way for us to know the real answer.

[Con]

1.Like Pooky said, where did the super-concentrated matter come from to start the big-bang?
3.How do scientists know the age of the universe? The Discovery channel said 30,000,000,000 years, but how do they know or estimate this?

1. Quantum fluctuations are the best theory right now.
3. Background radiation from the big bang was measured, maths ensued.

[§partan 8]

2.If creationism were true, wouldn't there be Dinosaurs? I mean, almost all of the animals we have today were around 7,000 years ago :eyesroll:



I think that when Noah took two of every animal on the Ark, he didn't take all of them full grown. Epically dinosaurs, I think he took dinosaurs on the Ark but as babes so they would all fit. The reason we don't see them today is because people have killed them off for meat and other reasons.
This is just my opinion though.

This is just a quote.

"Dinosaurs were faced with a hostile world,
the canopy was gone and the climate changed.
Man began to hunt them for food and
because they were becoming a menace."

I believe that there are a few dinosaurs still alive today. Ever see those lopness monster sighting? I don't think all of those are fake as the media claims. There were soft dinosaur bones found. There is a swamp in Africa that more then half is unexplored and people there reported dinosaur signings. Reason people don’t see this on the media is because... well I’m sure you know why, I don't want to say it.

[Bastinka]

Because the media tells them "Pics or gtfo", thats why.

[§partan 8]

Because the media tells them "Pics or gtfo", thats why.

Actually they have quite a bit of pictures. Just goggle it. Those are just the ones that are on the internet, what about the ones that aren't

[blind]

I believe that there are a few dinosaurs still alive today.
Are you serious.
Is he serious?

[Bodzilla]

2.If creationism were true, wouldn't there be Dinosaurs? I mean, almost all of the animals we have today were around 7,000 years ago :eyesroll:
please stop talking.

[Mass]

C'mon guys, don't you know? The epic of Gilgamesh is all about dinosaurs.

[ExAm]

Updated first post with another link...

[Tweek]

I believe that there are a few dinosaurs still alive today. Ever see those lopness monster sighting?

what, you mean Loch Ness monster?

loch = a type of lake in scotland
that loch has a name :P

gg

[n00b1n8R]

You know something I've always wondered about the Big Bang theory?

Where the fuck did all this super concentrated matter that supposedly exploded come from?
Well here's the thing. You can either accept that it has allways existed, or jump further back and say there was a god who created it and he has allways existed.

It's just one implausibility after another. I prefer the big bang theory because it doesn't require delaying the inevitable (that of reaching something which must have allways existed).

[Tweek]

goddamnit you idiots, the big bang is ABSOLUTELY plausible.

it makes PERFECT SENSE for all the matter to have come forth out of nothing.
honestly, do some fucking research into quantum mechanics. it makes PERFECT SENSE.

[n00b1n8R]

Then where did the rules of quantum mechanics from from? :colbert:

[Bodzilla]

Then where did the rules of quantum mechanics from from? :colbert:
they didnt come from any thing n00b.

>_<

[n00b1n8R]

So they allways existed? Sounds a lot like the god theory. :downs:

[Bodzilla]

So they allways existed? Sounds a lot like the god theory. :downs:
Yeah because someone wrote the rules of Gravity before it happend.

so that means if i write that i want a new electric guitar,. the universe will suddenly adopt those principals And POW i have a new guitar?

dont be fucking stupid n00b.

[Mass]

Well according to quantum mechanics there are some particles that only come into existence through thought or observation so if you lived long enough you could probably figure out how to summon a guitar for yourself.

Just throwin' that in thar.

[Bodzilla]

Quiet you >_<

[Hotrod]

I never knew about that before, I wonder how long you would have to live to do so?

[itszutak]

I never knew about that before, I wonder how long you would have to live to do so?
Few billion years if you're lucky.

[§partan 8]

Do you guy know what B.C and A.D means?

What do the terms B.C. and A.D. mean?

B.C. is an abbreviation for “Before Christ.” A.D. is an abbreviation for “anno Domini,” which is Latin for “in the year of our Lord.”

B.C. and A.D. are commonly used to count years in time. Jesus Christ’s birth is used as a starting point to count years that existed before (B.C.) and after (A.D.) He was born. For example, the year 532 B.C. refers to the time 532 years before A.D. 1, when Christ was assumed to have been born.
Dionysius Exiguus, a monk, invented the B.C./A.D. method during the Middle Ages, early in the sixth century. Commissioned by the pope, he did this to determine the correct date for Easter. His counting method determined Christ’s birth to be the year A.D. 1. However, Jesus was actually born a few years earlier, in the year 4 B.C.
It is well established that the sacred calendar, generally known as the Hebrew calendar, began in 3,761 B.C. It is based on 12 and 13-month years and 19-year time cycles, as explained in our booklet The truth about GOD’S CALENDAR.


Some chronologists, geologists and anthropologists object to time being anchored to any kind of Christian or religious benchmark. Instead of using the term A.D. they prefer to use the phrase “Common Era,” abbreviated “C.E.” Likewise, in place of B.C., which refers to the time “Before Christ,” they favor labeling that era “B.C.E.,” meaning “Before the Common Era.” Thus, C.E. is generally equivalent to A.D. and B.C.E. is generally equivalent to B.C.

[n00b1n8R]

Yeah because someone wrote the rules of Gravity before it happend.

so that means if i write that i want a new electric guitar,. the universe will suddenly adopt those principals And POW i have a new guitar?

dont be fucking stupid n00b.
What?

The point I was making is that if we accept that everything has a cause, then it begs the question: what caused the universe?

If you say quantum mechanics, what caused quantum mechanics? If you say god, what caused god? It's just a massive mindfuck.

Note, this isn't saying that I believe in god because I don't. I'm just content to know that I don't and likely never will have all the answers.

[Con]

Do you guy know what B.C and A.D means?

What do the terms B.C. and A.D. mean?

B.C. is an abbreviation for “Before Christ.” A.D. is an abbreviation for “anno Domini,” which is Latin for “in the year of our Lord.”

B.C. and A.D. are commonly used to count years in time. Jesus Christ’s birth is used as a starting point to count years that existed before (B.C.) and after (A.D.) He was born. For example, the year 532 B.C. refers to the time 532 years before A.D. 1, when Christ was assumed to have been born.
Dionysius Exiguus, a monk, invented the B.C./A.D. method during the Middle Ages, early in the sixth century. Commissioned by the pope, he did this to determine the correct date for Easter. His counting method determined Christ’s birth to be the year A.D. 1. However, Jesus was actually born a few years earlier, in the year 4 B.C.
It is well established that the sacred calendar, generally known as the Hebrew calendar, began in 3,761 B.C. It is based on 12 and 13-month years and 19-year time cycles, as explained in our booklet The truth about GOD’S CALENDAR.


Some chronologists, geologists and anthropologists object to time being anchored to any kind of Christian or religious benchmark. Instead of using the term A.D. they prefer to use the phrase “Common Era,” abbreviated “C.E.” Likewise, in place of B.C., which refers to the time “Before Christ,” they favor labeling that era “B.C.E.,” meaning “Before the Common Era.” Thus, C.E. is generally equivalent to A.D. and B.C.E. is generally equivalent to B.C.
and the point of posting that here was?

[§partan 8]

See beyond the point.

[Con]

whoa, that's deep man http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif

[§partan 8]

I quit on this topic. It's like talking with a bunch or rocks.

[Con]

I make people quit in halo too

o/

[n00b1n8R]

\o gj man

[Bodzilla]

I make people quit in halo too

o/
ahahahahahahahaha


\o

[Heathen]

I quit on this topic. It's like talking with a bunch or rocks.
Like arguing with creationists?

[Bodzilla]

"Evolutionism"? Isn't even a real word just like macro evolution and micro evolution. These are just creationist terms made to support their bullshit.

Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. They'll knock over a few peices, crap on the table, then fly away and boast about their victory.

I love this guy.

[Con]

so I guess it's rocks vs pigeons. guess what

[Mass]

Like arguing with creationists?
No, that's more like talking to a wall with a learning disability.

[blind]

I make people quit in halo too

o/
Only baddies, lmao. Nice try Conscars!

Also, nobody answered my question :S
Is God perfect or not?

[InnerGoat]

Yes, she is.

[n00b1n8R]

:picsorstfu:

[Heathen]

If God can do anything...can he create a rock so big that even he cant lift?

I r cool.

Edit: Also- http://bp2.blogger.com/_X2sjPjJJdH8/SEVyiWGGy1I/AAAAAAAAFM8/fx0KzUb2BtU/s1600/sciencevsreligion.jpg

[Pooky]

goddamnit you idiots, the big bang is ABSOLUTELY plausible.

it makes PERFECT SENSE for all the matter to have come forth out of nothing.
honestly, do some fucking research into quantum mechanics. it makes PERFECT SENSE.

What's 'nothing'?

[thehoodedsmack]

What's 'nothing'?

The opposite of "something".

[n00b1n8R]

Well the rules of quantum mechanics are surely something.

[Heathen]

I just watched something about all that mess.

[Mass]

Well the rules of quantum mechanics are surely something.
There's no difference between

shit happens

and

God makes shit happen

tbh.

[n00b1n8R]

There's about 2 words difference and I prefer to simplify things. :downs:

I'm saying we don't and probably never will have all the answers. I think it's foolish at best to simply say "god did it" and leave it at that without any proof of god's existence. We have proof the universe exists. We have no proof that a "god" exists other than if you were to presume that the existence of a universe requires the existence of a god (and what logic is that based on?).

Hell I have more proof the universe exists than I have proof you exist.

[Heathen]

Well...if it were a crime to make a universe...
God would get away scott free.
Because their is no evidence.
And if that doesn't convince you,
Just remember that a Colossal Explosion is way cooler than magic miracles.



The lack of evidence is what gets me with these people (with lack of better classification for the religeous community as a whole)

If I told you that I could perform God's miracles, you would say that I am an asshole and probably be offended. Thing is...who are you to question it? Your first statement would probably be "Prove it"
Me: I cant...
You: ...why not?
Me: God chooses to keep hidden..
You: Bullshit...
Me: I'm serious...who are you to question God.
You: You cant perform miracles!
Me: Yes I can! I just cant prove it to you ever.
You: Well then how am I supposed to believe you?
Me: Faith?
You: Pfft...

The argument is...you cant prove that I cant, but I cant prove that I can. See...in court, its not who can prove it....but rather who has more proof towards their case. You bring a letter from your daddy saying it happened your way, and we have documentation and physical proof.

[n00b1n8R]

Here's a little something I found:


"The devil is greater than nothing"
"nothing is greater than god"
Devil > Nothing > God
Devil > God

:o

[Heathen]

Haha, thats rad.

[El Lobo]

I make people quit in halo too

o/
Who?

:lobo:

[Con]

sucky people as blind said, which is beside the point

[Heathen]

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m37/BrandonRudy/Funny/god-action-figure.jpg

[Con]

put that in the funny pics thread

[ExAm]

Added another to the front page.

[Heathen]

The pic is gone...but its ok

...because I have faith that it was good and am going to + rep you accordingly.

[n00b1n8R]

Ah so it's the cloak. That makes sense.
:mysterysolved:

[Mass]

Jesus Christ Superstore :lol:

[Heathen]

I searched for it for a few hours....its down :(