Trade Bible for porn

[Miguez]

I think you got it wrong ofy, here we're talking about proving that this "god" exists, not about proving that they really respected their woman.

[NuclearSilo]

Science and God can coexist at the same time. I win, you all lost.

[strangelove]

Show me ONE case where the Qu'ran is mistaken. A book from 1400 years ago, coming out of people who burried their daughters, used women as items, taught these people that their daughters deserved life as much as their sons do, and gave women rights to VOTE when the western, European people where still voting wether or not Women had souls.

Let me Google that for you.

Science and God can coexist at the same time. I win, you all lost.

Prove it.

[heroo]

A book that teaches hate and ignorance deserves no respect, sorry.

Religion teaches people to believe in something with absolutely no evidence FFS!

it doesn't teach hate and ignorance. only idiots interpret it that way.

and some people don't need evidence to believe in something. that's why it's called ''to believe in something''.

[NuclearSilo]

Show me ONE case where the Qu'ran is mistaken. A book from 1400 years ago, coming out of people who burried their daughters, used women as items, taught these people that their daughters deserved life as much as their sons do, and gave women rights to VOTE when the western, European people where still voting wether or not Women had souls.

Let me Google that for you.

So do it

Science and God can coexist at the same time. I win, you all lost.

Prove it.

Easy, since I can't prove you win, so by default you lose

[heroo]

Easy, since I can't prove you win, so by default you lose

but you also can't prove you won, so that makes him a winner as well

[Miguez]

Easy, since I can't prove you win, so by default you lose

but you also can't prove you won, so that makes him a winner as well

Yeah but then he couldn't prove that he didn't prove so he could prove the other one had no proof... Yeah, nevermind.

[strangelove]

So do it

You do realize that science never claims to be infallible. In fact, that's why the scientific method exists. It's a filter to block out the bad science and keep getting more and more accurate results. We never say we have all the answers. There's no absolutes in science. There's only that which we are currently aware of and that which we are not.

Isn't there a Ouija session you're late for?

Science and God can coexist at the same time. I win, you all lost.

Prove it.

Easy, since I can't prove you win, so by default you lose

Code: Select all

[NuclearSilo]

Easy, since I can't prove you win, so by default you lose

but you also can't prove you won, so that makes him a winner as well

Yes. So my point is none of you win nor lose. All your hard work for arguments and attempt to convince other side will lead to the same result => a ?
It's not the first time this kind of thread is made

You do realize that science never claims to be infallible. In fact, that's why the scientific method exists. It's a filter to block out the bad science and keep getting more and more accurate results. We never say we have all the answers. There's no absolutes in science. There's only that which we are currently aware of and that which we are not.

Good to know you realize that. That's why don't try too hard on yourself to prove that what people think is wrong and what you think is right. Be aware of your limitation.
If you still don't understand, try to count perceptions from 2000 years ago which are rejected or at least modified by science nowadays and try to predict which laws and perceptions nowadays will be rejected by our descendants 2000 years later?

[Disconn3cted]

If you still don't understand, try to count perceptions from 2000 years ago which are rejected or at least modified by science nowadays and try to predict which laws and perceptions nowadays will be rejected by our descendants 2000 years later?

The perceptions from 2000 years ago have been modified because they were not founded in science. Perceptions from 2000 years ago such as the earth being flat, the sun being the center of the universe, and god creating the earth in 7 days are just guesses that got rejected because they had no basis. With real science we have a basis. We can't say whether god exist or not but we can say that most stuff in the bible is not factual because it doesn't match up with real history or science.

[Goseki]

If you still don't understand, try to count perceptions from 2000 years ago which are rejected or at least modified by science nowadays and try to predict which laws and perceptions nowadays will be rejected by our descendants 2000 years later?

The perceptions from 2000 years ago have been modified because they were not founded in science. Perceptions from 2000 years ago such as the earth being flat, the sun being the center of the universe, and god creating the earth in 7 days are just guesses that got rejected because they had no basis. With real science we have a basis. We can't say whether god exist or not but we can say that most stuff in the bible is not factual because it doesn't match up with real history or science.

Eh, not all things in relgious texts are wrong. Some have not been modified since it still holds true. I'm not as familiar with other texts, but I do remember in the Bible they say life flows through the blood and the massive Flood are the first two to enter my mind. We now know the blood's role, we know that back than, and there are signs of there being a massive flood once before.

[EvGa]

no, you feel insulted cause you THINK religon bastardizes science. I can understand why you'd think that with the millions of people using religion and millions of people making religion look bad.

Also, I'm sorry if I ever insult your lack of belief. God does not even allow us to talk bad about people who do not believe in him cause who knows, one day you could believe in him and do great things fighting for God ^^

When intelligent design is taught side by side to evolution or stem cell research is portrayed as baby murder, yea, religion is bastardizing science. Not to mention religion claims to already have all the answers despite the backing evidence. Ignorance ftl.

Again, there is a difference between questioning and insulting.

"Does God really exist?. Sure from the day I was born my parents and everyone around me says God does exist, but what about the rest of the people who don't believe in him... What do they believe in or why do they not believe in God?".

I'm sorry, but bibles and korans contain instances of smut. The atheist were simply comparing smut to smut, if that offends you I'm sorry. Go read your koran more closely.

Yea, it's called childhood indoctrination. I assume you were born to a muslim family. Had you been born to a Christian family you'd be Christian. Think about that...

Correct me if I'm mistaken but don't we live in an era that I do not have to proove what I say exists and instead you have to prove the nonexistence of it? I forgot what that idea was called though. The world evolution ring any bells?

On the science part, I'm shocked you really did say "I don't know". Most people do what I had said in my previous post.

Science doesn't claim to know and neither do I. Not sure where you're going with evolution, but please don't. Evolution has been observed, it happens. Sorry if that conflicts with your religious text...it's just the way things are.

No, you're not open to there being a God. If you were, you wouldn't be so anti-religion. If you were, you wouldn't of been sitting here arguing with other people that they're beleifs are completely wrong. Instead, you would be outside researching more about this.

Please, just erase the "MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" idea from your head for 15 mins and just TRY to bare with it.

Again, you're incorrect. I've done more research and reading than you, guaranteed. In both religion and science using a variety of sources and first hand experience. The problem is you're mixing up religion with the existence of "god". I'm open to god existing, not religion, for reasons already discussed. There may be a God of some sort, but do you truly think he is the personal god of YOUR religion? Why not Christianity, Hinduism, Bahá’í, Judaism, Scientology, some primal religion, Sikhism, ... get the picture? Why is yours right and others wrong? It's like reaching in a bag and grabbing for names except...dun dun dun.. you're usually born into your religion of 'choice'.

If there is a god, the chances of him being the personal god of your specific religion.. yea. There are thousands of man-made gods. Good luck choosing the correct one.

I don't have the idea that all muslims are terrorists, there are plenty of other reasons to deny religion.

I'm still waiting on that evidence.

We now know the blood's role, we know that back than, and there are signs of there being a massive flood once before.

Eh, no. There is no geological evidence for a great flood. You are correct, not all things are wrong, but a LOT are. And being the word of god you don't think he could throw out a little better knowledge? Oh wait, it was written by man you say? Ok, that makes more sense, oh wait..then why teach and follow it as the word of god?

Silo..please...just stop.

[Love]

evga man you are getting owned by my standards bro, you are not even bringing up good points, losing to religion is kinda embarrassing when you consider most of the points they make are not real/trivial/emotional and can be discarded in 2 seconds.

let me help you out with one word: dinosaurs, that is the beginning and end of your argument, that being said I do intend to post a bit later just to leave ovy ( ? ) with nothing to say and e-stroke about how much superior/smarter I am even though I will be stating such obvious things that ya ...

[NuclearSilo]

If you still don't understand, try to count perceptions from 2000 years ago which are rejected or at least modified by science nowadays and try to predict which laws and perceptions nowadays will be rejected by our descendants 2000 years later?

The perceptions from 2000 years ago have been modified because they were not founded in science. Perceptions from 2000 years ago such as the earth being flat, the sun being the center of the universe, and god creating the earth in 7 days are just guesses that got rejected because they had no basis. With real science we have a basis. We can't say whether god exist or not but we can say that most stuff in the bible is not factual because it doesn't match up with real history or science.

At that time, they maybe didn't call it "science" but it must something else similar like "how the world works", "the truth" or something like that , a word, just to describe the activity of explaining how thing works.
And I can assure you that at that time, they tried to sound very convincing like you right now because they had such and such evidence and basis they saw with their own eyes and calculations. But yet, it doesn't mean all are right. How do you know what you think is right because you got a good evidence, but later will be rejected by a higher knowledge?
2000 years later, there's a possibility that a new study is born which is not called science but still cover our base knowledge about how life works.

[EvGa]

evga man you are getting owned by my standards bro, you are not even bringing up good points, losing to religion is kinda embarrassing when you consider most of the points they make are not real/trivial/emotional and can be discarded in 2 seconds.

let me help you out with one word: dinosaurs, that is the beginning and end of your argument, that being said I do intend to post a bit later just to leave ovy ( ? ) with nothing to say and e-stroke about how much superior/smarter I am even though I will be stating such obvious things that ya ...

Because I can't be assed to go through all the specific examples of how the bible or in ofys case the koran fails on the scientific level. If a religious person can't see those obvious flaws... it's useless. Go ahead.. point them out. Typical response will be "it's a metaphor bro". Or "well that's the best understanding they had 2000 years ago". Which is exactly what I addressed in my comment about word of god versus word of man. Yet this ignorance is still taught.

I'm not posting to disprove religion, just throwing out a few reasons why I have a problem with religion. We can sit here and discredit religion all day long, but my replies have been strictly geared (well mostly) toward ofy and his comments towards me. Not sure how I was owned by religion when nothing was put forth by ofy except: there is evidence, you don't accept it, evolution isn't real, koran isn't bad, oh wait it has some bad stuff, you're blind, proof is on you, etc..

We know you are intellectually superior to us all. May you please grace us with a response soon. I will pray.

[Disconn3cted]

If you still don't understand, try to count perceptions from 2000 years ago which are rejected or at least modified by science nowadays and try to predict which laws and perceptions nowadays will be rejected by our descendants 2000 years later?

The perceptions from 2000 years ago have been modified because they were not founded in science. Perceptions from 2000 years ago such as the earth being flat, the sun being the center of the universe, and god creating the earth in 7 days are just guesses that got rejected because they had no basis. With real science we have a basis. We can't say whether god exist or not but we can say that most stuff in the bible is not factual because it doesn't match up with real history or science.

At that time, they maybe didn't call it "science" but it must something else similar like "how the world works", "the truth" or something like that , a word, just to describe the activity of explaining how thing works.
And I can assure you that at that time, they tried to sound very convincing like you right now because they had such and such evidence and basis they saw with their own eyes and calculations. But yet, it doesn't mean all are right. How do you know what you think is right because you got a good evidence, but later will be rejected by a higher knowledge?
2000 years later, there's a possibility that a new study is born which is not called science but still cover our base knowledge about how life works.

What you are describing is pseudoscience. It isn't the same as real science. In the future I imagine that we will have a better understanding of things that currently allude us but it won't be like you suggest.

[NuclearSilo]

What you are describing is pseudoscience. It isn't the same as real science. In the future I imagine that we will have a better understanding of things that currently allude us but it won't be like you suggest.

You said that because you placed yourself in the point of view of someone in the present, with a better knowledge, and judge the past with low level knowledge as a pseudo-science. But if you placed yourself in the point of view of their time, you and the people would call that thing "science".
By your logic, later people will consider our science today pseudo-science, and the science of their time real science, and so on.

[Miguez]

What you are describing is pseudoscience. It isn't the same as real science. In the future I imagine that we will have a better understanding of things that currently allude us but it won't be like you suggest.

You said that because you placed yourself in the point of view of someone in the present, with a better knowledge, and judge the past with low level knowledge as a pseudo-science. But if you placed yourself in the point of view of their time, you and the people would call that thing "science".
By your logic, later people will consider our science today pseudo-science, and the science of their time real science, and so on.

Seriously Silo, why do you have to be like that... I can't even express what I'm feeling towards you by words.

[NuclearSilo]

Just arguing, sorry if it offends you

[Barotix]

I was taught Science is used to explain natural events, not supernatural or metaphysical ones.

[Miguez]

It doesn't offend me it's just... why?

[Goseki]

We now know the blood's role, we know that back than, and there are signs of there being a massive flood once before.

Eh, no. There is no geological evidence for a great flood. You are correct, not all things are wrong, but a LOT are. And being the word of god you don't think he could throw out a little better knowledge? Oh wait, it was written by man you say? Ok, that makes more sense, oh wait..then why teach and follow it as the word of god?

Thought there was. Like fossils of giant sea creatures found at the top of desolate mountains, shifts in geographical layers, similar accounts in other religions found all over the world.

Course I suppose you could interpret them to be the opposite if you wanted to. Aka, fish carried and left there for offering, shift as result of earthquake, other tribes had a big rain storm and thought it was a flood.

But it's one of those things from the past where there's clues it could've happened, but it could've just been coincidence as well.

[EvGa]

I was taught Science is used to explain natural events, not supernatural or metaphysical ones.

You were taught correctly. Its too bad religion tries to push its metaphysical BS into science classrooms.

Goseki, if there had been a global flood there would be so much evidence it would be overwhelming.

[NuclearSilo]

It doesn't offend me it's just... why?

You know, in life, there are lots of weired things and lots of why. Don't be afraid of the word "why"

I was taught Science is used to explain natural events, not supernatural or metaphysical ones.

Yes, but you got to properly define the word "natural" first, as well as its limitation.

[Disconn3cted]

What you are describing is pseudoscience. It isn't the same as real science. In the future I imagine that we will have a better understanding of things that currently allude us but it won't be like you suggest.

You said that because you placed yourself in the point of view of someone in the present, with a better knowledge, and judge the past with low level knowledge as a pseudo-science. But if you placed yourself in the point of view of their time, you and the people would call that thing "science".
By your logic, later people will consider our science today pseudo-science, and the science of their time real science, and so on.

No that isn't how my logic works. In science we do tests to see if we are right. In pseudoscience you make stuff up and say it is true with no basis.

[Barotix]

There was a flood but it was most definitely not global. It was likely one of Sumeria's periodic floods, many world (by world I mean religions spawned near or around the Mesopotamian ) religions record such a flood, and there is evidence supporting that. As for a great global flood caused by the wrath of "insert deity(deities) here." Going to have to say, no. Never happened. You would drown just from breathing.

Ancient Man sees naturally occurring event.
Ancient Man attributes it to the supernatural.
Ancient Man passes it down as oral history. (*Note the similarities between most religions)
Modern Man uses Science to explain the natural.
As for the "supernatural?" Who really knows?

Trading religious text for porn, in Texas? lol.

[NuclearSilo]

No that isn't how my logic works. In science we do tests to see if we are right. In pseudoscience you make stuff up and say it is true with no basis.

In the past they also give proofs to explain things.

[EvGa]

No that isn't how my logic works. In science we do tests to see if we are right. In pseudoscience you make stuff up and say it is true with no basis.

In the past they also give proofs to explain things.

And that makes science of today different. Science does not assert absolute knowledge or supply proofs on things. Science makes falsifiable claims, if those claims can not be falsified, they stick around as the leading explanation for a natural event. If evidence arises that falsifies a claim, the claim is adjusted/refined/whatever based on the new empirical data.

Religion makes unfalsifiable claims. God did it. You can't prove or disprove a position like that so you are stuck in stagnant waters forever.. or until people see through the idiocy.

God did it kids.
But..that scientist man says we share a common ancestor with apes...
Are you going to believe a scientist or a two thousand year old book? lols.
Come along kids, we're off to visit the creation museum, I hear Jesus rode dinosaurs.

[dom]

I hear Jesus rode dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs never existed. Jesus hid those rock-bones to test our faith!

[Amarisa]

I hear Jesus rode dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs never existed. Jesus hid those rock-bones to test our faith!

and the magic tea cup in the sky told me that Jesus plays wow with Mr.T