Bitcoin Forum

Christians, Muslims, Jews and other monotheists almost all believe might makes right. They worship God because they believe He is all-powerful.  I asked many Christians if they would still worship God if Satan was more powerful.  Few responded. You could see smoke coming from their ears. They tried to weasel out question. Ultimately the answer for almost all of them is "no". They would worship Satan if Satan was all-powerful. 

Might=right for these people. This is why they are Statists and why they are perfectly comfortable with a system centered around a violence monopoly. 

Might is right. When you deny it to most people, that's when you have problems.

Anyway, some people really need it! BTW money is religion as well :) and we are all heretics here :).

Religion is often a double-edged sword. Today we think of religion as inherently tied to imperial ambitions, but early Christians were actually a revolutionary challenge to imperial authority. The notion that one's soul belonged to a higher order transcending earthly rulers was incredibly troubling to the Roman Empire and, many argue, led to its attempting to co-opt Christianity in order to nullify the threat it was posing.

Likewise, Old Testament passages such as Samuel 1: Chapter 8 where Jews ask Samuel to appoint a king and he teaches them that they would be enslaved by such are hardly supportive of tyranny. More recently, Muslims have been one of the last religious groups to retain opposition to usury and central banking systems while most other faiths (and secular humanists) have fallen silent on the exploitative nature of the latter.

Like any movement, when religion ties itself up with statism and imperial ambition the results are always gruesome. That said, religion has often historically been a driving force for the classical liberal values that form the framework of modern liberty-minded thought. In full historical context I'd argue that the now-common desire to write religion off as a "plague" is too simplistic and, ironically, dogmatic.

You know what I don't get; idiots that say we should get rid of religion.

These same idiots fail to think about a fundamental question; Who invented religion?

You can't get rid of it. Religion is a product of intelligence.

Imagine that first person who had the concept of a god. And your saying that if we completely remove any notion from current human knowledge that it will no longer return. LOL.




Sure I think most current religions suck. But for some reason, maybe someone will do a PhD on it one day, intelligence needs a 'god' to handle some environmental problems. So if intelligence needs a 'god' your better off trying to propose a different religion rather than fighting the impossible battle of removing religion altogether.

Fail.

Religion is a product of fear.

Fear of Thunder, Fear of the Sea, Fear of the unknown.

The problem with most religions is that they are either started as, or guided towards, a top-down means of controlling the masses. The latest varieties such as new age earth-worship, technocracy and spiritual humanism are just as bad as many ancient religions despite being marketed as rebellious and liberating for disenfranchised individuals.

That said, I think the drive towards spirituality is very much a part of human nature and it is a sense of awe in the humbling amount of unknowns that still exist today. For many, nothing screams "prime mover" quite like the exploration of the cosmos and the big bang theory.

+1.  And dont forget, religion is also a product of ignorance.  As science and knowledge improves, religion decreases.

2+2 is not 5, no matter how many guns are pointed at the mathematician.

I don't know that this is entirely true. I guess I can't really speak for dogs, fish, and ants, but religion seems to have developed with human intelligence. It's not really fair to call people like Plato and Socrates ignorant (depending on your usage of the word) because they believed in the supernatural. It made the most sense at the time. It's like someone 100 years from now saying Einstein was ignorant because his theory of general relativity failed to take into account a yet-undiscovered aspect of the universe.

However, religious people today are overwhelming ignorant because there is so much evidence to the contrary. Sometimes I wonder if even the pope believes that God is real, or if he fakes it so his life of celibacy wasn't all for naught. Otherwise, I think people are afraid to admit that what they believed their entire lives was actually untrue.

It's kind of like government. The only people that support either are stupid, scared or both.

Religion is just like any other association of individuals, except by name alone. Their thinking is typically one of a divine creator who oversees (in the loose sense of the word) his creation. An omniscient and omnipotent being who attempts to communicate with a select few of his disciples/followers/prophets and pass on instructions (gospel/scripture) about how one should comport oneself.

Associations of individuals of like-minded thinking aren't necessarily bad. One could obviously have a family "religion". A family could be considered a religion because of it's group-think similarities. This is almost unavoidable. To wit, I don't think the destruction of the family is such a good idea because of it's religious tendencies.

Within any association, there will be individuals who will have differing opinions and beliefs separate from the majority of the other followers. These may or may not be correct. I should be careful, "correct", may be hard to discern in some instances if one is trying to determine absolute right (that may never be known). Natural laws may be easy to observe, and they appear to be immutable, but human nature and it's behavioural traits in relation to "righteousness" and "wickedness" will always be open for interpretation.

In any case, the only thing anybody should be concerned about, isn't necessarily whether another man's beliefs are "right" or "wrong" but merely that they don't infringe upon another man's ability to believe and do otherwise (at least in contradistinction to other religious beliefs and norms).

In which case, who cares. Being ignorant isn't a crime, forcing ignorance is.

I disagree. It should be (and is) legal to be an insufferable douche. I wouldn't use violence against anyone to stop them from being one. But I would still care if a significant portion of the population were douches. Just because people are doing something legal doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned. I am concerned. I want more than to be left alone though I would settle for that. I want everyone to appreciate our likely place in the universe. If you walk around thinking you'll spend eternity with your relatives, you might not think it's so urgent to spend time with them while alive. I think that's a tragedy.

Anyways, you're contradicting yourself. You're concerned with whether or not we are concerned with anything other than legal issues, which itself is not a legal issue. If you were being consistent, you wouldn't be concerned to write your post in the first place.

I didn't say anything contradictory. I am just as concerned with the direction some ignorant people take as you are (apparently). The original poster of this thread mentioned religion as "the plague", "or might makes right". Those are pretty strong words. I would assume where there is a plague, you'd want to eradicate said plague. Are we trying to get rid of the plague thru passive means or thru forceful means? I'd like everybody to be caring, loving and concerned individuals. I can't make them that way.

If we're going to talk about "the plague" and "might makes right" there is the stigma of legality. I do care about being nice too, of course.

I think my post was very apropo.

You came off sounding as if we should only care about things that are illegal and no other social issues.


I care and you should too. Being ignorant isn't a crime but there's more to life than justice. We shouldn't adopt a "who cares" attitude. If that's not what you meant then I don't know. Your posts usually strike me as wordy and pretentious. Your whole style does. So it's kind of difficult to know when you're being sincere.

"Plague" is a figure of speech. If someone developed a course to eliminate religious thought, it goes without saying that I wouldn't support forced attendance for religious people. Everyone has the right to live in their own ignorance if they choose. However, the problem comes about when, through democracy, people force religious ideas on others. What defense do we have besides trying to educate as private citizens? When people want de jure discrimination against gay people or Muslims because they think a man living behind clouds will disapprove, it is my right and arguably my duty to convince them otherwise.

Ignorance is simply lack of facts. There's nothing wrong with that that a textbook can't fix. It would be perfectly correct to call Einstein ignorant if some new data came up and showed him to be. Plato and Socrates were likewise operating from flawed knowledge.

For some people, of course, religion may be a product of ignorance and fear.

However, we should Not generalize, specially on the believers, who are individuals. Many of them have many different reason to have a religion. My reason is the love of God; but I cant explain it to those who have never feel it.

In the same way sport, rock n roll, an politics have been like religions. There is fanatism as well.

We can say that religion is bad because of religious wars, but in fact, religious warS were just excuses for get money and power. Religion itself was not the problem, was a victim. In the same way, science have been a victim of these interests in some ways: atomic bombs, chemical bombs, and so. However, I dont say science is bad because of that. In the same way, we shall not judge religion for the same reason.

Don't get me wrong, the modern incarnation of most religions are very positive in their message, for the most part. Christianity, in particular, has toned down its 'kill the infidel' stance considerably, A fact which I, again, thank Martin Luther for. (Didn't help right away, I'll grant you that - but when churches realized they could simply split off instead of slaughtering the 'heretics', life got a lot nicer.)

But the original religions were born of fear and ignorance of the natural world.

Let me ask you, though... The Question in the OP. Would you still worship God if Satan were all-powerful?

Well, I Satan would be more powerful than God, but still being bad, then I would still believing in God. However, if Satan would be all-powerful, he would know that to be bad is not sustentable, so he would not be bad.

Sweet jesus is there no end to the hyperbole?
Atheist statist here. I'm comfortable knowing that the people with the right to use violence are trained to do so, instructed to use a minimum of force and responsible for their actions. Anything else would be madness. Just as I consider religion to be.

That's not - quite - an answer. But it's close enough.

you could boil down this thread topic to 'choice is a plague'

First of all there's a difference between religion and church. Most bad stuff is caused by people in control of the church manipulating others using religion.

That said I believe that religion isn't good either. It's basically just a shortcut your brain makes to give you simple explanations and make you feel nice in bad times.

Smart people don't need religion to know how to live their lives, but i'm fine with it if their beliefs make them feel better. The simple folks on the other hand get basic guidelines for their life from it. All would be good, but unfortunately most religions actively try to "teach" the "right" religion to all others, that's the worst on religion imho.

I personally don't care if god exists, and I think I will never know and I'm fine with that. Even if he did so what, he never does anything which makes him irrelevant. Religion says it's cause he gave us free will, so why are most religious people trying to take it from me?

Point taken. I'll try to be less pretentious in the future, although I'm not sure how to make it less wordy. I do care despite what I said (it was a bit flippant).

I genuinely want people to do good, for goodness sake. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's just that some people prefer it. That I can't do much about other than make suggestions in a persuasive manner.

I have good intentions, that's why I opine. Lastly, I don't want the world to go to "hell" in a handbasket.

That should about do it I think.  :)

No, that's not an excellent example of minimum of force. That's an example of the opposite.

They're not the law. They are the enforcers of laws. They are responsible to the law.

Civilization is the triumph of persuasion over force.  As my largest objection to religion is the philosophical assumption that might is right, it would hardly be consistent of me to advocate eradication of religion through force. No such measures are necessary.

And this is an example of sarcasm flying right over someone's head.

Also, a disturbing amount of faith in 'the system'. Newsflash: The cop that shot the kid at the bus station: Slap on the wrist.
The cops in that video: no punishment at all.
When they're done wiping their ass with the constitution, they start in on the magna carta.

They've already started. No Habeus corpus for Gitmo detainees. No castle doctrine in cases of no-knock warrants.  Sets us back about 800 years. 

Fix your damn system then. Cops here are punished if they break the law. Find a politician who isn't "tough on crime" but wants to reform the criminal system from the ground up and fix the issues. And here's a broad generalization: The Americas have a culture of violence from the start.
Compare that to India, the most peaceful country I know. Sure, there are violence there too, but I've never felt like I was in danger anywhere in India, while in Latin America I rarely go out after dusk.

Have a look at a few social studies and start there, and put criminal cops in prison where they belong. Europe doesn't have the same problems, although I will admit that it's not perfect here either.

Terrorist bombed Bombay less than a week ago.

Also: Did you know that India is actually where we get the word 'thug'?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Thugee (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Thugee)

Point being? You're still safer there than in Rio. Or Montevideo. Or ... well you get the point.

The point is that the system is unfixable, no matter where it is put into practice. The government enjoys a monopoly on initiatory violence and is the interpreter as well as enforcer of the rules that limit it's power. Because of this, there are effectively no limits. To make matters worse, the State claims to be the final arbiter of all disputes, including disputes with the state itself.  The system is so twisted that it would be immediately obvious if most of us hadn't been pre-conditioned to arbitrary rule from infancy.

India may or may not be less violent than central America, but what should not be controversial is the fact that there is too much violence in both places and indeed all countries.   

It's an intrinsic part of a cop's job to break the law; to do what is illegal for others to do.

Crooked cops in Canada are always "punished" by internal reviewers which is akin to punishing a rapist by dropping him on an Amazonian island with a box of Viagra.

I do think some liberty-minded folk overstate the amount of cops who are crooked rather than simply clueless, though.

Cock-up before conspiracy, eh?

I have known a lot of cops in small towns. Some are genuine assholes, others are legitimately nice guys, both tend to be quite clueless in the lower tiers of authority.

If you want to stop police brutality you need to look to the root, not the low level enforcers.

There is a lot to learn from some religions, though I'll agree that many parts can be dangerous and misleading.  If you don't take it them too seriously they can be great. 
If there were no religions, the people who seek to control you for their benefit  would just go somewhere else.  In other words, horrible things have been done in the name of religion, but not necessarily because of it.  More likely it was about resources than ideology.

Sure.  However, the risk is that by perpetuating these wrong and dangerous beliefs and passing them off as OK, you increase the likelihood that a child or a non-initiated would come to accept these flawed beliefs as truth.  Then they live their entire life for a lie.


Explain.  You mean they would submit to states and/or corporate brands?  So since people would anyway submit to something, it is OK to have them submit to religion?  Why not instead empower these helpless people to controlling their own lives instead so they can resist being controlled by the people who seek to control you?  It doesn't necessarily follow that if there were no religions, then people would still be controlled by something else.


Well, the greatest problem, IMHO, is ignorance.  Ignorance is a problem even greater than just religion.  Which is why it is best to focus on dispelling ignorance whenever possible.  That is why it is important to attack religion on internet forums as we are doing here.

The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. Look at the universe around us, its very existence is evidence of a KNOWN entity creator, not unknown. Look at what God tells us about the Number of the Stars in the Universe:


In the years 161-126 BC, the man who is said to have first started the study of astronomy, Hiparchus, counted the number of stars in the heavens, and put the number at 1,080. This number was considered to be fairly accurate 300 years later, when Ptolemy announced that the number was more like 1,056.

It wasn't until the invention of the telescope that people realized that the number of the stars was huge ...in the countless millions. The Bible didn't make the mistake of saying that the number was merely a few hundred or thousand, but rather, in about 600 BC, the prophet Jeremiah says the number is "countless as the stars of the sky and measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jer. 33:22). Also, from the year 1500 BC, the same concept comes from Genesis 22:17. And this is correct, because we now estimate the number of stars to be approximately 10 to the 26th (which may also be a fair estimate of the number of the grains of sand on all the earth's sea-shores), but the actual number is "countless" for us to attempt to precisely count. ---However, God, who is infinite in knowledge, knows the exact number, as the Bible says, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name" (Psalm 147:4).

Yes, praise the Lord, we must convert them all.

You've never been outside, away from city lights, on a good clear night, have you?

The sky is almost white with stars. Everywhere you look, more stars. in the spaces between stars: more stars. Just naked eye, Yeah, I can imagine that there are an infinite number of them.

Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not imagine it, and they were astronomers. They didn't see "more stars", they saw a white haze.  You can have exactly ZERO imagination in 2011 and still know the white haze is more stars, thanks to the photographic evidence provided by Hubble and other telescopes.

The bible was reasonably accurate when it tells us the number, "like the sands of the sea".  That's not a mistake, or an accident.

No, there are not an infinite number of stars.  Modern scientists estimate it to be 10 sextillion.

Maybe you missed when I said 'naked eye'. I saw, with my naked eye, stars wedged in between stars. When I looked at the milky way, I saw, indeed, a 'white haze'. But the edge of that white haze was made up of more stars. I could deduce, then, that perhaps the stars there were simply so close in that haze that I could not differentiate them with my naked eye.

That's not a scientific observation, because you cannot see the individual stars, unaided. The point is, Ptolemy and Hipparchus, the best of the day, did not believe what you assert to be true because they had no evidence for it. You KNOW it to be true, so don't tell me you imagined it.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I never said i directly observed that there were individual stars in the Milky way. I said I could directly observe a transition from individually differentiable stars to the white haze. I could then reason that perhaps, in that haze, there are simply more stars than I could distinguish.

If I show you a pattern of dots that gradually grow larger, and closer together, until finally it is solid black, could you not then reason that the solid black area is made up of dots so large and close that they touch or overlap?

Your "observation" is severely clouded by prior knowledge, may I humbly point out.


Sure, I, can reason it. Ptolemy and Hipparchus could not. If they had, they could certainly never prove it. That's the point. They publicly stated their opinions for you and I to laugh at today. So there is no mistaking what their reasoning was.

Please remember that you are arguing that a book which contains a description of a woman turning into salt is scientifically accurate because a crazy dude said "countless as the stars".

Why is that hard for you to believe, since the books you stand behind say that we are descended from a rock. This is just the reverse!

Further to your point:

Paul Cilwa has noted that in the Hebrew text, the word used for "salt" also means "vapor". Lot's wife wasn't turned to salt. She was vaporized.

A rock? lolwut?

And while we're on Hebrew definitions, "Elohim", the word generally translated as 'God' actually means "Gods". Plural.

If you believe we evolved, then your great-great-great-great-great-great grand-daddy, was a rock. The rain washed down on the rocks, mixing together the building blocks needed to form protein, DNA, and single-celled organisms. That's the theory.


You're half-right, or half wrong, depending.
When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers".  Source: Glinert Modern Hebrew: An Essential Grammar Routledge

Religion... because know you'll die someday is a pain!  ::)

That's all it rounds to; because people is so afraid of die and go to be eaten by worms that they prefer to believe on "Paradises". And to go to those "Paradises" you need to act like an irrational freak preaching for a "God" 1000x worse than Ghaddafi and with a shitload of egocentric issues demanding you to "worship without question" that phony "Eternal dictator"...
Just too bad, religion is a notorious scam, and that God was created by the scammers. No God, no Paradise and the worms still wait you underground... sucks! But reality is as cold as steel and won't be changing by your delusions.

Long chain molecules forming under the influence of high electrical fields is more believable (and reproducible) than a bearded guy behind the clouds. So Sure, Great grandma was a rock, and great grandpa was a lightning bolt.

Also.. It's funny, but I don't think the original Torah was written in modern Hebrew, do you? Oh, and while you're at it, explain why Jehovah felt the need to specifically state, "Hold no other gods before me"?

Long-chain molecules are light-years from becoming life forms. Also not reproducible. And yeah, from rocks.


If that's the only way for you to visualize God in the 12th dimension, fine, i won't argue with you.


You should check out Chuck Missler's videos, especially The Beyond Collection. Fascinating stuff. Many of your doubts will be shaken. If you can't find them online, I can share them with you.


The Israelites and others worshiped idols made of stone, wood, metal. In the modern day, you can easily see why God would say this. There are hundreds of religions, each with their own god. The God of the bible claims precedence and power over them all, which, I think (i could be wrong), is unique among religions.

You were saying? Scientists create life’s building blocks in a laboratory (from Scratch) (http://blog.hilncore.com/2011/07/scientists-create-life%E2%80%99s-building-blocks-in-a-laboratory-from-scratch/)


Yes, an unbiased translation of Genesis might read:

"In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth"...etc
.
Now the Jehovah had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
.
"When the Jehovah saw that he had gone over to look, Jehovah called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” "

You get the idea.

Whoah whoah, whoah. Hold it right there. No laboratories, scientists, or scientific instruments are allowed to be present to reproduce the conditions that led to the supposed spontaneous formation of the "building blocks of life" (whatever those might be).

This the opposite of evolution. This is intelligent design. It is proof that life is a product of intelligence and information (and not chaotic random chance).


No, sorry I don't.

They recreated the conditions, and the molecules formed. How is that intelligent design?

That article says exactly jack about what they did.

I can tell you this, RNA did NOT form spontaneously from inert proteins in that experiment.

Do you know what DNA and RNA are? It contains the genetic instructions to build a specific life form AND a digital computer! It is an error correcting (3 of 4-bit) and self-replicating code.

It is said that only 1 in 100 software engineers can build a 3 of 4 bit error correcting code.

It built itself? That's certifiably insane.

Yeah, sorry about that. Thought it was a more in-depth article, I remember reading a full one a few years back, If you're really interested, I could do more than a 30-second google search.

Also: an epileptic chimp could write error correcting code if given a few billion years to debug.

we have evolved to have a part of the brain that follows and believes in religion, its part of getting along an groups, hasn't exactly evolved to the point it needs to.

No, the chimp could not.

I am not a binary coding guru, so I can't show the math proofs that its impossible to happen. But i know it will never happen.

Lets try a simpler problem for the chimp to solve, for example: what are the odds that the chimp could type on a standard keyboard, 1 letter per second, the entire alphabet (at random) in sequential order (A-Z)? No big deal, right? Much easier project than a self-correcting code.

(I'm going to round off the numbers a lot to make it easier)

Ok, to get an A on the first try, is a  1 in 26 chance. Fine, not too bad. >>>>  26 seconds on average.
Lets try for A + B. To get this we multiply 26 * 26 = 1 in 676.             >>>>  11 minutes. Lots of time to spare! This will be easy!
Now for A + B + C. Answer is 26 * 26 * 26 = 1 in 17,576                    >>>> 5 hours! Still fun!
A + B + C + D = 1 in 456,976                                                           >>>> 5 days. Whoo!
A + B + C + D + E = 1 in  30 million                                                  >>>> 5 months. *Yawn.*
..........
skip a few
..........
A-J = 1 in 14 trillion                                                                        >>>> 4.5 million years *starts to sweat* wher da time go??
A-K = 1 in 3670344486987776                                                        >>>> 15 Trillion years (15,000 billion)

Unfortunately, the chimp died 14.995 trillion years ago. He only made it to A-J, plus he spent most of the life of the universe trying to get ONE SEQUENCE (A-K) and never reached 1% of all the combinations of A-K.

CONCLUSION: FORGET IT!

What if we had 1 million chimps doing the work:  8)
A-K = 1 in  3670344486987776 divided by 1 million chimps      
Answer: 1 in 3.6 billion, or 116 years of work. Cool! Lets keep going!
A-Q = 1 in 1133827315385150725554176 or 35.9 billion years.                                                                                  
1 Million CHIMPS HAVE FAILED IN 7 universe lifetimes!

Conclusion: TOTALLY FORGET IT. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN AT RANDOM.

Congratulations, you have conclusively proved.... fuck all. An infinitesimal chance exists that the chimp hits abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz all right in a row on the very first time. 26 seconds total.

Life occurred on this planet. We got the lucky chimp. that is all.

Sure, let's give the chimp a mulligan on the first run.

Hahaha big win, the chimp typed A-Z. That was the easy part.

Now do it again.

Cause the chimp has just finished learning the alphabet, now he needs to learn python coding.

Bye chimp. You get a coffee break in 5 trillion years.

Life on this planet evolving by chance involves FAR FAR greater odds than A-Z sequentially (which is only 26 consecutive events).

How many steps to evolving a single celled organism? A 100,000? Ten million? They all have to happen in sequence, just like typing the alphabet in order.
 
I find it fascinating how people can brush off these enormous numbers, and the staggering odds like they were NOTHING. I had to use a scientific calculator to get the numbers to fit on the screen without using powers.

Ok, Just so I have this straight, your arguments for the existence of God is:

"The prophet Elijah said there were a lot of stars"
and
"DNA is too complex to not be intentional"?

My argument? Dude, the numbers are arguing with you!

Plus, that was a crappy response from you, so whatever. Many people don't understand the power of math. Satoshi does!

Not going to debate with you further.

You do realize that you are on a forum specifically about performing 6 highly unlikely actions every hour, arguing that because one highly unlikely action happened billions of years ago, there must exist a force, outside space and time, that has set it all in motion?

I am religious and i accept evolution.

Because for real christians, truth should be sacred.

Anyway, evolution show every form of life comes from a very point. Then everything in the universe came from a poin as well. A fountain.

Religious people dont use God to explain that fountain; in fact, the call that obvious fountain GOD.
but the maters is that there will be the fountain wathever you call it God or not.

The ancient atheist indian materialistist school teached that nothing happened; no begining nor end. All have been the same every time. But science kick them... So not just religious people have to be ignorant just because they believe in something. Many religious people have been inspired by their God to discover the beautiful of crration, even some scientist.

Jesus Christ is the creator who made all things. Do you deny that truth?

Do you deny Genesis? You must deny it to accept evolution. If you deny Genesis, then there is no faith.

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events according to evolution theory. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events according to evolution is the opposite.

Genesis describes the human nature and its propouse, rather than explain it. I can believe that there was no evolution, but it would be a lie to myself. My faith in stronger with evolution, because faith have to be based on truth. For example: We have faith in a doctor, not in a witch, for a procedure. that doesn mean I have not faith, but that my faith is deposet on that truth.

God bless you!

Imagine that... They got it wrong. Maybe your book, written 3,000 years ago, by people who still shat in ditches and wrote by the light of oil lamps... doesn't contain the whole of scientific knowledge?

well, Im not jewish, so I can't reply it.

However, I dont like it for its science, but for its wisdom. It may be not perfect nor scientific, but human... Even 2000 years after.

Bingo. The Bible is not a technical manual. Nor The Torah, nor The Qur'an. They are guideposts to proper behavior. If more people read the fucking things instead of concentrating on trumpeting their truth, perhaps life would not be so fucked up?

I think you may have missed my point... let me clarify. What I meant was that if more religious people spent more time reading the books they profess hold universal truths instead of trying to convince the rest of us (or each other), life would be much better... and there would be about half as many wars in history.

If, instead, I have missed your point, and you were agreeing with me, I apologize.

Here is my answer:

Its a nonsense question. Its illogical, a logical fallacy. If Satan were more powerful, then God wouldn't be God, would he. That is the essence of God.

Its as nonsensical as this question: If there was no law of gravity, would you still obey it?

If you want to have a sensible debate, you can't base your argument on foolishness.

If god exists, where did he/she/it came from? Who/what made/created him/her/it?
There is no scientific evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence) for the existence of any god. It's all unproven claims.
The bible was written by humans over hundreds of years and before they wrote it down, they played the telephone game/Chinese whispers.
The earth isn't flat.
Church bells are as annoying as a yelling muezzin.

Religion for me is just drugs for the masses. But as long as they are peaceful and don't try to convince other people of their beliefs, force anyone to convert to their religion or start religious wars....i don't give a fuck.
But i'm annoyed by those people who ring at my door saying "hi, we want to talk about god." .... -___-

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/70/fsm2.jpg (http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7634/fsm1.jpg)
Hail to the flying spaghetti monster. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523)

May the noodle be with you, brother!

it depends on how you define God. If I say that God is a man sitting on the clauds, the I am an atheist, because it is absurd. However, if I define God as the fountain of everithing, the will not matter wathever if he is spaguetti or a man; just God, whathever name -ridiculous or not- you give to him.

However, I cant see and say how is God. I only say that everything comes from somewhere for logical reasons.

I can say that universe have ever existed, but thas imposible, because there is time and befin in this universe. so logicaly the cause of the universe in external to the time -- have ever existed.

Gos is not and not attempt to be a scientific theory. I dont prove game rules with scientific method. I dont use the scientific method to make moral laws. Why? Because those things are not science nor baser on sicentific method. God is a religious and philosophical idea that attempts to describe the relation of the humanity with the universe. Thats all.

Why would an all-powerful God be dependent on OUR definition of him? That's an absurd concept. If God IS GOD, then surely he would define his own creation, not the other way around. And if he is only what you imagine him to be, then he exists only in your mind! Then why believe in such a silly notion? The only way that I personally can believe in the infinite God, is if I can search for evidence of his work in the universe around me, and FIND IT!

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing:
but it is the honor of kings to search out a matter.
Proverbs 25:2

Most moral laws in religions such as "You shall not murder." or "You shall not steal." are just common sense. Those moral laws are just human and independent from any religious beliefs, you can find the same moral laws (or norms and values) in every culture on this planet. The belief in god/allah/shiva/FSM/whatever is what makes the difference in religion. The church claims the existence of an all-knowing and almighty creature or "it" called god without providing any proof for this claim and teaches it as fact, not as theory. With that logic i could also say "In the rainforest, there exist green unicorns that have consensual sexual intercourse in missionary position with Leprechauns until they are filled up and explode. It's a fact that doesn't need any proof.". If you claim the existence of something, you have to provide evidence. Moral laws have nothing to do with that.

Of course it's common sense. I would not expect God's morality to be without sense, or without logic. SO where does morality come from then, if it makes sense? If morality makes, sense, then it must have an opposite: immorality, or the absence of sensibility. Sounds almost like a physical law to me.


That's a very debatable suggestion. There are many examples in the world that prove that not all cultures naturally take on the same morals. In fact, cultures have been shown to abandon morality altogether many times though-out history. Morals are NOT a given, they come from a source OTHER than humanity.


The proof is all around you, but scientists today ascribe it to evolution, an unscientific, magical ether with intelligent powers of foresight and design.

Don't lecture to Christians about fairy-tale unicorns and leprechauns and then tell us that DNA formed by itself through the magic of evolution.

One need only look at the duck-billed platypus and see that Evolution has neither foresight, nor a design aesthetic. It uses what works, no more, no less.

That statement is easily disproved.

Platypus is purposefully and elegantly designed for life in the water:
 - webbed feet
 - nostrils on top of its beak to breathe in the water
 - can close its ears, eyes and nose when diving
 - its beak has electroreceptors to detect tiny electrical currents generated by its prey
 - it has cheek pouches to store caught prey so it doesn't have to eat in the water

Congratulations, you are officially the first person EVER to use the words 'Platypus' and 'elegant' in the same sentence.

The biggest failure of evolution is having our food hole and breathing holes share the same tube. Anyone that's inhaled soda after reading some of the idiotic statist arguments on these forums probably knows what I mean.

I think the second biggest failure is having testicles dangling unprotected. It could have at least built a cage around them like my lungs have.

Exactly. You'd think THE LORD GOD wouldn't make that sort of mistake, if he was in the design chair...

Of course God have been ever God, but it depends on our definition to accept him as God or not.

In the same way, a mountain will be a mountain wathever we have a word for it or not.

God bless us brother!

Prove the existence of a god scientifically and not with empty phrases. I could use the "proof is all around you" phrase exactly for my horny green unicorns (they are noble creatures!). That's not how scientific evidence is made.

"unscientific, magical ether"....lol :D
Evolution theory is as the name suggest a theory and is taught as such(in opposite to the church that teaches god as fact and not as theory) Also it has nothing to do with thread title and is offtopic. The evolutionary tree is empirical proven by analyzing genomes of the species. A theory, in a scientific matter, doesn't mean claim or "magic" how you called it... it means substantiated and documented observations with scientific methods, which in this case is done by biological scientist all around the world. Your statement "The proof is all around you" is none of that. You also can see evolution on the human being during the last centuries...we lost and still loose hair, we got and get taller, our pinky got and gets smaller. Go back even more in time and find out that by now we nearly lost the cecum because we heat our meals.

Ah, so it's ok to say god exists without any evidence but if I say there are unicorns without any evidence it's a totally different thing just because i replaced the word god with something else? I say god is a fairy tale that was invented and used by humans to explain things that else couldn't be explained by the time. And evolution is not magic, it's adapting to to environmental conditions.


^^^^^^^^this!....also they look ridiculous..... and boobs should be bigger by default!

Did anyone watch "Idiocracy"?

for some reason, idiots think they are not.

In fact, median intelligence In IQ grows 2 points every decade. But some stupid people think they are better than others because of intelligenece. Those are idiots.

God is not a scientific theory; therefore, that idea is not based on scientific proof.

I think platypus is cute.

But more to the point: you ignored the post and chose to twist the meaning.

That is essentially an acknowledgement that you can't refute the foresight and intelligence in the design of a Platypus. I'm glad you agree. Makes life easier. Its nice that we can get along.

"Intelligent design" makes America an amusing country.

I especially love how a banana is intelligently designed for our hands, with the 5 ridges, easy color coding for ripeness (green -> yellow), and a pull-top for peeling. Yay god!

ugh. dont lump us all in with those idiots.

It is curious that some non-believers think that intelligent design is a greater threat to science than football, fashion, social presure, justin bieber, rock, drugs ... those things are worse than intelligent design, because they kill interest in science and other important things (like political issues that allow intelligent design). Intelligent design may be wrong, but at least not discourage science completely, as the above factors, which are not criticized by atheists for some curious reason. That is atheist hypocrisy. They only use science to defend their opinions instead of promoting science really.

More evidence? Japan younth is interested in technology, but not in science. However, in practice, Japaese are atheists.

Nothing unseen can be proven absolutely. You can only remove doubt. That IS how science works. I can't prove to you that God exists any more than you can prove that gravity is real. We can show proofs, and remove doubt, but absolutes are impossible.

Unicorns are a fantasy for children, didn't you know? The concept of an infinite God is an idea that is difficult even for adults to fully comprehend. I am having trouble convincing you, see? ;^)


The church is not science class, it a place that worships God. Unlike the laboratory where they worship evolu......wait...


Circular Reasoning. "Genome comes from evolution, which is proved by the genome."


You're right! My statement is just a statement.


I don't see evolution, which is supposed to make entirely new organisms. I do see genetic variance, and adaptation.


What was the environmental condition that caused life, a shortage of humans?  :D
How does evolution adapt? Magic? Where is evolution? What is the source? If it is non-physical, how does it impact physical matter?

ID has nothing to do with science. period.

So, you say evolution is made up and is not fact, and then point out that you don't even understand what it is or how it works? Oooookay then.

I actually agree with you. ID is a philosophy. Same as evolution.

ID is a biological hypothesis. Obviously it is wrong, but science grows making errors, not facts. Facts are the fruits of that effort. It's a miracle religion is using scientific method to get the truth rather than just the Biblia.

Um, is Technology to Science as Macroevolution to Microevolution? What's the difference?

Any scientist worth a can of beans will tell you, that yes, evolution is not fact, but theory.

I am asking these questions because no one can answer them, much less you.

It's superbly adapted to its ecological niche. It's just ugly as sin.

I find it more telling that you completely ignored the 'breathing hole same as the drinking hole' and 'testicles danging unprotected' points, and instead, focused on the point you could refute, 'platypus is ugly'.


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Natural_selection

I think that you can be a genious in thechnology, but an ignorant in elemental science.

scientific theory is not the same thing as a hypothesis.

evolutionary theory is like gravitational theory or cell theory or any other scientific theory; it is the testable conclusion reached based on empirical evidence and stands until disproven.

there is a mountain of empirical evidence that shows evolution to be true, including being directly observed in a lab environment. theres nothing philisophical about that. we know evolution is real the same way we know gravity, electromagnetism, or anything else is real....by testing, countertesting, and observation.

Ok lets see...platypus dives and its eyes, nose, and ears fill with water and it drowns.
It also can't find food without the eletro-detection beak. So it starves too. Now its really dead.

What came first, the platypus' beak, or the electro-detection wiring? I am really curious how you think an electrical pathway can be wired into the brain after the beak structure is already there. Do you think electricians go into finished houses and wire them for lights and AC outlets? Please don't say the neural circuitry was pre-wired "by accident", or out of evolution's magical foresight.

Give me a rundown of how science says evolution built a platypus beak. This should be very easy, since evolution is "observable and provable".

Neither. Evolution is gradual, not instant.


I would guess that platipy lived on land, and couldn't dive, instead using their beaks to snatch things out from under water. Eventually one of them was able to at least somewhat close it's nostrils. That one had lots of sex, and a group came out that could close their nostrils more than another group. The group that was able to close their nostrils caught more things, and outlived the group that couldn't (natural selection). By this process, ones that could close their nostrils best kept out-eating, out-living, and out-sexing ones that couldn't. By that same process, one of those nostril-closing freaks had a more sensitive nose to things swimming in the water. That sensitivity may have been while they were wading around on the surface, with their beaks submerged, or once they started diving. The evolution of the electro-deception could easily have developed in parallel with the nostril closing, and just ended up being really convenient for when they started diving, since not needing to keep your eyes open means you get fewer injuries. Plus ponds aren't exactly clear and easy to see in.
There's your answer to which came first.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507131453.htm

talks about our modern understanding of the platypus' evolution based on its DNA

Quoted because you ignored it again.

Please let me know which one of these is not a fact:

1) when two groups exist in the same place, the stronger group can dominate the weaker
2) living things have lots and lots of sex
3) genes, which store blueprints for life's design, exist
4) genes store all the code of the living thing's predecessors
5) genes divide and recombine when things have sex and make babies
6) accidents happen
7) environments change
8) groups of living things can become separated in the environment, either due to nature (flood-> new river/island) or by their own choice (migration)
9) there are obvious similarities on both macro and micro biological species, found in both concurrent living ones and in ancestral lines

The theory that explains all those things is evolution. Feel free to come up with a better theory, as long as it's supportable by facts and includes all of them

Just remember that we all begin as 1 cell so small you can't even see it with your eyes.

We didn't just pop into existence as adults though given enough time that will happen, as a platypus perhaps.

That breaks the laws of entropy. In one of your earlier points, LeFBI said we almost lost the cecum because we heat our meals. Unused or undeveloped features will tend to die off, not develop into new features.

The entire building instructions for a platypus are encoded in all its cell DNA. DNA is self-correcting (3 out of 4 bits), any errors that are introduced are discarded by the self-replicating code. No new instructions can be added through random chance. Disprove that, if you can. Any genetic traits that appear later, were pre-existing but not active.


Sounds like a good way to starve to death fast. Not really a land animal. Sucks at swimming. The platypus needs to eat about 20% of its own weight each day. This requires the platypus to spend an average of 12 hours each day looking for food.


Yup. Magic. There's no science here.

WRONG, wrong, wrongedy-wrong.

Mutations are adding instructions to DNA all the time. Some of them are beneficial, and add to the creature's survivability. Others are detrimental, and reduce it. Some are flat out lethal, and the organism dies before spreading that mutation.

How can new data be appended to a self-correcting code?

Despite your vaunted faith in the self-correction capabilities of DNA, it still fucks up, as evinced by the numerous genetic disorders that plague humanity.

Faith? You must be joking. Your body produces 10 trillion copies of your DNA daily just counting white blood cells. That replication code has to be friggin airtight.

Genetic disorders are the result of lost/scrambled information. That is not new information, its new garbage. Information comes only from intelligence. Randomness it the total absence of information.

information certainly can be added during a mutation...

chromosomes may be added (such as in the case of down syndrome)
dna sequences may be added (over-replicate) or may be missing (dna insertion and deletion) 
dna sequences can arrange differently than they normally do (expression)
or there may be simple errors at single/multiple points of the sequence (point/frame shift)

any of these occurring in an organism can make drastic changes (but not necessarily so). some of these changes may be beneficial, some detrimental, some neutral. how these changes affect the organisms ability to survive and reproduce determines whether the mutation will be passed on.

this is how the process begins. a simple mutation. the mutation gets passed down to subsequent generations. in one of these subsequent generations, another organism or two has a mutation.....if that mutation allows it to eat and reproduce succesfully, then the process continues......this happening over and over again, for millions of years, will give you an extremely diverse gene pool (one in which the organisms look, act, and function differently, though they are all made of the same fundamental building blocks).   

this is the driving force behind evolution.

 

And when it's not 'friggin airtight' we get cancer. Or a mutation.

And sometimes, that 'new garbage' turns out to be helpful.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Quoted because you ignored it yet again.

Because the self-correcting code is NOT perfect. It regularly makes mistakes.

So according to your logic, it should be impossible for diseases and viruses such as H1N1 to jump species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H1N1

Well, first of all, entropy applies more to physics than evolution, and second, entropy exists in an enclosed space with no outside influences, such as a sources of energy. Earth does not exist in an entropy space, since we have a rather large source of energy nearby.
As for DNA, there's no self-replicating when you only have one half in the sperm and one half in the egg. If they join, and there are quirks, mutations, or some other changes, that's all that DNA has to start with. Nothing to correct from. Besides, if it was completely self correcting, we'd all look exactly the same. Ever notice how some people have bigger eyes than others, and some people have better sense of taste than others? Those little quirks, taken out to the extreme, would help those people survive in darker places, or places with a lot of poisonous plants.



Who says platypus had to start as an aquatic animal? They may have been very adapted for living on the beach, or walking around on 4 high legs in shallow water, using their beaks to dig at the underwater mud to look for edible stuff buried underneath. Evolving limbs designed for swimming may have happened along with evolving those other things you mentioned. Main point is that it doesn't all happen instantly.



A little less magic than Zeus. I mean Ra. I mean Jesus.

Actually, your DNA fucks up CONSTANTLY. Little known fact, people get cancer, which is a malevolent mutation, ALL THE TIME. It's just that their white blood cells quickly recognize it and destroy it. It's one of the big reasons people with AIDS or lowered immunities die; they get cancer like everyone else, but their immune system can't keep up with cleaning it. Big type of cancer is either due to same DNA fuckup being too aggressive, or just small enough to not be recognized.

None of these examples are new added information!

Down's syndrome happens due to an added copy of a chromosome. Its not new data. Its redundant.
The other examples are not useful new data. Its corrupted garbage.


None of these DNA changes you describe ever result in beneficial evolution.

Our DNA replication is PERFECTLY coded. It is other forces and circumstances that corrupt the process. How many white blood cells out of 10 trillion daily do you suppose are "fucked up"?

I would wager its a very very small number, and most certainly not "constantly". If it were not, you would not survive for long, of that you can be assured.

Cancer results when ONE cell mutates. Then it copies itself. That's not a DNA replicator mistake. The replicator did its job, it makes copies, but the original was corrupted by some other factor, such as radiation.

Does it matter WHAT corrupts the process, as long as it is corrupt/changed? Not all corruptions end up being bad.


Does it matter how many cells mutate? As long as one can, and does during reproduction, mutation is going on.

You obviously accept that genetic mutation happens, that members of the same species look different, that sex and reproduction happens... I'm sure you can accept that things like having a slightly better sense of taste, hearing, or smell happens... that some people are naturally more thin and muscle toned while others are more fat... That's pretty much all that's needed for evolution. As for the rest, your posts just make it seem as if you're REALLY trying hard to convince yourself otherwise.

Dude, when you're dealing with 4 letters, there's not much you can do to make 'new' data...

catgggtaggctcagagtcggattcggattaagctagtcgattcgaagtcgcatgggtaggctcagagtcggattcgga ttaagctagtcgattcgaagtcg

catgggtaggctcagagtcggattcggattaagctagtcgattcgaagtcgcatggggattaagctagtcgattcgaag tcgcatgggtaggctcagagtcggattcggattaagctagtcgattcgaagtcg

There's new data in the second strand. Can you tell if I typed it in myself, or just duplicated another section?

I said entropy but i really meant disorder.


If the DNA isn't correct, you won't get a healthy baby. We don't look the same because the DNA for our looks and body type is unique to each of us, (except for identical twins) and yet, we're all still human, with the same feature set. There are 6 billion experiments of human DNA replication all over the globe, and none yet show signs of evolving into different species.



The scientific method tells you that all platypus are aquatic animals. Do you want to expand from there? Knock yourself out, but don't call it science.



You're right. Engineers are magicians.

OK, he's just babbling, now, and we can ignore him like any other background noise. Go away, magic-zombie worshiping troll.

no? genetic mutation in staph bacteria allowed it to become resistant to the antibiotics we used to use to kill it. we started using different antibiotics...which worked for a while until another mutation occurred that allowed the new strain to survive....and so on an so on....new strains of bacteria forming that are resistant to the drugs and sterilization agents we use to kill their predecessors.


how do you think new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria occur? 

mutations through natural selection drive evolution.

Yes. If the DNA replicator is perfect, there far, far fewer opportunities for corruption.


Yes it matters, if you are trying to prove evolution by the scientific method. The more mutations you have, the more opportunity for changes.


Some people are more thin, others are more fat, so evolution must be true. Hmm. I never thought of that.


You wish. I'm compensating for the stupid ideas people throw around that have no basis in reality. Just so there is no mistake: Evolution is a tidal wave of horseshit.

A small percentage of the staph are naturally resistant to any antibiotic, especially in lower doses. Because doctors prescribed low doses of antibiotics, and/or patients often do not complete their full rounds of antibiotics, the resistant staph survive and thrive.

It really is that simple. No horseshit magic required.

So you accept Evolution finally? Because that is EXACTLY the mechanism. Genetic variation produces small portions of the population which will do better than the rest when exposed to negative environmental factors. Thank you, we're done here.

any antibiotic? you believe this?

bullshit. you are going to have to back that one up.

 there is no population of staph that is inherently resistant to ALL antibiotics. resistance comes from mutation and natural selection.

You're claiming that for every conceivable type of antibiotic we have or may be able to think of up, there is already a staph bacteria in existence that is immune to it?

And I agree, you "don't think of that" when it comes to evolution. All you see is "some are thin, some are fat." You don't bother to take that out further and think about what may happen if the planet suddenly becomes more cold (ice age), where the thin ones may die out, or if the population is stuck on an island full of fast predators (fat ones will be chased down and eaten). It's a EXCELLENT argument against evolution to just focus on small individual parts and poke them one by one, while ignoring how they all work together. However, it's about as valid as saying that the computer you are typing replies on doesn't work, because hat single capacitor on your motherboard is't capable of processing binary data. Keep looking at the trees, ignoring the forest, ans staying ignorant. You're not convincing anyone but yourself.

Evolution is a slow gradual process, taking billions of years. * **

*EXCEPT FOR STAPH BACTERIA.
** EXCEPT WHEN ITS NOT

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_2/S129.full (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_2/S129.full)

Search for the phrase: "A subpopulation of resistant bacteria often exists"

Again, you claim evolution is bunk, while showing that it's not true. Evolution doesn't take "billions of years," it takes "thousands of reproductive cycles." If something reproduces once every few decades, like mammals, evolution takes centuries, if not thousands or millions of years. If something reproduces every few days, like bugs/insects, it takes months or years. If something reproduces every few minutes or seconds, like bacteria, evolution can happen in days or hours.
For someone so uninformed, I would expect you to take a "I don't understand it, so I don't know if it's true or not" position, not "It's wrong!"
But, I guess religion does make the mind lazy.

yes the changing of an organism on a small scale can occur quick (particularly in simple organisms). but larger scale changes like that from a single cell creature to a multicell creature takes much more time. its take millions of years to get to this point, but many small changes occur constantly.

did you even attempt to read it?   :D



"The fact that the choice of dose and treatment duration can affect the selection of antibiotic-resistant mutants is becoming more evident"  ;D

Note the heavy use of the words "mutant," "mutated," and "developed" in that article. Thanks for proving our point.

You clearly didn't.

"A subpopulation of resistant bacteria often exists. "

How fast does Staph reproduce?

How fast the Duck-billed Platypus?

How fast the Peppered Moth?

Quoted because you ignored it yet again.

PS: Please respond soon, I'm going to run out of styles.

What are you, 7 years old?

and where do you think the subpopulations come from? previous mutations.

"resistance development is very much dependent on mutations"

Because bacteria can reproduce in minutes, while for higher order species it takes years. This is obvious to anyone who has the slightest idea what the theory of evolution is all about. Clearly you don't know what evolution is or you are just trolling because you seem to ignore inconvenient facts that have been presented earlier.

I suggest you watch this video:

Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL258CAE2F4546AA95) 9min

How far back do you want to go?

Q How does antibiotic resistance come about?

A This is a natural phenomenon and has been around as long as bacteria. Bacteria isolated from a glacier formed long before the discovery and use of antibiotics have been found to be resistant to some modern antibiotics. A certain level of inherent bacterial resistance to antibiotics must therefore be expected but surviving bacteria will be those that are of low sensitivity or are resistant.

http://www.noah.co.uk/issues/briefingdoc/11-abres.htm (http://www.noah.co.uk/issues/briefingdoc/11-abres.htm)

Do you seriously believe that I didn't know that bacteria reproduce in minutes, or are you just trolling?
Do you deny that bacteria, even very old strains, have some natural resistance to modern antibiotics?

Here: www.google.com (http://www.google.com) This site links to many videos disputing evolution.

No, but I'm gonna keep this up until you respond to the content of the post. Don't make me bust out the Marquee.

Quoted because you ignored it yet again.

the mutation that gave it that resistance came first. that resistance is likely tied to a gene that has another function (protien moonlighting).

There's no evidence of that. I could just as easily hypothesize that the resistance was inherent. It is as valid a hypothesis as yours.

If the evidence doesn't fit, reject it. That's how the evolution train rolls.

youre right, it certainly is; we both have a valid hypothesis on whether the bacterias resistance was inherent, with no empirical evidence to back it up either way.

your hypothesis (or mine) is proof of nothing....i would say that more data needs to be gathered before a solid conclusion can be reached.

 so we agree then that your example was worthless? that it doesnt show proof of inherent resistance?

This is fuckin' rich.  :D

Judging from your previous comments, you have no idea what the theory of evolution is all about. You are arguing against a strawman. Your comment implies that evolution is supposed to take the same time for all species.



I don't know for sure but I would think that it is indeed possible. But that does not preclude resistance arising from the evolutionary process.

Or from magical Jesus-juice.

^^^there, i fixed it for you.

Talking of wackjob religions, here's a new method of recruitment...

http://www.bcommerce.biz/72_barbies.jpg

 :D. This wasn't my example. The resistance to antibiotics was offered as an example of evolution a few dozen posts back.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

WINNING

I gotta ask, though. If we make antibiotics SPECIFICALLY for the bacteria we are aware of, including newly found strains resistant to old antibiotics, and those antibiotics are powerful enough to eradicate all of those bacteria, where exactly is this different, antibiotic-resistant, bacteria coming from? Explorers from expeditions to the Antarctic, or the uncharted areas of the Amazon?

no?    

just quit while you are behind man......you cant even remember your own arguments now. :D  that example was your attempt to prove inherent antibiotic resistance (as opposed to it occurring through mutation......you know, reality).

But why the heck spend 9 pages to put Rationality vs Religion?!

Obviously rationality, not matter how right, doesn't stand a change on these grounds, as religious folks will conveniently change the "essence of God", and when things goes bad here comes the "magical hocus pocus" of "God's mysteries".

To know, God is like a Gypsy, when you corner it (doesn't quite deserve a "him" that human invention), it will pack up and move elsewhere...

Anarchist are atheist and they do terrorism as well, so it is not about religion or atheism, but about fanatism of religion, politics, sports... However, that fanatism doesnt make be all those things to be bad.

I can say that atheism is dangerous, thanks to Gavrilo Princip, which was the man how boom the first world war. But I dont, because i am not like you and yours (trolls)

Does that make atheism bad? No. In the same way, you should not judge religion about that. Thats inmature, but I know you are a troll, so I dont care about you and you stupid casino.

somebody of faith commiting an atrocious act is different than someone commiting an atrocious act int the name of thier faith.

furthermore, someone who happens to be athiest commiting a horrible act of violence is not the same as a person who commits a horrible act of violence in the name of athiesm. (youd be hard pressed to find the latter)


however,  plenty of horrible acts have and continue to be commited in the name of religion.  didnt oslo, norway just get attacked?

terrorist attacks occur daily  across the globe in the name of allah... the uk and the us (including embassys, military units, and bases) are attacked constantly.  extremist muslim groups in the phillipenes, middle east, and elsewhere continue to be a very serious threat.   

 in the us, radical christian groups  have been known to bomb abortion clinics and/or murder employees...not to mention the witch hunts, the inquisition, the crusades, etc.....all atrocities in the name of the christian god

the isreal and pakistan have killed countless amounts of each others people over "the holy land"

....and dont even get me started on the catholics....for fucks sake, the current pope was a member of the hitler youth!!!!!!!....  here we have an entire organization that OPENLY protects pedophiles.  you have trusted members of the church raping children, and their only punishment is getting shifted to another church while the victim and thier family is threatened with excommunication if they dont remain silent.

and honestly this is the tip of the iceburg.....i could go on for quite a while (seriously, we've barely touched the surface of religions crimes against humanity)......

Anarchism doesn't automatically mean atheism, it just means being against the state, authorities and/or government etc. in general and being for a stateless society for example. It's not related to atheism or religion at all.

As much as i like to bash the human boss of the catholics...in Ratzinger's defense...he didn't have much of a choice as kid and i doubt that he had any political motivations as kid. And his parents didn't have much of choice either. He had to join hitler youth because every kid had to join it by law. Parents in Germany where urged to send their sons to the hitler youth at the age of 10(Deutsches Jungvolk) and a similar organization for girls. If the parents had refused to send him there, the nazi regime and it's police would have enforced it. But i agree on the rest that you wrote.

...and yesterday a fanatic Christian bombed Oslo...

But yes, any «put the crackpot religious/other fanatic instance, like nationalists, group here», can go on terrorism. Isn't an exclusive of religious folks (more an exclusive of crackpots and wackjobs in general).
Still, those ones in the cartoon goes around one religion, and that cartoons is allusive to the new Al Qaeda recruiting methods; produce cartoons for kids vouching for their... ahammm... activities.

That's not all, there are also the wonderful stories of cruel and inhumane punishments meted out to people for the most trivial of offenses. This is documented in your "holy" books

- Numbers 15:32-36


- Leviticus 2:24-34


- Genesis 6:17-23 --- The alleged "Great Flood" which was basically a mass killing i.e. Genocide.

- Deuteronomy 32:21-26



- Joshua 11:19-20


How can the genocide be justified when it was God who “hardened their hearts and caused them to fight the Israelites” in the first place?



Goddamn (pun intended) by his own measure he is worse than Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sung, (the next kim even), Saddam Hussein, Col Qaddafi, Dubya, Obama, Assad, Mugabe, Menghitsu, Emperor Hideki, Mobutu, Pinoche, Suharto, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden & Co., AIDS..................................

Even SATAN isn't on record as having murdered so many people.

Need I continue?

The news report him as being a right wing nut, not a religious one.

Sure it wasn't a British report, and they called him a 'right wing-nut'? ;)

The humorous atheist cartoonist youtube.com/nonstampcollector (http://youtube.com/nonstampcollector) has just uploaded a great two-part animated short about Noah and his company loading the ark:

http://www.youtube.com/nonstampcollector#p/u/13/j_BzWUuZN5w (http://www.youtube.com/nonstampcollector#p/u/13/j_BzWUuZN5w)

There is some really insightful deep stuff at time 7:00 of part 2, quick link here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo#t=07m10s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo#t=07m10s)


Anyway, watch it yourself...

which news? FoxNews? They "forgot" to mention the extremist christian detail on their report:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/23/gunmans-background-puzzles-police-in-norway/

In europe the man is reported to be a christian fundamentalist:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,776087,00.html --> "Ein konservativer Christ sei er, heißt es, ein Muslim-Hasser und Freimaurer."
http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3103461.ece --> "A far-right Christian fundamentalist"
http://www3.lastampa.it/esteri/sezioni/articolo/lstp/412699/ --> "cristiano fondamentalista con simpatie di estrema destra"
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2011/07/23/pres-de-90-morts-dans-les-deux-attaques-en-norvege_1551920_3214.html --> "les enquêteurs le présentent comme un "fondamentaliste chrétien". "Il a certains traits politiques penchant vers la droite et antimusulmans"

He is a right wing and religious nut. His motivation might have been right-wingish, because he attacked leftwingers(which are mostly infidels) and their kids. But the christian fundamentalist part doesn't seem to fit in some media's "terrorists are muslims only" concept. If he was a muslim but did it for right-wing reasons...the muslim religion part would be all over FoxNews.

Same for Portuguese news:

http://aeiou.expresso.pt/gen.pl?p=stories&op=view&fokey=ex.stories/663720&va=3959444#39594

Anders Behring Breivi, a "Christian fundamentalist"

You guys trying to make people with blind faith see the truth? *grabs popcorn and sits back*

Right. My bad. Right winger AND religious nut.

And apparently, A Freemason.

I'm surprised that after they found out he wasn't Muslim they didn't accuse him of being an 'Anarchist' first.

There was a picture of him dressed as such. Here's his FB profile dump:

http://mg.co.za/uploads/2011/07/23/andersbehringbreivikfacebook.pdf

(notice the "sponsored by Sarah Palin", funny coincidence of FB ads: He did it, Sarah wishes she could do it. ;D )

I can recommend to look up his 'Manifest' and have a quick browse through it (1516 pages is too much to read). You'll get the idea why he did it. The worrying part is that people have been helping him to write it (most likely people with the same believes).

What's the tl;dr summary?

On short he's predicting a revolution at Europe by 2083 and tell about his delusions which lead to it.
You also have rituals, Book of Saint Cyprian-like, including skulls and swords.

Picture Mhein Kampf, now add religious delusions to it, a book Osama bin Hitler could had write. That's it.

Have you guys seen Prof. Brothers' Bible stories? Lots of Lulz:

The Professor Brothers - Bible History #1 (Sodom & Gomorrah)  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg)

No need dude! That's just exactly what the bible says and he "cuts" exactly when Loth's daughters get their dad drunk and get pregnant by him... And this was "the only just guy worthy to be saved" according to God. God really have strange friends... ::)

/thread