Talking snakes, witches and demons seem more like science fiction than evolution, though. You claim creationism is the real deal but you would have to believe in all those stories too, so tell me badecker, do talking snakes exist?
So? Start a thread. If nothing else, the observation of billions or trillions of cause-and-effect actions that happen all around us, and the fact that we have not found even one action that we can say came about without C&E, shows that the random mutations required for evolution simply don't exist. Everything has a cause. There is no random. But if there is a random action somewhere, we have not found it amidst billions and trillions C&E actions. Evolution theory is a fun idea. But there is no basis for it that we know about in nature and reality. Evolution is a hoax.  Then casino games also don't exist because they are not random either, hehehe, badecker's logic. Thank you for admitting that evolution is a hoax without defense. How are you admitting it? By using wording that has nothing to do with evolution, and is inappropriate for the point you are making. The fact that casino games exist, has nothing to do with whether or not they are random. And random or not, they have nothing to do with evolution. So, thanks for helping to substantiate that Evolution is a hoax... by trying to defend it, but showing nothing in its defense. As usual what I said flew right over your head. I was trying to say that even though we use the word random for many things it doesn't mean they are truly random like casino games a coin toss or a dice. In the same way evolutionists and scientists use the word random not only in evolution theory but many other theories. Again that doesn't mean it's truly random. So, do you believe in talking snakes or not? Regarding talking snakes, quantum mechanics could be used to show that they exist... if anybody was inclined to use it that way. You continually seem to miss the part that true random is something that we have no knowledge of regarding its existence. We can barely conceive of the concept. If it isn't pure random, it isn't really random. The point is, everything exists according to cause and effect. We have multitudes of observations of C&E, but no pure random observations at all. Apply this to evolution. Simply, all that it means is that evolution theory plays on the ignorance of unthinking people when it uses the word random. Why? Because the word random as average people use it, doesn't apply to the way that evolution theory suggests that random would works in mutations. They are different concepts that use the same word, random.The point revolves around you being ignorant enough to not understand this, or... You being enough of a troll that you would rather trick people into your evolution religion through the use of semantics regarding the word random.Random in everyday life isn't the same as random in evolution theory. Evolution is a hoax. You also seem to miss the fact that if what created the universe, as you claim, was god and he is truly random since cause and effect do not apply to him, that means that everything is random. Picture it like this. Planets orbits are not random, they had a cause and that cause had a cause until you reach your god which had no cause so ultimately the cause for everything is something with no cause, meaning that everything is indeed random. You seem to miss the point. This is the evolution thread. Just because you evolutionists can't think of anything else besides evolution or creation, shows that you are faulty in your evolution. Evolution is a hoax. (Just tryin' ta stay on topic.) OWW, gottem. Too much logic for you at once eh? YOu are the one saying that cause and effect proves evolution is a hoax, I debunked it, deal with it, don't be a baby and admit when you lose. |
|
|
|
I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".
But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.
The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).
The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave. Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures". If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age. The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history. Claimed observed history you mean? There are many claims of that, that's why we have thousands of religions, they all claim they are the real one and what they observed is the truth. You have a book which says people saw god, what is the evidence that they indeed saw god? Again, the strong tradition of Israel is proof of their accuracy in recording their eye witness history. No it isn't. Every claim needs its own evidence. If someone predicts something and it turns out to be true, it doesn't mean everything he says it's true. Every claim has to be proved. Again you have no proof. |
|
|
|
if the earth is flat then where is the tip? we just need logic  Logic? * Moon is strong enough to make tides but clouds and rain no worries * Mathematics for every mile in length the curve is 8 inch squared (100km 870 meter, 1km 8.7cm, 100 m 87mm) can you show some practical evidence * 1000 miles per hour rotation and you feel nothing* Have you heard of 2nd law of thermodynamic, look it up * Transmitting over such long distances would require billion of billions of watts, what with solar panels * Two coastal cities 2 hour flight apart manage to have massive temperature differences with the sun 93 million miles away * .....can fill the page Did you sell your logic? Not sure if you are a troll but here we go: 1. Newton's theory of gravity provided the first correct explanation of ocean tides and their long known correlation with the phases of the moon. Roughly a century later it was also used to predict the existence of atmospheric tides. the density of the clouds can be considered to be (but not in fact) the same as that of the air in which they ride. In this case one could consider a cloud to be simply an opaque section of air. The Moon does affect the air and along with the air the clouds are likewise affected. 2. I can show you plenty of photos of earth 3. Think about riding in a car or flying in a plane. As long as the ride is going smoothly, you can almost convince yourself you’re not moving. A jumbo jet flies at about 500 miles per hour (about 800 km per hour), or about half as fast as the Earth spins at its equator. But, while you’re riding on that jet, if you close your eyes, you don’t feel like you’re moving at all. And when the flight attendant comes by and pours coffee into your cup, the coffee doesn’t fly to the back of the plane. That’s because the coffee, the cup and you are all moving at the same rate as the plane.4. You should be the one looking it up 5. What distances? 6. And a close sun would explain that better because? Did you sell your brain?  An object traveling on a linear path with a constant velocity experiences no acceleration. In contrast a rotating object with a constant angular velocity experiences constant acceleration. How do you rectify this you fucking shill? You give as an example a jet traveling on a linear path at a constant velocity with no acceleration as your example of why you can't feel any acceleration on an object you claim is rotating thus experiencing acceleration. I know your answer is going something about the magic force of gravity (an unproven theory) but I just like to show what absolute nonsense your arguments for the globe are. Traveling in any path besides a straight line at a constant velocity does indeed require some type of acceleration. The Earth is always accelerating as it bends its way around the sun. This is because the Sun is always exerting a gravitational force on the Earth. Due to the eccentricity of the orbit, we're going slightly faster when we are closer to the Sun (in January) than we are when we are further away (in July). So there is a slight change in speed. The problem is that it's too small. The acceleration of the spinning earth away from your feet is, at the equator, about .02 m/s^2. It's swamped by the gravity, about 9.8 m/s^2. You don't feel a difference like that, though it shows up on a bathroom scale. You can certainly see it moving at least compared to stars and planets like in this beautiful video: https://youtu.be/x2D7jHfitzk?t=29s |
|
|
|
if the earth is flat then where is the tip? we just need logic Logic? * Moon is strong enough to make tides but clouds and rain no worries * Mathematics for every mile in length the curve is 8 inch squared (100km 870 meter, 1km 8.7cm, 100 m 87mm) can you show some practical evidence * 1000 miles per hour rotation and you feel nothing * Have you heard of 2nd law of thermodynamic, look it up * Transmitting over such long distances would require billion of billions of watts, what with solar panels * Two coastal cities 2 hour flight apart manage to have massive temperature differences with the sun 93 million miles away * .....can fill the page Did you sell your logic? Not sure if you are a troll but here we go: 1. Newton's theory of gravity provided the first correct explanation of ocean tides and their long known correlation with the phases of the moon. Roughly a century later it was also used to predict the existence of atmospheric tides. the density of the clouds can be considered to be (but not in fact) the same as that of the air in which they ride. In this case one could consider a cloud to be simply an opaque section of air. The Moon does affect the air and along with the air the clouds are likewise affected. 2. I can show you plenty of photos of earth 3. Think about riding in a car or flying in a plane. As long as the ride is going smoothly, you can almost convince yourself you’re not moving. A jumbo jet flies at about 500 miles per hour (about 800 km per hour), or about half as fast as the Earth spins at its equator. But, while you’re riding on that jet, if you close your eyes, you don’t feel like you’re moving at all. And when the flight attendant comes by and pours coffee into your cup, the coffee doesn’t fly to the back of the plane. That’s because the coffee, the cup and you are all moving at the same rate as the plane. 4. You should be the one looking it up 5. What distances? 6. And a close sun would explain that better because? Did you sell your brain? |
|
|
|
Apparently Richard Dawkins picked out a former Jewish Settler who has difficulty controlling his anger and converted from Judaism to fundamentalist Islam. I have difficulty imagining an easier setting to advance his particular ideology. What is more interesting is the fact that you equate my beliefs with those of fundamentalist Islam. My statement was in support of traditional morals and social structures. I freely admit that I reject the nihilistic idea that morals are arbitrary. I also challenge attempts to redefine reality such as the claim that biological sex is irrelevant and gender entirely a social construct. Just so we are clear are you claiming that these positions make me equivalent to a follower of radical Islam? Or is it your position that anyone who believes in God is a dangerous fundamentalist? It is a slippery slope to fundamentalism. Traditional social structures? Do you agree with Corinthians 14:34 Timothy 2:12 Colossians 3:18 Ephesians 5:22-33 Corinthians 11:3 Simple yes or no, please. BTW, gender type is biological, not a social construct. We don't see genderfluid mammals in nature. We do see homosexual behaviors in nature. Gender identity is different. This probably only applies to humans. People identify themselves as so and so. Societies change over time, so do social structures. It would be nice if your God updated your sacred text once in a while LOL. But he cannot because he is dead!!! In all western countries, your Bronze Age morals are against the law. So don't tell me you base your morals on the Bible or Quran. When was the last time you killed a gay person or someone who works on Saturday? The only reason we know some texts in the bible are immoral and wrong is because we have indeed evolved as a society. That's also why a lot of religious preachers now try to defend why the bible includes slavery for example just like they need to make up shit in order to say that the bible does not say the earth is flat when it does indeed suggest it. |
|
|
|
I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".
But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.
The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).
The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave. Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures". If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age. The thing you are posting could be classified as the religion of ignorant atheism vs. the religion of observed history. Claimed observed history you mean? There are many claims of that, that's why we have thousands of religions, they all claim they are the real one and what they observed is the truth. You have a book which says people saw god, what is the evidence that they indeed saw god? |
|
|
|
Talking snakes, witches and demons seem more like science fiction than evolution, though. You claim creationism is the real deal but you would have to believe in all those stories too, so tell me badecker, do talking snakes exist?
So? Start a thread. If nothing else, the observation of billions or trillions of cause-and-effect actions that happen all around us, and the fact that we have not found even one action that we can say came about without C&E, shows that the random mutations required for evolution simply don't exist. Everything has a cause. There is no random. But if there is a random action somewhere, we have not found it amidst billions and trillions C&E actions. Evolution theory is a fun idea. But there is no basis for it that we know about in nature and reality. Evolution is a hoax. Then casino games also don't exist because they are not random either, hehehe, badecker's logic. Thank you for admitting that evolution is a hoax without defense. How are you admitting it? By using wording that has nothing to do with evolution, and is inappropriate for the point you are making. The fact that casino games exist, has nothing to do with whether or not they are random. And random or not, they have nothing to do with evolution. So, thanks for helping to substantiate that Evolution is a hoax... by trying to defend it, but showing nothing in its defense. As usual what I said flew right over your head. I was trying to say that even though we use the word random for many things it doesn't mean they are truly random like casino games a coin toss or a dice. In the same way evolutionists and scientists use the word random not only in evolution theory but many other theories. Again that doesn't mean it's truly random. So, do you believe in talking snakes or not? Regarding talking snakes, quantum mechanics could be used to show that they exist... if anybody was inclined to use it that way. You continually seem to miss the part that true random is something that we have no knowledge of regarding its existence. We can barely conceive of the concept. If it isn't pure random, it isn't really random. The point is, everything exists according to cause and effect. We have multitudes of observations of C&E, but no pure random observations at all. Apply this to evolution. Simply, all that it means is that evolution theory plays on the ignorance of unthinking people when it uses the word random. Why? Because the word random as average people use it, doesn't apply to the way that evolution theory suggests that random would works in mutations. They are different concepts that use the same word, random.The point revolves around you being ignorant enough to not understand this, or... You being enough of a troll that you would rather trick people into your evolution religion through the use of semantics regarding the word random.Random in everyday life isn't the same as random in evolution theory. Evolution is a hoax. You also seem to miss the fact that if what created the universe, as you claim, was god and he is truly random since cause and effect do not apply to him, that means that everything is random. Picture it like this. Planets orbits are not random, they had a cause and that cause had a cause until you reach your god which had no cause so ultimately the cause for everything is something with no cause, meaning that everything is indeed random. |
|
|
|
Many times i've got problems because of religion to be honest. Maybe i'm unlucky but everytime i'm trying to go in church something bad happening to me.
The devil doesn't want you to go to church and be saved, so he just might be making trouble for you so that you think that religion is doing it. Talk about free will, eh? The devil can do things to you all the time to prevent you from believing in god but god himself cannot reveal himself to everyone convincingly so you wont need to believe in him because he likes to play games with the devil. Give me a break with your 10 year old stories. My stories are a lot older than 10 years old. And you, obviously, don't understand the role the devil has [played in our lives. Besides, God isn't going to force revelation on those who don't want Him to be revealed to them... not yet, anyway. But he will let the devil, forcefully convince people to do bad things. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Only if the people freely want that force against themselves, a thing which you seem to want for yourself. As I said, god would have no problem in revealing himself to people then because people would still have the choice to believe in him or not but instead he does not reveal to people and leaves satan to corrupt human minds. And that is precisely what God is doing. God is revealing Himself to you through the things that I show you. After all, He is god. He isn't required to reveal Himself to you in the ways that you want. It seems that your choice is to not accept His revelations of Himself to you. God chose to reveal himself to me through a random person on a bitcoin forum that I consider delusional. Great job god... It's a shame that you won't accept His other revelations, but now you are finally seeing the proof that God exists, through someone on a forum. However, it doesn't seem that you accept proof, forum or otherwise. As I said many times, there are no other revelations. I asked him for proof when I was a believer and I got none, I didn't have anything to accept at that point, I just had doubts but he didn't help me at all. 2 options are then presented, 1. God doesn't care about me which contradicts how the bible defines god or 2. He doesn't exist. The whole Bible was a big revelation from God to you. The miracle of nature is another. I, in this forum, am another. Since you don't want to believe the revelations He offers, He isn't going to allow you the privilege of twisting Him out of perfection, so that He does the revelation thing your way. Why not? Because you still wouldn't believe Him, even if He did it your way. If you don't believe Him, will you even be convinced while you are burning in Hell? Who knows? You will find out. But by then it will be too late to do anything about it. Change now while you still have time. You keep repeating yourself, I was a believer, his ''revelations'' worked at first but only because I was indoctrinated that way. When I had doubts and asked for help he didn't, otherwise I wouldn't be here telling you how I don't believe in god. I absolutely wanted to believe in him at the time even when I had my doubts, why wouldn't I? A god like that would be a good thing, unfortunately as I said, he didn't help me with my doubts. There is nothing to change, I can't force myself into believing in something. God doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
I think religion has one (original) use case: "To control how people think and behave".
But in today's Internet Age, religions have too much competition from political, all the *-isms, and anti-* movements.
The benefits of religious brainwashing (law abiding citizens) are overshadowed by all the negatives (regressive moral values,
outdated social structures and rejection of the scientific method as an efficient way to learn how the world works).
The the "use case" of religion is to rectify humanity which includes rectifying how people think and behave. Personally I will keep my "regressive moral values", and my "outdated social structures". If teenagers were taught about science, evolution and religion at the same time without any external influence from their family, do you they would believe in talking snakes, magic and all sorts of miracles or science? I think they would for sure pick science, the only reason that we have so many religious people around the world is indoctrination from very early age. |
|
|
|
Talking snakes, witches and demons seem more like science fiction than evolution, though. You claim creationism is the real deal but you would have to believe in all those stories too, so tell me badecker, do talking snakes exist?
So? Start a thread. If nothing else, the observation of billions or trillions of cause-and-effect actions that happen all around us, and the fact that we have not found even one action that we can say came about without C&E, shows that the random mutations required for evolution simply don't exist. Everything has a cause. There is no random. But if there is a random action somewhere, we have not found it amidst billions and trillions C&E actions. Evolution theory is a fun idea. But there is no basis for it that we know about in nature and reality. Evolution is a hoax. Then casino games also don't exist because they are not random either, hehehe, badecker's logic. Thank you for admitting that evolution is a hoax without defense. How are you admitting it? By using wording that has nothing to do with evolution, and is inappropriate for the point you are making. The fact that casino games exist, has nothing to do with whether or not they are random. And random or not, they have nothing to do with evolution. So, thanks for helping to substantiate that Evolution is a hoax... by trying to defend it, but showing nothing in its defense. As usual what I said flew right over your head. I was trying to say that even though we use the word random for many things it doesn't mean they are truly random like casino games a coin toss or a dice. In the same way evolutionists and scientists use the word random not only in evolution theory but many other theories. Again that doesn't mean it's truly random. So, do you believe in talking snakes or not? |
|
|
|
Many times i've got problems because of religion to be honest. Maybe i'm unlucky but everytime i'm trying to go in church something bad happening to me.
The devil doesn't want you to go to church and be saved, so he just might be making trouble for you so that you think that religion is doing it. Talk about free will, eh? The devil can do things to you all the time to prevent you from believing in god but god himself cannot reveal himself to everyone convincingly so you wont need to believe in him because he likes to play games with the devil. Give me a break with your 10 year old stories. My stories are a lot older than 10 years old. And you, obviously, don't understand the role the devil has [played in our lives. Besides, God isn't going to force revelation on those who don't want Him to be revealed to them... not yet, anyway. But he will let the devil, forcefully convince people to do bad things. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Only if the people freely want that force against themselves, a thing which you seem to want for yourself. As I said, god would have no problem in revealing himself to people then because people would still have the choice to believe in him or not but instead he does not reveal to people and leaves satan to corrupt human minds. And that is precisely what God is doing. God is revealing Himself to you through the things that I show you. After all, He is god. He isn't required to reveal Himself to you in the ways that you want. It seems that your choice is to not accept His revelations of Himself to you. God chose to reveal himself to me through a random person on a bitcoin forum that I consider delusional. Great job god... It's a shame that you won't accept His other revelations, but now you are finally seeing the proof that God exists, through someone on a forum. However, it doesn't seem that you accept proof, forum or otherwise. As I said many times, there are no other revelations. I asked him for proof when I was a believer and I got none, I didn't have anything to accept at that point, I just had doubts but he didn't help me at all. 2 options are then presented, 1. God doesn't care about me which contradicts how the bible defines god or 2. He doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
I can agree that it isn't 100% accurate to say "the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god." but I would argue that your chart supports the statement "That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods.". The hockey stick red line past 100 IQ (the avg IQ) is not easy to miss. I have a problem with the chart though. Sub 70 IQ is considered dull. Statistically, above 130 and below 70 have the same % of people (and are a statistically insignificant number of people, less than 5% total). Why did they leave out the above 130 IQ but leave in sub 70 group, why did they only include part of the "bell"? I surmise that they needed a big dropping red line somewhere to combat the lower intelligence = more theistic argument and found one the only place they could, in dullards... To be fair present the proper distribution and remove the sub 72 on that chart and see what it looks like again. This is so typical of an agenda driven presentation. lol at using less than 2.5% population to argue anything about what is typical (read average). It is crystal clear and supported by even your supplied skewed agenda driven chart that "people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods." Edit: I read the chart like this. As you go from dull to average (70-100) or in other words everyone below average intelligence you are more likely to be theistic. As you go from average to genius (100-130) or in other words above average intelligence tend to be less theistic. The only reason people with higher IQ trust less in God, is because they trust their IQ more. Then they die, and prove their IQ couldn't save them. But the resurrection will prove that God could have, if they had only believed. Or because they are smarter and it's harder to convince a smart guy with nonsense. As I said though, it's hard to snap out of it when everyone is telling you that the christian god is real just like it's hard for a muslim to ever convert into Christianity. |
|
|
|
^^^ How does the signal electrode connect to the optic nerve?
edit:
I should note I've posted the video requested; "convex earth" being one of a couple of examples given. I do not however agree with any of their analysis or conclusions they present in that video; their work intensive, accurate and empirically based experiments do speak for themselves.
Still waiting for any evidence for all your claims, though. Oh wait sorry, there is no way to take a picture of it because that would be too easy to prove, right? 3 holes prove the earth is round. https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=4m20sNotbatman can't debunk this video  There's nothing to debunk, an actor on a TV show is making a claim with no evidence, explanation or anything but a graphic that shows the opposite of what he's claiming. It's an easy experiment that can be performed by anyone if you know how to calculate angles, what do you mean no evidence. You can't debunk it because you can't, you are not even smart enough to calculate the angles by yourself you moron. So prove me wrong then, show me the "3 hole" calculations I'm too dumb to perform that makes a close, small Sun projected off of a mirrored dome impossible. Who's the fucking idiot here, me or the clown on TV making unsubstantiated claims? Go take a picture of the edge and stop this madness already  They wont. They have all these insane claims but never any evidence to back them up. We have so many fake photos, videos and even livestreams but they can't even find a ''real'' photo of the edge, the dome, the holographic projections? The flat earth? Nothing. |
|
|
|
''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad.
Actually that is not entirely accurate. The distribution of atheist intelligencehttps://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/01/mailvox-distribution-of-atheist.html?m=1 Look, you don't have to take it personally, not you or badecker but the fact is that the smarter and more knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a god. ''Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.'' This is a huge statistical difference. Obviously there are still a lot of scientists that do believe in some god but it's not a surprise when taking in count the level of indoctrination of US. Most people in the US believe in god and indoctrinate their kids that way, it's really hard for anyone to jump out of it when everyone in your life is telling you that god is real, religion is a virus. |
|
|
|
^^^ How does the signal electrode connect to the optic nerve?
edit:
I should note I've posted the video requested; "convex earth" being one of a couple of examples given. I do not however agree with any of their analysis or conclusions they present in that video; their work intensive, accurate and empirically based experiments do speak for themselves.
Still waiting for any evidence for all your claims, though. Oh wait sorry, there is no way to take a picture of it because that would be too easy to prove, right? 3 holes prove the earth is round. https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=4m20sNotbatman can't debunk this video |
|
|
|
The earth is round a globe!
-You see further the higher you are off the ground
-Images from space show that the earth is round a globe, including other planets
-Fly on a plane in one direction... there is no end, you will just go around and around.
-Put a stick in the ground, the shadow that it forms will move over time
-Stand by the ocean horizon, approaching ships dont just appear out of the horizon, but rather emerge from beneath the sea
FTFY, I wish you fucking idiots would stop arguing the Earth is round when you mean to say that it's a globe. 1. Elevation increases the distance to the horizon as the ground has to rise up to meet the eye; the higher the elevation the more ground is required to meet the horizon. This is perspective and convergence at work. 2. All images produced by NASA and all other so called space agencies are fraudulent; the Earth is covered by a dome and is a closed system i.e. space is a hoax and a lie. 3. There are strict rules and regulations on air travel, you can't just tell the pilot to go fly in a straight line. 4. A stick in the ground with a shadow? You mean a sundial? They prove the Earth is flat via the path of the Sun. 5. Ships don't go over any curve it's all perspective, convergence and other optical effects such as refraction, atmospheric lensing, looming, mirages, etc... that make ships disappear at the horizon. You can confirm this yourself by watching a ship disappear with the naked eye then pull it back into full view with a pair binoculars. The Earth is not a globe, it's a flat and motionless circular (round) plane covered by a dome. 2. If there are millions of fake images, there has to be at least a few of the dome or the projections of the sun, where are they? <-- Only a fucking shill would ask for pictures with a point of view the average person can't obtain.3. You can if you have your own airplane. <-- Only a fucking shill would tell the average person to go buy a multi-million dollar aircraft then go fly wherever they fucking feel like it.4. 3 holes prove the earth is round. https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=4m20s <-- Only a fucking shill would post a video of a paid actor that makes claims that don't match the graphics shown; the graphics show 3 holes works with a close Sun too! Also how does this take into account the Sun is projected off of a curved surface? Answer, it doesn't the paid actor is a fucking shill spewing propaganda.5. ''watching a ship disappear with the naked eye then pull it back into full view with a pair binoculars.'' The point is not that they disappear, they point is that they do so bottom first, sure if a boat is out of view you can ''bring it back'' with any zoom, however, you can't bring back the whole ship into view when the bottom has already disappeared and you failed to provide video evidence for this many times. <-- You've failed to make any kind of valid argument here, no shillings have been deposited into your account. If you're pulling the boat back into full view after watching it go "over the horizon" and disappear completely then that argument (obscured by a physical barrier) is not valid, period.2. So you can't provide any sort of photographic evidence for your claims 3. But you said you can't. 4. No, in the video is clearly explained that it does work with 2 holes but not with 3. Since you are making the claim that the sun is projected, why don't you tell us how that fits with the shadows in the 3 holes, genius. 5. Still no video, though, liar. |
|
|
|
Talking snakes, witches and demons seem more like science fiction than evolution, though. You claim creationism is the real deal but you would have to believe in all those stories too, so tell me badecker, do talking snakes exist?
So? Start a thread. If nothing else, the observation of billions or trillions of cause-and-effect actions that happen all around us, and the fact that we have not found even one action that we can say came about without C&E, shows that the random mutations required for evolution simply don't exist. Everything has a cause. There is no random. But if there is a random action somewhere, we have not found it amidst billions and trillions C&E actions. Evolution theory is a fun idea. But there is no basis for it that we know about in nature and reality. Evolution is a hoax. Then casino games also don't exist because they are not random either, hehehe, badecker's logic. |
|
|
|
The purpose of life is to survive and procreate. It is a common purpose in all life forms, including humans.
You are over analyzing it. It is pretty simple. People fear death and develop self coping mechanism to deal with that fear.
Have you noticed that poor and uneducated people are more religious than educated and independently wealthy. Why is that?
Poor and uneducated have more to fear and need some hope (any myth will do) to help them cope with their problems and questions.
Saying that some bronze stone texts have any insights is like saying that Pinocchio fairy tale is a good source of engineering knowledge.
People are killing and mistreating people in the name of those religious texts. Even today. How can you say that slavery is a good thing?
You know it causes harm. People who wrote these texts were psychopaths.
Actually I am confident you are underanalyzing it. If we drilled down into each of your points we would find we disagree on a lot. We would disagree on the reason the poor and uneducated people are more religious than educated and independently wealthy. We do disagree on the insights available in religious texts. We would probably disagree on the nature, source, and definition of evil as well as the root cause of most human suffering. I don't know where you got the idea I said slavery was a good thing so we would disagree on whatever logic you took to reach that conclusion. If we debated each of these points to exhaustion and were both honest in our dialogue we could probably in short order trace them back to a difference in basic assumption. I suspect that at the foundation you have accepted basic premises about the universe such as things are essentially random and that there is no ultimate purpose to life beyond the mechanical act of propagation and reproduction. Such a metaphysical foundation is not something you can prove. It is something you assume apriori your faith if you will. I on the other hand have adopted a very different apriori Truth so we disagree and that is ok. Once you understand that our primary difference is one of faith you can better understand the pathological hatred of some extremist have on both sides of the division. Not everyone is up to a challenge to their faith. Many of us do not examine it and cannot clearly articulate it. Those most lacking in self reflection deny they have a faith. Disrupt the foundation and the entire edifice of beliefs built upon it becomes unsound. People can and often do lash out rather then face that. Take popcorn1 for example. He is so riled up that that he is not only swearing but when he quoted my post he took the time to delete part of the link to Jordan Peterson's fantastic lecture series to make it nonfunctional. Some people simply cannot handle challenges to their faith. Biblical Series I: Introduction to the Idea of Godhttps://www.y ... But some SO CALLED SMART ASS looks to deep into shit BULLSHIT.. Then he thinks of BULLSHIT then tells the world bullshit. ... So what is the reason that uneducated people tend to be more religious than educated people? You and badecker have to say slavery is or at least was a good thing, badecker has said that slavery was the ''best'' thing god could have done at the time. That which is called "education" is often based in technical things that don't answer the basic needs of people... spiritual needs. The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education, and are focused thereby on the things that will give them eternal life. It's a pride thing in the educated people. Or a thing that makes them think that they are finding out what is important, when the complexity of the universe is way beyond any little education they are receiving. Educated people are often self deluding in this way. However, the strength of spirit is the only thing that affects "more religious." Why? Because according to the complete definition of the word "religion," all people essentially live by religion, no matter the quantity or quality of their education. ''The uneducated people listen to Bible readings, or read the bible if they have a little education'' and believe it without any proof because they are not smart enough. That's why people with higher IQ tend to believe less in gods. It's what it is badecker, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to believe in god. Don't be mad. And the educated atheists are so extremely far from finding enough education, that they think that they are atheists, when the most that they are is atheist hopefuls. In all their education, they can't even see the self-contradictions in the idea of atheism. Is that education? You atheist jokers have a long way to go to find reasonable education. Forget about education, we are talking about IQ which requires no previous knowledge. Smart people tend to believe less in god, educated or not. I'm sorry but it's the truth, don't be mad it's a fact. |
|
|
|
Many times i've got problems because of religion to be honest. Maybe i'm unlucky but everytime i'm trying to go in church something bad happening to me.
The devil doesn't want you to go to church and be saved, so he just might be making trouble for you so that you think that religion is doing it. Talk about free will, eh? The devil can do things to you all the time to prevent you from believing in god but god himself cannot reveal himself to everyone convincingly so you wont need to believe in him because he likes to play games with the devil. Give me a break with your 10 year old stories. My stories are a lot older than 10 years old. And you, obviously, don't understand the role the devil has [played in our lives. Besides, God isn't going to force revelation on those who don't want Him to be revealed to them... not yet, anyway. But he will let the devil, forcefully convince people to do bad things. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Only if the people freely want that force against themselves, a thing which you seem to want for yourself. As I said, god would have no problem in revealing himself to people then because people would still have the choice to believe in him or not but instead he does not reveal to people and leaves satan to corrupt human minds. And that is precisely what God is doing. God is revealing Himself to you through the things that I show you. After all, He is god. He isn't required to reveal Himself to you in the ways that you want. It seems that your choice is to not accept His revelations of Himself to you. God chose to reveal himself to me through a random person on a bitcoin forum that I consider delusional. Great job god... |
|
|
|
Your argument only works when you are assuming god actually exists but then again, you would have to prove a god exists and you haven't. If we assume a god exists, picking the ''best'' religion is still not that good because, first of all, how would you ever know, right?
Your question gets us into the domain of truth theory. It is a complex topic. Unless you are an adherent of philosophical skepticism you accept that objective reality aka truth exists and can be known. The question we must then answer is how do we know something is true? What non arbitrary criteria or metric do we use to determine truth? The best answer to this question that I know of is the the Coherence theory of truth. Here is a brief description of what this is. Coherence Theory of Truthhttp://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htmPut simply: a belief is true when we are able to incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.
Sometimes this seems like an odd way to actually describe truth. After all, a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality and fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality, according to the Coherence Theory, that inaccurate belief would still be called “truth” even though it didn’t actually describe the way the world really was. Does that really make any sense?
Well, possibly … the reason is because statements can’t really be verified in isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and drop it, it isn’t simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our visual perception.
So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, then one might conclude that a statement can be classified as “true” not so much because it can be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality. In this case Coherence Theory isn’t that far from the Correspondence Theory and the reason is that while individual statements may be judged as true or false based upon their ability to cohere with a larger system, it is assumed that that system is one which accurately corresponds to reality.
Because of this, the Coherence Theory does manage to capture something important about the way we actually conceive of truth in our daily lives. It isn’t that unusual to dismiss something as false precisely because it fails to cohere with a system of ideas which we are confident are true. Granted, maybe the system we assume to be true is quite a way off the mark, but so long as it continues to be successful and is capable of slight adjustments in the light of new data, our confidence is reasonable.
You are concerned that you cannot prove God exists to your satisfaction. My reply is that your inability to prove God has in this instance absolutely no relevance to Truth of God. It is important to remember what we can prove. The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Centuryhttps://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy. And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement “I am lying.” “I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true. So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer. No statement alone can completely prove itself true. His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivism” of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic. Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong. He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things that are true than you can prove. A “theory of everything” – whether in math, or physics, or philosophy – will never be found. Because it is impossible. A priori Truth is mathematically inevitable. God is such a Truth. The religious have a more elegant way of summing this up. They call it the necessity of faith. You ask why can't I prove God? This is the wrong question. The correct question is can I build an integrated and coherent worldview without God? Can I follow the coherence theory of truth and construct a True worldview without God. Only you can answer that question for yourself. I will tell you, however, that for me the answer was no. So, you would rather go after Coincube with your stupid questions that I already answered multiple times. It's because you think mere talk is proof for something, without going after the meat of the content of the talk.
Again more philosophical talk, not something I enjoy. ''a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.'' Ok, if it's so simple, your god is not real. If your god is truly omnipotent and all knowing then why are we here?
Do you think that you are complex enough to determine that believing in something is simple? God placed us here for His own pleasure, part of which is so that we can have pleasure, which happens best and most when we recognize His greatness and worship Him, for which He rewards us (even though it was He Who gave us the ability to worship Him), so that He gets glory from us, so that He has an excuse to return goodness to us for the glory that He receives, so that we both, God and mankind, can increase throughout eternity. Your self-imposed stupidity is like the core of a black hole... extremely dense, but existing only in a single point - note that according to geometry, points don't exist. Rather, they are the "place" where two real things touch each other. You should be thanking God that He is holding you alive, and giving you a chance to turn back to Him... before it is too late for you. Oh, right, he gave us free will but then how can he be omnipotent. If we have freewill there is no way for him to know what we are going to do, otherwise it can't be freewill, kind of like: As I have told you maybe a dozen time, the only free will we have, exists regarding aspects of our faith in God. Remember how God elevated Abraham as explained in Genesis in the Bible? God did it because Abraham happened to turn a bit of his free will towards God in ways that surprised and pleased God. Then, in His delight, God rewarded Abraham by both, physical reward, and the ability to increase his (Abraham's) own faith within himself. A tiny touch of Abraham-free-will, and the big complete self-control of God-free-will working together. can god create an object so heavy that he can't lift it? As I have told you in the past, Jesus is the rock that God can't lift. Why can't God lift it? Because Jesus is God, and yet is distinct from God in ways not understandable. The Rock, Jesus, lifted Himself onto the cross (because He could have overcome the people that seemed to be doing the lifting, any second), willingly died there, and then arose from death. He is the rock that God can't lift, but He lifted himself. Note that those of us who believe in God/Jesus are being moved into a place of glory similar to Jesus. The whole idea of god is already contradictory not to mention all the other contradictions mentioned by me before. Like the bible teaching not to kill but pages later saying, kill everyone that works on the sabbath. So I guess I just proved god is not real, right?
Again, there is no contradiction in the killing thing. Any and all people that God commanded ancient Israel to kill, were people that were killing other people for nothing, and raising up children who did not believe in God and would die in Hell. So, God was stopping the killing by executing them. In addition, the earth is he Lord's and all its fullness. It's His property. Since we barely understand the thinking and wisdom of God because of our remoteness, talking against Him is simply a failure on our part. You are the one who is mistaken. Not believers in God, and certainly not God. When will you stop making your mistakes? Or is it that you have locked yourself into perpetual mistake making with no change ever forthcoming? C&E is in everything badecker, we can't have freewill because of it, science proves cause and effect exists in everything, even faith, therefore god is not real because free will doesn't exist. Now, the only thing you have to figure out is who or what programmed you via C&E to think like this. Of course, if you figure it out, the Programmer is the one Who programmed you to figure it out, as well. No matter who the programmer is, he is not the god from the bible since we don't have freewill. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
