Religion?

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

They both have an explanation for the beginning of life.

HA! You're OWNED NOW NUKKA!

indeed

 

[arsonbob 10+ year member]

They both have an explanation for the beginning of life.

HA! You're OWNED NOW NUKKA!

+1.

 

[Fat_boy 10+ year member]

....Well now he isnt going to type this 4 page explanation that I'll never read..

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

Originally Posted by elementxero I hope that's a trolling attempt. The whole science = religion argument is so intensely flawed and has been torn apart so many times that I won't even waste my breath spelling it out.

Show me the link between science and religion...

/sits back and eats popcorn

Science takes monetary donations to advance itself. Science is full of theories that can't prove factual.

I'd say I have a checkmate argument.

Please buff my balls. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[arsonbob 10+ year member]

Science takes monetary donations to advance itself. Science is full of theories that can't prove factual.
I'd say I have a checkmate argument.

Please buff my balls. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

I guess that kind of depends on what KIND of link he was expecting to see made between science and religion.

What you just said seems pretty obvious, and holds no value to most conversations in regards to these two topics. What I mean is, of course that is the case, but so what?

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

What you just said seems pretty obvious, and holds no value to most conversations in regards to these two topics.

I guess you're like an ostrich and like to bury your head in the sand. Are you saying that organizations like the National Science Foundation doesn't take public donations to further it's research into things like "Big Bang Theory" which are nothing more that theories?

What is any different than a church taking donations for religion. I mean, neither group can prove reality about the subject at hand. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

Being the chess master that I am, can I call "Checkmate"?

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

Please explain?

And you say this because my wife is alive and not severely crippled or because I don't believe the way you do? You see, I won't bash you for what you believe or not, be it you are rude, but I will say this.
My wife was bed ridden for over a year (from the age of 4 to almost 6). Her legs were rotting. She couldn't walk. She was prayed for. Everything disappeared that day. You explain it. I believe in God. I have seen his work. What you choose to believe is your choice.

Alright you hick, I'll spell it out for you, but understand that this is NOT a debate because I don't debate the inbred.

Do you know all of the fucking insanely heinous things going on in the world? And how many prayers are said every minute of every day to stop them? We are talking about things like GENOCIDE here, rube.

Here's the point, since I doubt homeschooling instilled a sense of logic in your warped mind:

Given these two facts-one, of course, that your dumb wife's gimp legs "healed after prayer"- and two, that there was no divine intervention to stop terrible crimes against mankind throughout history despite far more prayer than existed for your wife, only one of two things can be true:

1- God found it more just to make sure your lazy wife's legs don't smell like rotten eggs than stopping the ruthless extermination of a people.

2- A god does not answer prayers, and you and your family are not as important as you wish you were.

Most religious people seem driven by some sense of ego-maniacal lust for validation. If god did exist, and frankly I'm not even opposed to that idea, why would he SO selectively interfere with the life of one human being, who is alive for a nanosecond relative to the grand scheme of the universe?

Why are all religious people so determined to think that if a god DOES exist, that he would only be concerned with man--NOT ONLY MAN, but all of the painstaking TRIVIALITIES OF MAN--and not the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF GALAXIES AND UNIVERSES THAT COMPRISE REALITY?!

Think for once in your life you hillbilly fuck.

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

I guess that kind of depends on what KIND of link he was expecting to see made between science and religion.

Are you retarded or just stupid? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

I guess you're like an ostrich and like to bury your head in the sand. Are you saying that organizations like the National Science Foundation doesn't take public donations to further it's research into things like "Big Bang Theory" which are nothing more that theories?
What is any different than a church taking donations for religion. I mean, neither group can prove reality about the subject at hand. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Classic mistake by idiots. A theory in the scientific community is as close to fact as we get in terms of learning about reality. It does *NOT* mean that it is some airy guess made by a philosopher.

See, this illustrates a key difference between the thought process of the thinking man versus the religious man. The thinking man KNOWS that he is a man. ACCEPTS it. To be a man, is to be flawed. This is fact.

A flawed man can only assume that even his strictest assumptions are potentially flawed. The thinking man accepts it.

This is what makes science valid. Science is not one man's idea, scribed in a holy book and passed to your mongoloid children in science class, it is an ever-evolving set of things we have learned through the scientific process. We overturn ideas all the time, because what we've learned about the universe isn't stuck to us in an EMOTIONAL way like it is for religious people. It doesn't DEFINE us or the way we live our lives.

Whoops, here I go, debating reason with subhumans again. I will punch out right now and go do something entertaining, because you apes are certain to drive me to madness if I bother.

(this always happens)

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

Pass that definition on to your idiot friends next sermon, *******.

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

Classic mistake by idiots. A theory in the scientific community is as close to fact as we get in terms of learning about reality.

You are obviously a moron and don't understand things like the scientific method, designs of experiment, or repeatability.

You are an uneducated human being. You need to post up some supportive facts to disprove any statement I've made thus far and you haven't.

They're called Scientific Theories and not Scientific Laws for a reason there buckwheat. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

You are obviously a moron and don't understand things like the scientific method, designs of experiment, or repeatability.
You are an uneducated human being. You need to post up some supportive facts to disprove any statement I've made thus far and you haven't.

They're called Scientific Theories and not Scientific Laws for a reason there buckwheat. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Yeah, I graduated 6th grade science class too fuckhat. See above definition of theory and rethink your arbitrary use of middle school vocabulary words.

As an "educated human being", you really see no difference in the manner by which science seeks to define reality and the manner by which religion seeks to define reality? Really? You are clown shoes.