Originally posted by whobdamandog
[Bbased on the extremely limited and subjective evidence we have at this time. Please explain in more detail for me. I'd really like to know more about this "tangible proof." Perhaps you have discovered something that Einstien, Copenhagen, and Schrödinger could not.Well first let me tell you what I don't believe.
I don't believe that out of "nothing".."something" was created.
I don't believe that a "primordial soup" of elements..magically gained sentience..and formed intelligent life as we know it.
I don't believe that space aliens sent a "primordial soup" of elements to earth..and that these elements somehow formed intelligent life as we know it.
I don't believe that the various properties of light, give any implication that multiple universes exist.
I don't believe that human rectum was created for the purpose of reproduction.
Yet I do believe in the "word" of an all knowing/all Powerful God, and I believe that this God created "life" for but one simple purpose. That purpose being "Love." Call me simple or crazy if you wish, but I choose not to have faith in an existence based off of randomness/chaos, or incumbered with psuedo-scientific philosophy and ramblings of those who seek to find ways to rationalize self serving/degerative behaviors. [/B]
Religious BeliefsThe conservative political analyst Mark Steyn published a pop psychoanalysis of Crick and an attempted deconstruction of Crick's scientific motivations[25]. Steyn characterized Crick as a militant atheist and asserted that it was his atheism that "drove" Crick to move beyond conventional molecular biology towards speculative topics such as panspermia. Steyn described the theory of directed panspermia as amounting to, "gods in the skies who fertilize the earth and then retreat to the heavens beyond our reach." Steyn categorized Crick’s ideas on directed panspermia as a result of "hyper-rationalism" that, "lead him round to embracing a belief in a celestial creator of human life, indeed a deus ex machina."
Steyn's critique of Crick ignored the fact that Crick never held a belief in panspermia. Crick explored the hypothesis that it might be possible for life forms to be moved from one planet to another. What "drove" Crick towards speculation about directed panspermia was the difficulty of imagining how a complex system like a cell could arise under pre-biotic conditions from non-living chemical components. After ribozymes were discovered, Crick became much less interested in panspermia because it was then much easier to imagine the pre-biotic origins of life as being made possible by some set of simple self-replicating polymers.
Even wikipedia knows you're full of shit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick
As for the tangible evidence, I made it clear that I was talking about the string theory. What does this look like in three dimensions: >< ?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
My thoughts exactly. It's quite obvious that the thread was essentially started for the purpose of trolling anyway. You even went as far as lying about me being the originator of the Samson thread, which as all can see by clicking on the link below..is an obvious untruth.Proof that he is lying:
KHARMA DOG PROVES HIMSELF TO BE A LIAR.
This thread is obviously based on a lie..and with that being stated, you've essentially damaged all of your credibility regarding the seriousness of said topic.
My mistake, I should have said,"Having read Whob's post in the thread on the strength of Sampson and seeing quotes as these: ". That is not a lie, that is a small mistake. This thread is not based on a lie because the Sampson's strength thread and the posts in it are what aroused the questions that I asked in this thread. Your attack on me an attempt to provoke me are both sad and pathetic.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Note: Crick is a Molecular Biologist. He is also an ATHEIST..like yourself. He also believes in the theory of EVOLUTION..like yourself.
When did I say I was an atheist? And I doubt Crick and I are very much alike at all. Even if I were an atheist, are all atheists the same? If you believe that than you must think that all christians are the same? That is a simple way of thinking.
Once again you resort to trying to put words in peoples' mouths or intentionally trying to misrepresent or just make up facts. Pathetic, and a sad trolling attempt...again.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Are these theories any less "believable" than the stories referenced in the Bible? I don't believe so
And what is this belief based on? That is the main gist of this whole thread. How can you justify a belief in these stories?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
KarmaDog you've insulted Christians throughout this entire thread. You have even lied about myself starting another thread, in an attempt to get your point across. I believe only one of us is truly deserving of getting reprimanded for antagonizing/malicious behavior my friend, and that person definitely wouldn't be me...😉
Where did I insult christians in this thread? I have questioned the belief in, and the plausibility of, some of the stories in the bible. A priest once told me that a good christian should question their faith every day in order to answer it and reaffirm it. Are you that pious not to question your faith?
ANd I did not lie about you starting the other thread, that was a mistake. If you want an example of an outright lie or manipulation of information for personal gain in leverage, I could pull up some examples of your handiwork in the recent past.
You are a troll. You insult when your chips are down. You are malicious. You lie and deceive, and you intentionally derail threads. That is the legacy you have left on KMC, do not compare me to that.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Take care my friend..and God Bless.
I am not your friend. And if you are a christian, you are a very hypocritical one.
Now...does anyone answer these questions?
Who believes these stories.
Does anyone ever consider that these stories are slightly exaggerated for effect?
If one is to believe they are true, then why can't they explain the total vacancy of such feats by humans in the last 1000 years when more accurate historical records have been kept?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
My mistake, I should have said,"Having read Whob's [B]post in the thread on the strength of Sampson and seeing quotes as these: ". That is not a lie, that is a small mistake. This thread is not based on a lie because the Sampson's strenght thread and the posts in it are what aroused the questions that I asked in this thread. Your attack on me an attempt to provoke me are both sad and pathetic.When did I say I was an athiest? And I doubt CCrick and I are very much alike at all. Even if I were an athiest, are all atheists the same? If you believe that than you must think that all christians are the same? That is a simple way of thinking.
Once again you resort to trying to put words in peoples' mouths or intentionally trying to misrepresent or just make up facts. Pathetic, and a sad trolling attempt...again.
And what is this belief based on? That is the main gist of this whole thread. How can you justify a belief in these stories?
Where did I insult christians in this thread? I have questioned the belief in, and the plausibility of, some of the stories in the bible. A priest once told me that a good christian should question thier faith every day in order to answer it and reaffirm it. Are you that pious not to question your faith?
ANd I did not lie about you starting the other thread, that was a mistake. If you want an example of an outright lie or manipulation of information for personal gain in leverage, I could pull up some examples of your handiwork in the recent past.
You are a troll. You insult when your chips are down. You are malicious. You lie and decieve, and you intentionally derail threads. That is the legacy you have left on KMC, do not compare me to that.
I am not your friend. Anf if you are a christian, you are a very hypocritcal one.
Now...does anyone answer these questions?
Who believes these stories.
Does anyone ever consider that these stories are slightly exagerated for effect?
If one is to believe they are true, then why can't they explain the total vacancy of such feats by humans in the last 1000 years when more acccurate historical records have been kept? [/B]
let it go kharma, both him n relegion r full of shit{the later we always KNEW}
Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol, both of the arguments above me deny the presence of GOD, if there were multiple universes n god resided in just ONE he wouldnt be omnipotent nor omniscient, since he is neither the creater or sustainer of ALL{since one universe ISNT all} nor does he KNOW everything.
That's why I wrote "God (being God)" suggesting that IF an omnipotent being existed in one universe, then by virtue of being omnipotent, he would exist in ALL universes; indeed, he would have always been.
There is, in fact, a far more fundamental way to see the FOR argument as an AGAINST argument, but I just wanted to post some additions to the arguments already up.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
let it go kharma, both him n relegion r full of shit{the later we always KNEW}
Actually I have nothing against religion or those who practise religion. I do have something against people who prescribe to a particular religion but pick and choose how they want to abide by it, those who act completely opposite to what their beliefs dictate or those who manipulate the the religious belief system of others for their own personal gain or ego.
I am interested in why some people believe what they believe. I have talked long with muslims, budhists and traditional native american spiritual leaders among others, and without a doubt there has been more intolerance, ignorance and hostility from christians than others when dicussing or quesitoning their beliefs. Not to say all christians are like that, many have been open to discussion and civil. However, whob's behaviour, though not indicitive of christianity, is defianitely commonly encountered among the christian population.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually I have nothing against religion or those who practise religion. I do have something against people who prescribe to a particular religion but pick and choose how they want to abide by it, those who act completely opposite to what their beliefs dictate or those who manipulate the the religious belief system of others for their own personal gain or ego.I am interested in why some people believe what they believe. I have talked long with muslims, budhists and traditional native american spiritual leaders among others, and without a doubt there has been more intolerance, ignorance and hostility from christians than others when dicussing or quesitoning their beliefs. Not to say all christians are like that, many have been open to discussion and civil. However, whob's behaviour, though not indicitive of christianity, is defianitely commonly encountered among the christian population.
sigh, where do u live? i bet u live in a liberal place, sorta on the SIDELINES, n look at the world objectively, once u actually live in som of the worst places in the world n have suffered the stinge of utterly ridiculous n evil relegious teachings n seen them dictate ur life, society n ur mind, u come to hate relegion n see it for what it is, so yea i say it, christians n muslims r full of SHIT. {btw, seein as u dontlive in a fundamentalist society or whatever, the things uve hheard about relegion r definately whitewashed, manipulated facts, tryin to make the belief sound reasonable n good to u{since u dont know what it really is} the truth is far more ugly.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
sigh, where do u live? i bet u live in a liberal place, sorta on the SIDELINES, n look at the world objectively, once u actually live in som of the worst places in the world n have suffered the stinge of utterly ridiculous n evil relegious teachings n seen them dictate ur life, society n ur mind, u come to hate relegion n see it for what it is, so yea i say it, christians n muslims r full of SHIT. {btw, seein as u dontlive in a fundamentalist society or whatever, the things uve hheard about relegion r definately whitewashed, manipulated facts, tryin to make the belief sound reasonable n good to u{since u dont know what it really is} the truth is far more ugly.
What you have described is , not religion itself. There is a difference.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
What you have described is , not religion itself. There is a difference.
no no, the people im talkin about dont do it for personal gain, they do it to make their releion more acceptable to the newly convert, i mean a muslim preching wont tell u that the punishment for premarital sex is stoning to death and a hundred lashes or that u can beat ur wife in islam or that ur wife and ur childrne are ur property, or that islam lets u keep slaves n the list goes on, theyd just teach u about LOVE n what not, n say that god loves u, he cares for u more than the world, blah blah blah. its all bullshit.
Actually, I am of the opinion that people who are the loudest at exhaulting their own religion and most condemning of others, are the very people who believe the specifics of their religion the least. The louder you are and the more you condemn other, the less tangible confidence you have in your descision to follow that religion. Paranoia is most often brought on by condemning oneself, not from others condemning you.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Actually, I am of the opinion that people who are the loudest at exhaulting their own religion and most condemning of others, are the very people who believe the specifics of their religion the least. The louder you are and the more you condemn other, the less tangible confidence you have in your descision to follow that religion. Paranoia is most often brought on by condemning oneself, not from others condemning you.
at a personal level, YES, but in relegions like islam, a person is actually ENCOURAGED to do that n that masks the doubt in a person.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Actually, I am of the opinion that people who are the loudest at exhaulting their own religion and most condemning of others, are the very people who believe the specifics of their religion the least. The louder you are and the more you condemn other, the less tangible confidence you have in your descision to follow that religion. Paranoia is most often brought on by condemning oneself, not from others condemning you.
I agree. Those who cry th loudest usually have the least to say.
Well its nice to know that one of my posts came to bear the fruitation of this thread. However I am not as you say a "cryer" and while not try to convert you if you believe in total randomness as the cause of our being able to be here to discuss these things. I however choose to believe that a creator created me, and that the things in the Bible have more historical evidence than the other religions provided around the world. It is also the most well known and sold book in the world. While many of you may not agree, well it is your choice, because as of today neither side can be totally proven. This thread will go on in circles in the way it is going on now, neither side has absolute proof. I just like my odds more.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Don't you all just love irony and poetic justice? 🙄😆Fin
I guess you attempted a jab because you had nothing of importance to contribute. Although when I make a jab at someone (as I have been known to do) my statements are either humorous or an observation based on what everyone can see.
Your statement was neither humorous, and as anyone can see, you are the person who has not only been acting rather ridiculously, but rather pathetically.
But say what you will...now post a smilie, delcare a vacant victory and go about your merry way. (by the way, there was no irony in the statement that you quoted, nor was there poetic justice. However, your post fullfilled those requirements with exellence!)