The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
lol you both have just made it clear that your not willing to listen, just to demand that any religious person needs curing of their stupidity.
I don't want to cure you of anything. I purely wanted you to justify your beliefs, or at least try, to help me understand. I've been trying for a long time now, to no avail. Don't worry though, I can see you clearly don't want to. I don't think I've been aggressive but I apologise if I have.
I guess it is mostly Atheists you hear debating as I supposed we're threatened. We're threatened by something so powerful, that has a grip over people, including the most powerful country in the world.
No one can make you believe its something that has to come from within.
Enjoy the rest of the debate because like I stated my beliefs are not up for discussion. Iv said all Im willing to say. I dont feel I have any need to justify anything I do. Just as I wouldnt ask you to justify your feelings
This debate seems to be getting way out of hand. as usual for this topic.
Tagred you are repeatedly contradicting yourself and using the very same argument fallacies which you are criticising others and religion for. your tea pot example is so close to the actual definition of strawman argument.
Your examples also work against you, despite that you claim they don't.
you state that god requires no proof yet you demand proof ? i don't get that ????
oh BTW you've made me start worshipping my tea pot now, I bring it offerings of water and tea leaves and in return it gives me a nice cup of tea, thats got to be worth a bit of worship.
god is outside the universe - thats unavoidable it is in fact by definition as he supposedly created the universe so to try and tell people to not say this is total stupidity in my opinion.
how would god created the universe if he was inside it ? duh ! Wake up man !
It is ludicrous to try to tell people to limit their argument to your view of things, and to not quote other scientists religious views when this thread is about scientists religious views is totally absurd too. especially when you quote Occam's razor which is in effect the same thing.
It is another fallacy of logic to only allow a small set of evidence that supports your view, and reject a far greater set of evidence that is against it, this is something I might criticise some religious people for but it seems this is what your trying to do here by imposing on us what we cant do.
after a bit more research on Einstein it seems his views are quite close to mine, IE a profound wonder at the mechanisms of the universe and the something which cant be penetrated, and embracing god, but the god of nature - not one thats watching over us - Spinoza's god he refers to.
I heard the Vatican is also embracing science, although i have no interest to delve deeper than what I heard on the TV ages ago.
I think instead of being able to prove the point of this thread which was to prove god doesn't exist, or to prove science and religion cant exist together all certain people have done is to show themselves in a very poor light.
for example, to continue to try and claim Occam's razor is valid proof that god doesn't exist is unbelievable, I'm stumped as to how someone cant see that this is a self supporting argument. IE one which isn't supported by anything at all. :-
Occam's razor says the simpler, especially the non god solution is to be preferred.
how is something like that someone said ages ago to be considered acceptable proof of something ?
if it is then you also have to allow all that the prophets have said.
I don't think you really have to try and use science to disprove god when people have a free choice.
I'm sorry if the universe is inconveniently made so that it has an inside and an outside which is impenetrable to science but thats just how it is - sorry but you just have to accommodate that fact in your thinking eventually.
if you try and use science to prove the universe doesn't have an outside when you cant possibly have any proof - youl just further weaken your requirement for proof of god.
I think one of the best points made here is the fact that its only the scientist types (well only few of them) that are arguing and trying to impose their views, and not the religious types.
I think this fact alone is worthy of some scientific debate. - "why are scientists afraid of god ?"
I find it hard to fathom the limited perception of religion or indeed life and human nature that thinks if we know how the universe works sufficiently we wont "need" any sort of religion.
maybe I'm just expecting people to be too grown up, as I might of thought this way when i was young.
I think this fact alone is worthy of some scientific debate. - "why are scientists afraid of god ?"
The answer to your question presented by one of the most repulsive science versus religion debate money maker, Kirk Cameron promoting his fellow idiot's free book full of excrement. The fellow idiot is of course Ray Comfort, the banana man. On the same channel is his apology about the banana argument which is actually a feeble attempt to explain why a banana is evidence of god.
I could make same kind of question to (mad) believers, why are you (believers) afraid of physical evidence and reasoned logic.
I refuse to watch those ridiculous dumb ass shows if they are anything like the other ones often offered as proof of no god which I assume they are arn't they ? to offer a ludicrous argument such as those, IE a banana, is again to use the strawman fallacy of argument.
if you continue to use these fallacies then I will obviously have to explain them to you.
to answer a question with a question is also the same weak argument as you are tying to condemn - by evading answering the question in such a manner you are letting it be assumed its true.
I stated clearly how I followed the evidence of the big bang theory born out of the evidence of the stars moving away from a single point which seemed plausible, and how later more accurate evidence suggests that its not a single point after all, yet you seem to reject this physical evidence it might not be a single point, just stating "its obvious" is not really convincing IMO.
we may find dark matter or we may not, but until then you have to consider what evidence there is at the moment or you're just as bad as the religious people who you are so vehemently dissing.
I therefore have no problem with physical evidence and am certainly not afraid of it but it would seem you might be more than you think.
to be afraid of the unknown is in fact an animal survival instinct, its human nature, we might not be here without it, this is probably what drives some scientists to uncover the mystery of the unknown.
From my experience religious people are not afraid of it either - in fact they have no reason to be, no matter what evidence is unearthed - from their point of view god put that evidence there. our understanding of what created the universe is severely limited and so our understanding of a god, if any, can hardly be expected to be 100% accurate.
I think anyone who truly believes in singularities and also claims anyone who believes in things with no evidence to be mad is in danger of condemning themselves to a mental institution lol.
... - from their point of view god put that evidence there. ...
And that's why any debate is pointless, anything which seems to contradict the Bible, etc. is just God testing us and not the equally possible answer, .i.e. the Bible is just plain wrong.
Obviously God must be outside the Universe in order to have created it, but some religious types will then use some crazy pseudo-science to explain how God can just be and yet the Universe can't. After all surely they are likely to be equally complex and alive.
I think this fact alone is worthy of some scientific debate. - "why are scientists afraid of god ?"
Answer to your question is that atheistic scientists can't be afraid of god. How could someone be afraid of something they don't recognize as an existing entity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I refuse to watch those ridiculous dumb ass shows if they are anything like the other ones often offered as proof of no god which I assume they are arn't they ? to offer a ludicrous argument such as those, IE a banana, is again to use the strawman fallacy of argument.
Well, the video isn't about the banana statement, it shows how money making christians dare to use a public domain book to promote their unscientific crap. Ray has made a 50 page introduction to the origin of the species and hands them free to people on the street, but surprise surprise asks for donations so they could print more of their bull. Also I think he's using that free book only to promote his another book about evolution. I sincerely doubt that he's genuine believer. What repulses me most is that he's pissing on 150 years of scientific work and claiming that some thousands of years old book holds the absolute truth about everything. He's actually promoting stupidity and wants a moderate fee from it (moderate my bottom).
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
if you continue to use these fallacies then I will obviously have to explain them to you.
to answer a question with a question is also the same weak argument as you are tying to condemn - by evading answering the question in such a manner you are letting it be assumed its true.
That's false dichotomy, if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I stated clearly how I followed the evidence of the big bang theory born out of the evidence of the stars moving away from a single point which seemed plausible, and how later more accurate evidence suggests that its not a single point after all, yet you seem to reject this physical evidence it might not be a single point, just stating "its obvious" is not really convincing IMO.
Okay, lets try another way. That singularity existed right before the ignition of the big bang. Time and space didn't exist before the BB so the singularity couldn't have an exact location in time and space, The Universe of ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
we may find dark matter or we may not, but until then you have to consider what evidence there is at the moment or you're just as bad as the religious people who you are so vehemently dissing.
The dark matter can't be seen or detected by it's radiation, but by the gravitational force it has on visible matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I therefore have no problem with physical evidence and am certainly not afraid of it but it would seem you might be more than you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
to be afraid of the unknown is in fact an animal survival instinct, its human nature, we might not be here without it, this is probably what drives some scientists to uncover the mystery of the unknown.
We surely wouldn't be here without the fear of the unknown, an evolutionary trait that keeps any specie progressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
From my experience religious people are not afraid of it either - in fact they have no reason to be, no matter what evidence is unearthed - from their point of view god put that evidence there. our understanding of what created the universe is severely limited and so our understanding of a god, if any, can hardly be expected to be 100% accurate.
I'd suggest that the believers read the books that constitutes their religion more closely and stop cherry picking only the good parts from them while reasonably questioning the whole faith system they hold. Actually reading them should make everyone see that their deities are very human-like. From which you can conclude that man made god, not vice versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I think anyone who truly believes in singularities and also claims anyone who believes in things with no evidence to be mad is in danger of condemning themselves to a mental institution lol.
Space-time is a field that curves under gravitational force, the more the force is the more space curves. That means that you can calculate the force from the angle of the space curvature. Now when the angle reaches 90 degrees gravitational force will crush matter to have infinite density and ~0 volume. It's called a singularity. That's what black holes are to my current knowledge.
I haven't made the aphorism, "Praying is politically correct schizophrenia.", but it pretty much describes some religion followers.
Tell me if there's inaccuracies and I'll do more research and correct them if I can.
Last edited by LippoW; 24-09-2009 at 17:07..
Reason: Removed my drag and drop quote tags from the title.
someone might not believe in god, but that doesn't mean they can be 100% sure something doesn't exist that is beyond the horizon. to do so would in itself be a religious belief and fear need not only be of god but of the religious movement itself IE by the take over of creationists in the science room.
my view is that i have an open mind and if there is a god and he makes everything perfectly then he made me with the intention to not believe in him.
I find it contradictory that you praise evolution because it is 150 years old yet in the same sentence diss the bible because it is 2000 years old :s
if making money out of selling books is some sort of proof for the argument then that obviously back fires.
a false dichotomy is where you assert there are two opposite views which you claim are indisputable.
I gave an alternative view and made it clear it was an assumption (but which I think is likely to be made by most people). If you going to accuse me of false arguments I suggest you study the subject first !
with regard to the singularity existing before the BB again my point is where is the proof ? the stars appear to emanate from a much larger point. again you claim with authority that it was a singularity with no proof, just like religion.
if time and space didn't exist before the BB then that raises more questions than answers. what sort of existence could any matter have in a place with no time or space - it makes little sense, yet it is claimed all matter existed for ever. this is where people get the idea that the BB was the point of creation for everything. how can the question of what happened before the big bang be considered if time started then. ie what happened before time started ?
if dark matter cant be seen or detected then thats a bit like god. its effect on gravity is self supporting argument, IE not supported by anything at all. it is assumed the stars are moving to a single point and the dark matter has been invented to account for the discrepancy. its then used to support the argument that the stars are intact moving to a single point.
with regard to cherry picking the best bits out of the bible, if you imposed the same restriction on science it would also fall down. the fact that science allows for change when things have found to be wrong doesn't really help the science side of the debate IMO.
the inter sub atomic particle force varies considerably especially so as you get near to what we might think of as closest thing resembling a solid surface. it is as yet unexplained in a widely accepted way. it can not be known what further changes in field force are experienced close to the centre as the atoms become crushed.
to make such an assumption that any field (especially one as intangible as space time field) keeps on curving in a constant rate and eventually achieves a field with infinite density is only valid if it can be verified. I don't see how it can be, the mathematical proof is not proof of what exists in the real world. only if the maths agrees with testable data can it be considered so. I think I made the point before that to extrapolate to such an extent IE to the zero crossing point that it is orders of magnitude beyond any available data is not always valid.
to make such an assumption otherwise requires a leap of faith much like religion, but one which large body of science makes. to keep it as a hypothesis is fine, but its made to be more than that.
much like the problem of proof of god, it would seem to me like it would not be possible to prove that singularities exist without resorting to quite large assumptions. not that I'm religious but I would find it more palatable to believe in a god (especially ceiling cat) than a singularity which i believe is the result of a mathematical divide by zero error. as an engineer i know to avoid these errors. I can give an example if you like.
anyway, to resort to a bent time space field is like an engineer bending his ruler because he is so sure his piece of metal is straight. its a drastic step to take just because we can not make the maths work otherwise.
Again though the problem is, where there is a lack of evidence a deity should not automatically be assumed. I have the same incredulity of the universe as anyone else religious or not. I, however, prefer to look at studies of the universe and everything within it, look at the evidence and find out how things are. You are arguing for a god of the gaps.
Of course there are lots of gaps in our knowledge this is perfectly true. Science tries to fill those gaps, and because the knowledge we gain is progressive there will always be more questions asked as answered. Because you see no evidence doesn't mean a) there isn't any b) a deity did it.
The big bang does not explain what is outside the universe, it never has and never will, the theory is not trying to answer that question. So far all the evidence, both observed and theoretical points to an expanding universe, indeed whether it is expanding, contracting or stagnant has been debated for decades, the latest information says it's expanding and the universe will eventually evaporate.
Now then, as more information is gathered and learnt that view may change, and theres nothing wrong with that because that's what science is, it learns from itself and makes sure the models fit the evidence.
There have been speculations on what's outside the universe, maybe its too big a question for mere mortals like ourselves with lowly degrees, maybe it's because of our personal incredulity that we struggle with such quesyions without doing 25yrs research on the matter, but that's by the by. Science cannot answer all questions at once, because simply there is not all the evidence in the universe yet gathered, but science tries its hardest to gather it. It may never be done but along the way it will give you the best most probable answers according to the evidence gathered.
Read again occams razor, read again experts interpretation of that phrase. I find it a bit insulting that i am accused of using strawmen whence the playing of somantics by yourself is particularly gross.
I shall explain. the teapot or spaghetti monster is an analogy of all religions that claim there is an all powerful being somehwere within (or without) the universe. it requires exactly the same amount of evidence as does god, allah, zeus, apollo, wotan, zoroastra, vishnu and any other deity you care to mention. The spaghetti monster is designed to show the absurdity and weakness of the human mind to be able to compartmentalise itself between critical thinking and absurd blind faith based on nothing but feelings and the tautology of others.
With your questions about what is outside the universe, the simple truth is, we don't know. That's what science says, it does not say, well obviously theres a god, there is a huge difference between the rational thinking view and belief view. Surely then the same question arises when you want to invoke a deity; who created god? and so on.
Would it be correct to question who created god and who create him...ad nauseum or would you look for evidence on whether the universe has an "oustide" by trying to find out its shape, or by finding out how big and old it is, or by finding dark matter or gravity waves or looking ald qusars etc etc etc. All these things can help answer your simple "whats outside the universe" question.
Please do not compare science to a religion, they are opposed, it is common for some people to think that science is a belief system, it is not. If they did we would still be thinking women had to be married and have babies or they would die (a common belief in the 16th century), or that we are balanced by the 4 humours.
there is a fundamental difference between science and religion, and i say again, that difference is based on physical and empirical evidence, it is not based on nothing.
Meow you're clearly an intelligent person, i cannot for one minute believe that you really believe half the things youve written in rebuttal. Circualar arguments and strawmen and gap finding aside i admire the openmindedness, however, i feel a bit of the "devil's advocate" coming through.
I don't think i'll bleet on much more about this as we are off topic and going round in circles. I just hope that when one looks at the stars or a planet, or at an animal that they don't think everything was put here some 8000yrs or so in its current form, that everything humans have achieved is because some deity decided so. Religion offers us so little in terms of gaining knowledge and if the resurgence actually takes hold i pitty for the human race, i really do.
much like the problem of proof of god, it would seem to me like it would not be possible to prove that singularities exist without resorting to quite large assumptions. not that I'm religious but I would find it more palatable to believe in a god (especially ceiling cat) than a singularity which i believe is the result of a mathematical divide by zero error. as an engineer i know to avoid these errors. I can give an example if you like.
anyway, to resort to a bent time space field is like an engineer bending his ruler because he is so sure his piece of metal is straight. its a drastic step to take just because we can not make the maths work otherwise.
I understand there is a paper released a few weeks ago discussing the evidence gained from one of the new orbiting telescopes showing that the event horizon of a black hole can be observed. You do realise that a singularity cannot be observed, but the event horizon can? THE BLACK HOLE MASS, STELLAR M/L, AND DARK HALO IN M87
by definition the singularity cannot be observed because all information is lost and because from the point of view outside the event horizon everything takes an infinite amount of time to fall in.
what you say is quite good, however I'm not arguing for a god, as I don't believe in one, at least not a deity. I am arguing that its just simply wrong to use science to argue against it. further reading of Einsteins is quite interesting, he apparently got angry at people using his writings to argue against god.
I think anyone who did have faith would be far too appalled at the things said here to comment.
again, with regard to the god of the gaps, if you know anyone religious and have talked to them about it without upsetting them, which seems unlikely, then you will learn that religion is virtually nothing to do with god of the gaps.
I still think my points are valid in that there are areas of science where the evidence is so thin that it totally weakens science if it is put forward as anything more than conjecture - especially in this sort of debate. but its not science itself that is like religion - thats not what i meant or what i think I said, but that some people treat it like a religion, obviously specifically in these grey areas.
yes yes yes I'm all aware of the available evidence with regard to the so called singularity or rather black hole, and its nothing that requires a great leap of faith that the escape velocity can exceed the speed of light - 3x10^8 m/s which gives rise to an event horizon and causes the blackness of a black hole, its only 1.1x10^4 m/s here on earth, but these things simply do not count as evidence of singularities which is specifically where the dimensions of mass fall completely to zero and the density becomes infinite. black holes are visible, by their blackness, but the dimensions of their insides is not visible, their mass is measurable too by the velocity of the stars at the centre, and its even visible evidence of stars falling into black holes, but again there is no evidence of the internal dimensions.
oh and by the way, I suggest you update yourself on the status of the theory of black holes , Mr Hawking's finally recanted on the total loss of information admitting that this did not fit the available evidence.
like I said its pure conjecture once you extrapolate a graph beyond established data points, extrapolating a graph to the point of infinity is absolutely incredibly foolish IMO.
consider the case of classical mechanics where it worked fine until it became possible to test it beyond the speeds which were possible at the time it was developed - once you start to go really real really fast you have to make adjustments.
going way beyond tested data points is,,, well,,, untested !
even extrapolating a graph to zero has actually proved to be a mistaken assumption. even when all the evidence makes it look like a perfectly straight line to zero. when you get close enough or actually to zero it might be a tiny offset which with regard to singularity no longer gives you a divide by zero error or infinite mass.
my assertion of self supporting (or more correctly circular) argument is valid. using Occam's razor here fits the description of false logic :-
if you claim Occam's razor is the proof that god does not exist, then if you test the validity of Occam's razor you find the only proof that Occam's razor is valid is Occam's razor itself. a totally circular argument. the fact that Occam's razor has been right in the past is not actually proof that it will be in any case. it fails totally to be valid when used here.
a circular argument is not valid science.
the teapot example also fits the description of strawman argument - it fits it very well in fact, although i thoroughly enjoyed it.
Quote:
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
your tea pot god is this superficially similar proposition, the "straw man".
I'm sorry if it seems gross to say these things but i believe them to be true.
I hope what I said isn't gross as such, but I do find it quite annoying the way people try and use science to argue this debate. i find it more offencive than the Jehovah's witnesses who call once a month or so. especially since faith is something personal, and any attack on their faith is a personal attack, and can upset people so much if they actually lose their faith. I think the problem is that the sort of people who get so into science sometimes do so because they have a gift in that area but perhaps have less ability in the area of inter personal expertise.
just simply stating things as if they were fact or stating arguments are valid or invalid is not doing any good for science in the science v religion debate, as it is this attitude of having absolute wisdom which lets religion down.
to try and argue god cant possibly exist is just as wrong as to try and argue it does exist. in fact maybe more so in my opinion at least in some respects.
I'm also surprised at you as you also seem an intelligent person, however I do actually understand your position, having myself been spoon fed science for so long, i finally spat the spoon out and had an objective view myself.
being in geology is much more visible your probably not likely to feel the need to question it.
first read of the abstract i didn't get a word of it, i don't have an account so couldn't see the full article.
however it seems they are measuring the light coming from galaxies and calculating the mass from rotational speeds. both of which are fine to me.
then assuming that the mass to light ratio is constant - any discrepancy is assumed to be a black hole. this is one hell of a bloody big assumption if you ask me !
but as long as its kept in mind thats all this is then thats fine by me also.
what I object to is the use of this as further evidence of singularities or even black holes.
maybe there is confusion between the terms black hole and singularity - particularly in the media that reports on these things.
Last edited by meow; 25-09-2009 at 13:41..
Reason: cat got too close to the event horizon !
and the real point is here that 150 years or 2k years is actually pretty irrelevant - you simply judge things on their own merit. I sometimes challenge dogma in science in engineering too. ie like the argument of top down or bottom up software design or the use of combinatorial logic or sequential logic in digital electronics.
the universe is interesting but its also quite big - its easy to get lost in its intricacies, you have to ask yourself what point there is in spending a lifetime looking for answers which probably wont be provable anyway or even be useful apart from making discovery programs before you embark on such a task.
I'm amazed at the amount Einstein has written, hes commented that to be able to make progress you have to concentrate on smaller and smaller areas of science and even for 25 years studying it is impossible to be at the forefront of one field and have a sufficiently good knowledge of other disciplines to maintain a sufficiently broad based view of the universe.
but if you want to start a universe thread ,,,
what is also interesting is the time when religion took hold, I just cant imagine the same thing happening again today. well not on the same scale anyway.
star trek might not materialise in our lifetime so we wont be able to go warping around the universe to investigate it, the fact that its set in the 25 century maybe worth keeping an eye on who knows,,,
science does correct itself when necessary, but IMO this should be thought of as a failure, obviously the case of classical mechanics was a valid case of well tried and tested theory, it still works today in the limits of what was testable then. we need to be able to rely on science, you cant do this if its likely to be thrown out in 10 years.
science does correct itself when necessary, but IMO this should be thought of as a failure, obviously the case of classical mechanics was a valid case of well tried and tested theory, it still works today in the limits of what was testable then. we need to be able to rely on science, you cant do this if its likely to be thrown out in 10 years.
I would argue against it being a failure though.
In the case of classical mechanics, someone somehow still had to make the discovery or theory and test it, i am fairly sure that there were some catastrophic failures along the way (see the first pyramids, and lifting gear through the ages). Using the above rationale, why didnt the egyptians build using large pneumatic cranes or tower cranes? I do not think you could argue that when theres a correction in either science, mechanics, electronics theory that that is a failure of itself. You simply cannot begin with a final product.
There are certain principles which hold true which is why we can send probes to the planets with a certain degree of accuracy, and why we have satellite communication. If something else is found then adjustments are made, that not a failure, even if a theory is found to be utterly false then that is not a failure it means one less red herring. Just like Sherlock Holmes said, "if you eliminate the impossible whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth"
I reckon we are so off topic now its probably requiring a new thread, i shall say no more on the subject
I meant classical mechanics was an example of when its OK for science to be updated/corrected as it was very well tested and still respected today - quantum mechanics is really an extension for very fast speeds or very heavy objects.
the point I was trying to make was the output of science is supposed to be factual -
like any manufacturer every time something is recalled for change it erodes confidence of future releases depending on how wrong it was.
the theories about what the Egyptians did use to build pyramids are extraordinarily imaginative lol.
I guess its too much to hope this has argued this topic to death now,,,
im not getting into this as i woudl be at it for weeks
im a firm believer that we were put here. i somewhat believe in the annunaki/greys and other cellestial beings. i cud write a whole load of Waows here but wud open myself for debate, but will leave u with this
the genome projetc has identified that we, especially among races are 2-3% different through DNA as apposed to the 99.99%. we are as different from each other as we are chimps. also we cud not of evolved from hominid type apes to humans in the space of 400k years
i dont believe in a god, but believe in the intelligent design, as god was just an alien.
Lol, just read through 1st page actually. seems like most of u are giving over ur answers thought philosophicaly up in ur head, although it may show intellect it doesn't show fact
it will give u all doubt. i cant say ur all wrong, but u need to work with facts.
also do some research into enki/enlil/anu and along with the sumerians
fact > sumer was where christianity has come from. through years is misinterpretation and sotry telling it has evolved into the bible, which is blindy acclaimed by numpties
and as for going on about the pyramids, search for baalbek lol ull be amazed. also pyramids are functions in them that contain astro qualities, deep shafts reflectin to a certain place. its an alien navigational system for mines just like cydonia of mars
We are here, how did we get here, some say god made us... some say we evolved, there is more evidence that we evolved.
sorry but there is very little evidence that we evolved at all, the missing link being the greatest, we somehow skipped evolution, indicatig that we were created. watch this m8 might interest u
hey food fro thought. every ancient religion mentions giant reptilian beings. yes interpretations of words were different back then and would be true that they were just used as a metaphor of somesort IF it was just 1 or 2 religions, but too much of a coincidence for all of them to mention this. do ur own research also the aincient mayans knew of pluto that we didnt discover till 1930, and planet eris (planet x/nibiru) that we didnt discover till 1983. alien obductions, under hypnosis hav reported stories of taller than average humans with beautfil reptilian faces. also has showed hypnosis of the greys. on countless of people. aliens hav to be true, too many stories with relevence to each other to dismiss it as bull. if aliens visited earth during early years, we wud obviously say they were gods.
also nasa lied about nibiru planet sayin its an icey dwarf planet, wen infact SOHO images show its much larger and nearing us. proff of a cover up. just speculated more lies hav been told.
jeez uve got me all started. ye u may think aliens hav no relevance to the topic title, but they are the basis behind both religion and science. science is just a study of, cant even say truth, a study of facts.
as for christianity, its a bunch of bull. but if it gets u thro the day and keeps u peace at heart. keeps a place for all those feelings and merits and principals u hav. believe me they will still be no different without god. u will still feel love. that thing u feel u think is god is actually ur conscience, chemical reactions that uve delluded urself with lies from a book written, copied more times than any1 care to imagine. sum1 said earlier about u all needing to be reformed about ur stupidity, i agree. u believe in something u know very little about. u dont know the truth of the origins of christianity, so why believe in something that has no truth? ahh because god speaks to u. yea and i hav sleep paralyses where i see vivid demonic images in my room at night. figment of imagination, delusions of the mind. i dont start caling the excorsist or ghost busters. if it werent for religion we wud hav no dark age and technology wud be 800 years more advanced.
religion chops and changes its story every few years about something, and dismisses and arguement against it. religion controlled science at 1 point, and got everything wrong XD light spectrum is prime example. "you shall worship no other gods" god said, but b4 that he said he is the only god, contradiction!. the dead sea scrolls interpret jesus to be a man. from a virgin no,
"The custom of the Essenes was, some men in their ranks must marry, those who must continue their blood lines. The highest Essenes had no sex because it was considered sinful, but the men on their second order left the monastery to cohabit with their wives from time to time, the woman in such marriages had the status of a "Nun", the name of a nun in the Hellenistic world was a "virgin", it meant both, when a woman was physically a virgin and a dedicated woman. The marriage had stages, first there was the vow of dedication, then there was a bethrodal period were they should stay apart for as long as possible (no sex). Next, there was a wedding with a trial period of three years were sex was allowed, if the woman became pregnant after the trial period, there was a second wedding and this was for good, for there was going to be a child and divorce was not permitted by the Essenes."
meaning..
"Mary was bethroded to Joseph, during the trial period, they had sex and she became pregnant. It says in the new testament that if a man has a virgin, let them marry. So we see that it was a play of words that was used to mention the "virgin birth", because Mary was still legally in the status of a virgin when she became pregnant."
ur religion has been proven wrong in many ways its laughable. there isnt any evidence supporting ur claims wot so ever (for the common concept of christanity). most followers arent even educated in religion, jsut ignorant fools looking for a quick fix to the meaning of life to giv content to their small naive brains.
Linear Mode
