Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm

Status
Not open for further replies.
slayerment said:
It's a shame that so many people think that the church teachings are Biblical teachings. Can we cut the bullshit and simply talk about the actual text of the Bible? Can we leave out the religious misrepresentations and for once actually discuss the subject matter? Or does actually reading and thinking about the Bible require too much work for this dumbed down world?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am a Christian and the "church" annoys the hell out of me - as I've grown in my faith I've gotten less and less out of church and more and more out of my own personal studies\studies with other folks. Many many many churches have turned into just money grubbing whorehouses with their only purpose being making people feel good (hence the comparison to a whorehouse) Pisses me off.

Eli - personally I've read Revelations a couple times but honestly I don't understand it. I pretty much just don't concern myself with it because there are so many different ways it could be taken that it makes my head hurt. I'd rather concentrate on things that make sense to me in my daily life. Been a few years since I've read it, might be time to give it another read and see if it makes more sense now.
 


Rusky said:
3:25 "Now thats not evidence, thats just an argument" Did you get the disclosure.
Take away freon from a fridge and its a closet(not all that useless after all). Great argument.
Click to expand...

You're supporting the argument. The fridge becomes a closet, or storage chest, or whatever.

What's your argument anyway? That no evidence either way = creator?
 
blueRAP said:
You're supporting the argument. The fridge becomes a closet, or storage chest, or whatever.

What's your argument anyway? That no evidence either way = creator?
Click to expand...

Intelligent design claims that some designs were too complex for evolution, and the way to prove this is it to remove parts from a complex system and it should become completely non-functional, since evolution can't create complex designs if the whole becomes non-functional missing even one part.

But as shown in the video earlier, you can remove 40 parts of the flagellum bacterium and still have a perfectly functional system with just 10 of the parts, thus debunking intelligent design advocate's poster child.

The refrigerator argument was a way of dumbing it down or layman.

In the end, you could debunk every evidence of intelligent design, but those of faith will probably just end up claiming that evolution itself was the intelligent design created by God.
 
if I recall jesus only went to church 3 times in his adult life and one time included trashing the place in a fit of rage. so if that gives any insight on whether u should be judging god based on things the churches say and do.
 
Deliguy said:
if I recall jesus only went to church 3 times in his adult life and one time included trashing the place in a fit of rage. so if that gives any insight on whether u should be judging god based on things the churches say and do.
Click to expand...

Ancient folklore even claimed he pushed a friend off the top of a house, then bought him back to life to ask him if he pushed him off when people were outraged at his action. (course what the fuck you gona say to someone who not only just killed you but bought you back if he committed the act...)

You seriously have to ask yourself if after two thousand years how much of the original context has been lost in the bible... not like it matters too much as I know most self proclaimed christians don't even seem to follow their own teaching.
 
kblessinggr said:
Intelligent design claims that some designs were too complex for evolution, and the way to prove this is it to remove parts from a complex system and it should become completely non-functional, since evolution can't create complex designs if the whole becomes non-functional missing even one part.

But as shown in the video earlier, you can remove 40 parts of the flagellum bacterium and still have a perfectly functional system with just 10 of the parts, thus debunking intelligent design advocate's poster child.

The refrigerator argument was a way of dumbing it down or layman.

In the end, you could debunk every evidence of intelligent design, but those of faith will probably just end up claiming that evolution itself was the intelligent design created by God.
Click to expand...

My bad, my comment was directed towards Rusky. I agree with everything you said.

Back to Rusky.. and his Ben Stein video. lol

Ben Stein is ignorant, and a liar.

Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.

When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was still the working title for the movie when the scientists were interviewed.
Click to expand...
from Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...: Scientific American

Stein's ignorance explained here:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg"]YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 22)[/ame]
 
Rusky, I don't know how we got from non-life to life. The process is called abiogenesis, and while there are some possibilities, we just don't know for sure. It's not something I've looked into much so I won't try to BS anything. But your approach of finding a hole in our knowledge and thinking that somehow discredits natural explanation and supports a supernatural intervention is flawed thinking. That's essentially saying "we don't know the explanation, so here's the explanation."

If you go back in time far enough before we knew the explanations to things, your "point out the holes" approach could have been applied to anything we didn't know yet. And you would have been wrong then, just like you likely are now.

Given the right point in time, you could have made the exact same argument about human birth. How does sex ultimately produce a living human out of seemingly nothing? Some arrogant scientists who want to stick science in every hole have some theory about microscopic swimming things inside a man's testicles that can magically turn into people. Man, what an atheistic approach to something that's obviously the work of God, right?

Or disease. Those atheistic scientists who will do anything to keep God out of things want to tell us it's magical little things floating around the air that we can't see. Get real!

Now they want to tell us that we've evolved from simpler organisms. You can go with your "holes" way of thinking and take the slow train along with the .2% or so of earth & life scientists who accept creationism, or you can start thinking about what we do know and join in with reality.

This is not the work of one flood.
 
at blue rap and kbless

Ken Millers argument ( I always thought he would make a great sales man )
Heres his points.
-Irreducible Complexity claims an organ needs all components to function.
-The components of organs have their own functions when separated.
-Irreducible Complexity is therefore wrong because it predicts the components if separated have no function.
-Therefore Darwinian evolution is the answer.

IC actually doesn't state that separate components of the flagellum cant have other function, if separated from the organ.
Were talking about BASIC SYSTEM FUNCTION.
When we say removing any of the parts causes the system to fail. Were talking about the intended function of the actual organ. Not weather different parts can be utilized in other organs. Big Difference.
 
Gablablah said:
Now they want to tell us that we've evolved from simpler organisms. You can go with your "holes" way of thinking and take the slow train along with the .2% or so of earth & life scientists who accept creationism, or you can start thinking about what we do know and join in with reality.

This is not the work of one flood.
Click to expand...

How did you come up with that figure. Dont help yourself to the pie. Most scientists - wont say nothing (its not a democracy get real). You guys just love making up outrages numbers and figures.

Heres an article. %79 of Doctors believe in God.
Survey: Most doctors believe in God, afterlife - Health care- msnbc.com
 
Rusky said:
IC actually doesn't state that separate components of the flagellum cant have other function, if separated from the organ.
Were talking about BASIC SYSTEM FUNCTION.
When we say removing any of the parts causes the system to fail. Were talking about the intended function of the actual organ. Not weather different parts can be utilized in other organs. Big Difference.
Click to expand...

If I weren't so tired I'd go back and re-read some of the claims, but any who this sounds like a classic deflector, making an argument remain valid, by later refining the criterias so they don't include anything that would invalidate the original argument.
 
Rusky said:
"480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science""

Thats funny.

Read the one about Doctors pretty interesting how %79 believe in God. Its actually resent.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say recent. But it wouldn't really surprise me much since most of the world have some form of religious belief. Also the profession "doctors" can cover a much broader spectrum of science which may not even require any opinion regarding theoretical or philosophical science. Course that being said, "scientist" is pretty damn broad too.
 
Why does every religious thread derail into an evolution/creationism argument?

Going back to the original post, does anyone have a source for this 'equation that could only be solved by modern computers' ?. or any of the other stuff in the first post for that matter..
 
IronLogik said:
Bill Maher said it nice...

If there's anything I hate more than prophecy, it's self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes a single word from that fucking moron Bill Maher is dumber than the entire collective of scientologists...

Maher is a closet homo who hates he fact he has to sell himself out to simply make a living being a pretentious cunt on a shitty cable network.
 
Deliguy said:
if I recall jesus only went to church 3 times in his adult life and one time included trashing the place in a fit of rage. so if that gives any insight on whether u should be judging god based on things the churches say and do.
Click to expand...

The gospels are not a day to day account of Jesus' life. As a Jew, I'm pretty confident that he would have been at temple a LOT more than 3 times.
 
kblessinggr said:
In the end, you could debunk every evidence of intelligent design, but those of faith will probably just end up claiming that evolution itself was the intelligent design created by God.
Click to expand...


If they were smart, they would. I honestly don't know why more creationists don't do this. I've tried to give them an out by doing this very thing. If someone where to say that yes of course evolution is how we got to where we are today, but that that was "God's plan" then what could I say....?

(Besides, HA! HA! YOU WORSHIP A GIANT FAIRY!)
 
You can loosely connect loads of predictions from thousands of years ago with modern life but it's besides the point, the amount of predictions which haven't come true or have been falsified outweighs those by a metric shit-tonne*... When predictions are made which don't come true we call them ridiculous, when a few happen to come true it's the gospel.

*not a real measurement

I'll try and remind myself to read The Book of Revelations.

turbolapp said:
If they were smart, they would. I honestly don't know why more creationists don't do this. I've tried to give them an out by doing this very thing. If someone where to say that yes of course evolution is how we got to where we are today, but that that was "God's plan" then what could I say....?

(Besides, HA! HA! YOU WORSHIP A GIANT FAIRY!)
Click to expand...

You could say 'prove it'. The burden of proof is on the suggestor. It's up to religious people to prove their outrageous claims, and of course they can't even give one piece of evidence.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHH-Pj2Umyc"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom