I hope you guys don't believe Jesus was born from a virgin mother? Thats so retarded can't see how people buy that garbage.
Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm
- Thread starter Deliguy
- Start date
- Status
I look at God as a Designer, a Coder, and the ultimate Artist. Much different view from what Hollywood makes believe.
Just because we cant get past the moon (even our own deep oceans for that matter), it doesn't mean there inst a more complex civilization out there. Its a big universe - were just a tiny speck - so dont convince yourself like you know everything.
Just because we cant get past the moon (even our own deep oceans for that matter), it doesn't mean there inst a more complex civilization out there. Its a big universe - were just a tiny speck - so dont convince yourself like you know everything.
You believe that life came from non life. Whats the difference. I'm sure mathematically, the virgin thing has better probability.
Hey. Don't diss Mary. She was the smartest woman in history. She got knocked up. Lived in a time where they stoned women to death for such things. Thought, hmmm how do I get out of this? Immaculate conception, of course!
And the rest is delusional history.
And the rest is delusional history.
and her boyfriend still stuck around! haha
I heard she had one hell of a baby shower though
tl:dr, but I'd like to make a couple of points that may or may not have been covered here.
Some of you talked about spontaneous creation and what not. That's not how I think it went down. But let me give you something to think about:
(please criticize the logic behind the argument, not the argument itself, cause it's gonna be thin)
In an unlimited sample over an infinite period of time every single possible outcome will occur at least once. This, I think, have been the basis of a lot of creation theories in a nutshell. However, statistical research on large numbers show that they behave differently. I can't reference that, cause I can't remember where I read it, but it doesn't matter.
I don't think statistical research account very well for mutations as a result of decay in complex combinations(don't know how to explain it text book style, but you get my point), which is pretty much the basis of evolution.
Claiming that something will never happen because it is unlikely is what I call arrogant (ref my previous comment in this thread).
The guy behind the resonance project (youtube. Way too long to watch if you're making money) talked about the Coriolis Effect. The way I see it, the feedback begins and ends when matter meets antimatter. If that is the case, then it opens up another "layer" of endless possibilities when it comes to the creation of life.
So to sum up my incoherent argument and possibly make it easier to understand, you can think of it this way: Unlimited test sample = (near) endless possibilities, infinite time + mutations = (near) endless possibilities & Coriolis Effect or similar + time and space = life?
Some of you talked about spontaneous creation and what not. That's not how I think it went down. But let me give you something to think about:
(please criticize the logic behind the argument, not the argument itself, cause it's gonna be thin)
In an unlimited sample over an infinite period of time every single possible outcome will occur at least once. This, I think, have been the basis of a lot of creation theories in a nutshell. However, statistical research on large numbers show that they behave differently. I can't reference that, cause I can't remember where I read it, but it doesn't matter.
I don't think statistical research account very well for mutations as a result of decay in complex combinations(don't know how to explain it text book style, but you get my point), which is pretty much the basis of evolution.
Claiming that something will never happen because it is unlikely is what I call arrogant (ref my previous comment in this thread).
The guy behind the resonance project (youtube. Way too long to watch if you're making money) talked about the Coriolis Effect. The way I see it, the feedback begins and ends when matter meets antimatter. If that is the case, then it opens up another "layer" of endless possibilities when it comes to the creation of life.
So to sum up my incoherent argument and possibly make it easier to understand, you can think of it this way: Unlimited test sample = (near) endless possibilities, infinite time + mutations = (near) endless possibilities & Coriolis Effect or similar + time and space = life?
Must suck living life day to day knowing that you are no different than the dog taking a shit on the lawn next door. Must suck knowing that your life really means shit and that your death is the absolute end to your existence.
Why must athiest see everything black and white?
Sucks to be you!
If I thought we could have a conversation about it I would indeed talk to you about it. As it is though, your mouth is so firmly encircled around his cock it'd be nothing but a mumble we'd all hear from you during the discussion.
If Maher is your golden calf and you believe any of the bullshit he vomits, then fuck dude, I have a pretty good idea about what you'd say.
<peanuts teacher />
define: virgin - a person who has never had sex
Asexual reproduction happens every day in nature for many less complex animals. I realize that's a stretch and the church would never officially endorse the concept of Mary being a freak. For our discussion, is it really that unreasonable to believe that a human could mutate like that? Some would call it a miracle ... others might call it evolution.
If you consider artificial insemination, ANY virgin can have a baby today. Much like a big ass HPS to grow plants on the earth instead of requiring a sun ... if we've got the technology to make this happen, so does God.
It seems that God creating the entire universe would be a bit harder to believe than something as trivial as a virgin birth.
Popeye's never been known to concern himself with ingratiation.
Discovery channel Australia busted some religious myths a few weeks ago. Didn't watch it all, but you know if it's on the Discovery channel it's gotta be true. Right?
I find the concept of organized religion very fascinating. Any psychology whiz care to explain to all the steadfast believers in here what happens when someone tries to go against their core beliefs? I think they will try to dismiss the information totally without trying to internalize it and then attack and discredit the source of the information. This is why religions still thrive.
Don't get me wrong, though. I think religion is an excellent way of passing knowledge from generation to generation, and that there is still a need for such an institution in today's society even though we have the school system and information technology.
I find the concept of organized religion very fascinating. Any psychology whiz care to explain to all the steadfast believers in here what happens when someone tries to go against their core beliefs? I think they will try to dismiss the information totally without trying to internalize it and then attack and discredit the source of the information. This is why religions still thrive.
Don't get me wrong, though. I think religion is an excellent way of passing knowledge from generation to generation, and that there is still a need for such an institution in today's society even though we have the school system and information technology.
the man is still irrelevant, i promise you.
had i lied and attributed the words to Einstein, you wouldn't have said a peep, and popeye would've gotten a chubby from the sheer authority of an Einstein quote.
i actually made a short website compilation regarding the new world order and several conspiracy theories. see sig.
I remember watching something similar but I think it was the opposite. They would take certain events such as knocking down the walls of jericho with sound waves and stuff and try to prove them correct. It was pretty retarded though cus they would make small scale models like of the red sea parting and blast air from an airhose as if it was wind and showing that yeah water can part exactly like it said in the bible. Except they never mentioned that scaled up those airhose winds would be like 600 mph and disintegrate all the people trying to walk across. I remember them leaving at least one lil' bit of scaling information out of nearly every experiment they did. pfft.
That's funny - you don't think its hateful for Turbo to call somebody who is revered by many as a pivotal figure in Christianity as 'delusional'? It's not hateful for her to call Mary a liar by insinuating that she invented the concept of the Immaculate Conception?
She attacked your religion NOT you. That's the difference between what he said and she said.
I'm not saying that qualified as against the rules because i know turbo can dish it just as much as she can take it, but its borderline. The courteous thing to do would be to not take each others religious beliefs so seriously that you feel the need to abuse them personally. We're trying to have a friendly debate here.
Some people believe that the immaculate conception story may have originated with Mary claiming it so she wouldn't be stoned to death for fucking outside of marriage. I've heard archeologists speculate on this.
So maybe the "virgin" mary was really a dirty little cum dumpster?
So maybe the "virgin" mary was really a dirty little cum dumpster?
- Status