What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
216 Comments
- acroyear2, on 10/01/2009, -5/+49Having watched the Richard Dawkin's documentary on Darwin, I believe the creationist would say, "Show it to me." and then we would say, "There it is." and they would say, "No it's not."
The end. - ocean17, on 10/01/2009, -8/+44Ok creationists, what's the take on this one?
- DFutureIsNow, on 10/01/2009, -6/+24Oh Noez Sarah Palins Book "Going Whore" Chapter on "Creationism" just went up in flames
- sexualwasabi, on 10/01/2009, -8/+24Creationist need to leave the internet for the smart people, lol!
- StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -2/+17"Too bad because one day you will. "
LOL! You religious types crack me up with your doom and gloom predictions based on bronze age superstitions you have absolutely no knowledge about the veracity of.
"Yet He still manages to love us that He was willing to die for us so that we may know this Truth"
If God KNEW he was going to live forever, that he couldn't REALLY die, how was dying any sacrifice at all? Besides, He's God, why was a sacrifice necessary in the first place? Who demanded a sacrifice but himself!
Hey guys, because I love you SOOO MUCH, I'm going to forgive a debt I forced you to owe me when I created you (perfectly, I'm awesome after all) with flaws.
Have you ever even thought the least bit critically about these things? - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -2/+16"You do it on faith. I take my belief in God on faith"
Nope, not faith. I do it because they can make testable predictions - thats called evidence. You can't test any of your predictions. So you have no way of knowing if you are right. I do. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. The only Faith I have is that my senses aren't lying to me about the world, and if they are lying to me about the world, they are lying to you as well and everything YOU believe could also be a lie. Suppose that the Bible and stories of Christ something placed there by a despotic agent to direct you AWAY from the truth. You have no way of knowing, yet you have FAITH. Wow.
The difference being I can make predictions about the world that turn out to be right more often than not, and yours are indistinguishable from a guess. - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -2/+16He has physical evidence. You don't. Round 1 to him. Your move. Provide evidence of God or accept that your belief is foundation-less.
- brickwall99, on 10/01/2009, -5/+18I hope the increasing percentage of rational thinking non-religious people on digg is indicative of the real world too.
- nullcodes, on 10/01/2009, -4/+17I was told creationism was scientific, not religious (creationists claim it btw). Which religion did he attack? Evolution is quite compatible with many top religions .. including Catholicism according to the Pope.
- KnowMad1982, on 10/01/2009, -2/+14So "irrational" is to follow science (evidence), as opposed to believing whatever your priest tells you based a book written by men who thought the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that were not aware of the existence of germs or atoms or bacteria, and that women who had premarital sex deserved to be murdered?
To quote a great poet: "Im not an *****, Im just a little confused"
The burden of proof is on the believers... - Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -3/+15Abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution. The same argument can be said about God. God is so complex he must have had a creator etc.
- KnowMad1982, on 10/01/2009, -1/+13PROVE IT.
The burden of proof lies with those that claim the existence of (God, Tooth Fairy, Boogie Man, Zeus, Talking Snakes, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Purple People Eaters, Santa Claus, Superman, Jesus, Set, the Lawnmower Man, Christ-like Christians, Dragons, Poseidon, the Easter Bunny, etc, etc)
Otherwise, you can believe in whatever gets you through the day... Just dont claim to know all the answers without providing ANY proof besides your own overwhelming, yet entirely irrational faith. - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -2/+13"I was once a steady non-believer and found it made no sense"
Because you found evidence for belief? Or you just picked something that made you feel better.
"then why do we hold to tenants of good vs evil, right vs wrong? "
Because when we don't, we tend to kill each other off.
"He demands sacrifice from us because that is the only way of showing that you are not only for yourself. "
I'm not only for myself, but I don't owe it to anyone to demonstrate that, and GOD already has everything He could want and Knows what I am. There's no need for sacrifice. Never could have been. Demanding sacrifice to rescue people from flaws you created in them, and supposedly love is the actions of a passive-aggressive despot, not a deity. 'Don't make me hurt you. Appease me!'
"But what will it cost you if you are wrong? In my case, nothing..."
Costs me nothing either. I started with nothing, I go to nothing. If God wants to play games with me, thats his prerogative, but He built me with a brain, and I intend to use it and not believe crap out of unevidenced fears. There are an infinite number of things I could worry about, this one has nothing to recommend it.
You may well be damned if you are worshiping the wrong God. Yet you don't worry about THAT. Its no different than me not worrying about what YOUR God is going to do to me after death. - openingsound, on 10/01/2009, -5/+16that doesnt look human
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/01/2009, -2/+13@lozeerose
"If we were truly a product of chaos, then why do we hold to tenants of good vs evil, right vs wrong?"
We are not a product of chaos, we are a product of chemical interactions. We have concepts of good and evil because, as social animals, such concepts give our species an advantage as a group, and allow the group to act in a cohesive manner for the betterment of the species as a whole. - Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -0/+11I cannot tell if you are being serious or not. These threads can be very confusing some times.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/01/2009, -2/+13@lozeerose
"You believe in a scientist's opinion..."
Given that this opinion is formulated based on objective, empirical evidence, and is undergoing peer review, this is not "faith", but confidence in careful procedures and collection of evidence. The two thought processes are not interchangeable, grammatically or physically.
"(theories are not proven because once proven they are fact..."
Are you serious? Another person who doesn't understand the difference between a layman's theory and a scientific theory? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.
The rest of your diatribe is essentially a "faith in science" argument. Let’s review: It’s self-evident that when I do a physics lab assignment and test out Newton’s laws, I don’t have to have faith. I make observations which either correspond with the laws or they don’t. If I’m unsure, I can ask someone else to observe with me. If we both find a discrepancy, either I made a mistake in my procedure, or I’ve discovered a new property of matter. At the risk of being highly tedious and pedantic, let me just reiterate what I mean: confidence in careful procedures and collection of evidence is not the same as faith in the supernatural, for which there exists no objective, empirical evidence. This equivocation is just a deep-seated portion of the immune system of the theistic memeplex. - eir574, on 10/01/2009, -1/+12"Uh.. bateria isn't living."
Now that must certainly prove that Jessica is trolling. - Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -1/+12If we are a reflection of Gods image. Then I personally do not ever want to meet the guy.
- pussnuts, on 10/01/2009, -2/+13I think what he's saying is that you don't get to have it both ways. Either creationism is a scientific theory or it's a religious belief. If it's a scientific theory then the first post was not a religious jab. If creationism is a religious belief then tell those millions of idiots to keep this ***** out of the classrooms where science, not religion, is taught.
- Iwantawii, on 10/01/2009, -2/+12I'm surprised that the hand-like feet, which can be used for grasping, weren't favored during evolution. Must have been for running speed/agility as we came out of the trees, or else higher weighted traits carried the human foot evolution along with them.
- Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -1/+11@lozeerose Pick up some Nietchze and you will see why we have the concepts of Good vs evil etc.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/01/2009, -2/+11We didn't evolve from monkeys - modern man and modern monkeys had a common monkey/ape-like ancestor.
Evolution is directly observable, repeatable, and testable. It isn't a joke, it is a fact. - dgoshilla, on 10/01/2009, -4/+13Great in depth article about Ardi.
- Nairebis, on 10/01/2009, -3/+12The same take as always. In the immortal words of that annoying Christian bumper sticker:
"The bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+10"Examine "all" evidence and then make your own judgments. But remember to examine the evidence without prejudice and you will find truth."
I'm sure you expect me to find YOUR truth. Sorry.
I did examine all the evidence. I read the origin of the Bible, read its history, how it was compiled and edited from folk tales (see the Nicene council, the Aryan heresy, the Gnostic heresies, the Gospel of Bartholomew), and compared it to many other savior myths. In conclusion, your deity and his stories were invented by men just as the Book of Mormon, Scientology, Hinduism, Zoroastriansim and many others were. There is absolutely nothing to recommend it, or worry about. Better to withhold judgment and assume the absence (suggested by the conspicuous lack of any credible evidence) until such time as an ACTUAL deity makes itself known to us. Any deity worthy of the name could do it with no effort whatsoever.
Any God worthy of the name would want us to use the brains he gave us, and not accept just whatever we are told without criticism, and every religion so far is very easy to criticize. - tmonsta1, on 10/01/2009, -2/+11if evolution is a joke... then get your ass back in the kitchen bitch... just like the bible says you should
- Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -1/+9Theories do not change into facts ever. That is not how science works.
- StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+9"Actually it is your own fault"
Not in the slightest. I came to these obvious conclusions based on the evidence I was given and the circumstances of my birth. I could do no other thing without turning off the reasonable part of my self, akin to death. I would have to be a different person than I am, ergo, an impossibility.
"You were not pre-programmed by genetics to have a lack of faith."
Are you a geneticist? Do you know every circumstance of my life? How can you say it could have been any different than it was? I am bound by epistemology and reason to not take things on faith. This is more important to me, because its pragmatic and it pays dividends everywhere that is real, than some deceitful myth that you insist on propagating with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Your God would have had the power to make things otherwise, to provide me the convincing I need, and chose not to. He also created Hell. So anything that happens to me, is not my fault - HE MADE THE RULES AND FORCED US TO PLAY HIS GAME.
""No piece of evidence that I could provide you will ever be good enough because you lack faith in addition to prejudice""
Why thank you for the complement, but as a matter of fact, there IS NO EVIDENCE for your God that doesn't also exist for Shiva and Zeus, which is to say, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.
You WANT it to be my fault that I reached this conclusion, because if its not, your God can't possibly exist as a compassionate, all-knowing entity.
THAT is not my problem. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/01/2009, -1/+9Please provide some objective, empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural in general, or for your particular flavor of mythology specifically.
- Scira, on 10/01/2009, -3/+11"God put it there to test our faith"
"The dating system is not accurate"
"It's fake, heathen propaganda"
"I don't care because I have faith in God' - Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -1/+9You are assuming there is a purpose in life. That may not be the case.
- StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+8I have no knowledge of God's existence to recommend Him. God is not calling to me in any way I can recognize - YOU are, and I find you not to be credible. Once again, this is the way I was built, so the fault rests with creation, not me, and if I am damned, it will be as a testament to your God's supposedly compassionate and wise nature that failed to foresee that knowledge and epistemology would necessarily attenuate the effects of blind faith in a surprisingly large number of intelligent and otherwise decent people unless he did something serious about it.
The puddle thinks the pothole was made for it when its actually the other way around. I am not a child, and I have no Faith. Opening my heart is called being epistemologically biased. Good job, God. - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+8"You are right about uncertainty. Keep asking, you will eventually come to some truth - not saying that it will be in agreement with mine but you will consider it true nonetheless."
You know what I hate about religious people. This condescending idea that if they can just convince somebody that there is this emptiness they need to fill, that they really HAVEN'T given the religious person's personal ideology a fair shake, that they will keep on trying and eventually they'll come down with the same mental illness. When you lose a game, do you refuse to admit its over and keep rolling the dice until it comes up with the numbers you want?
The argument was lost with Epicurus.
I see no reason to expect that Christianity is magically going to come up with some compelling rhetorical argument in spite of the conspicuous lack of evidence that it has failed for the last 2000 years to do so. You just want another chance, and another chance, and another chance, and another chance.
There are far more pressing issues in my life than if my very existence as a non-believer is offensive to some passive-aggressive, judgmental child-god. - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+8"What does that have to do with anything?"
Your motives.
"You want Him to rid you of your free will and make you a robot?"
Well, would it be better than being damned? Yes or no? Providing EVIDENCE that I would accept wouldn't take away my FREE WILL. What a stupid argument.
"Oh, and are you that awesome that you remember everything from your birth on and were able to walk and talk from day one? Or did you have, and continue to have, faith in what others tell you about things you cannot possibly know or remember?
Not Faith, its called trust, and its earned. I have more in them than in you or your God. If God wants me to trust Him, He knows what He needs to do. If YOU want me to trust you, you need to provide evidence that I can verify independently. Of course, that is always the one thing you and the other cult followers just can't manage. By the same arguments you make, I should become a Scientologist. Why? I have Faith that L. Ron Hubbard is telling me the truth about ancient aliens called Thetans that are the source of all my suffering. - inajeep, on 10/01/2009, -2/+9Exactly, it looks like some distant ancestor.
- T3hJ3hu, on 10/01/2009, -2/+9You people digging him down are totally getting trolled.
It's pretty funny. - Disgod, on 10/02/2009, -1/+8err whoops need to fix these sentence
That does not mean that they know that there is no god. A better definition is "someone who lacks belief in any gods." **The definition you give** implies a single god, but it is an incorrect assumption. There are thousands of gods that people have believed in throughout history.
Occam's razor eliminates hypotheses with the **MOST** assumptions, and the god hypothesis is full of blind assumptions. - lydecker, on 10/01/2009, -1/+8"No piece of evidence that I could provide you will ever be good enough because you lack faith in addition to prejudice"
So you admit the evidence does not stand on it's own and faith is required in order to supplement it? That's a logical fallacy, begging the question, I believe. Any form of argument in which the conclusion (faith) occurs as one of the premises (faith is required in order to obtain faith), or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain.
"You were not pre-programmed by genetics to have a lack of faith."
Nor was anyone pre-programmed by genetics to have faith. But the default position is people are born and don't think and have no concept of a God, therefore faith is something created.
"If you examine your life you will see the events where you made your choices - good and bad."
What does this have to do with the current conversation? This is true for many, but please, stick to the topic.
"Firstly, there is only one God."
Please provide evidence of this. - Disgod, on 10/02/2009, -1/+8"So you're trying to tell me that the writers of the Bible couldn't possibly be using literary devices such as metaphors? And that you know for a fact that the Bible was intended to be read word for word as literal?"
No, what I'm saying is that you don't know what parts of the bible were written to be taken literally and which parts weren't. For most of history ALL of the bible was believed to be true. You're basing what you accept as true and what is to be taken allegorically on your personal opinion. People once took Noah's flood to be true, and the writers of the bible may have actually genuinely believed that they were retelling a true story, because it was a legend that they heard. You don't know, and will never know what parts were written as allegory or as "history".
"And how exactly do you come to these conclusions?"
Simple, just look at the amount of religions out there, even Judeo-Christian ones. Every Judeo-Christian sect is based off the same book, but each has chosen to take the bible and pick and choose which parts they wish to follow and which they choose not to. And my conclusions are based on the fact that you don't know which parts of the bible the authors believed true and which parts they wanted to have people acknowledge as allegorical. There are no cliffs notes which tell us what the authors were thinking, they may have believed every part of what they wrote. Your're basing your beliefs on assumptions about what 2000 year old people were thinking, but you don't know.
"The first definition for atheist is "someone who DENIES the existence of God"."
That does not mean that they know that there is no god. A better definition is "someone who lacks belief in any gods." That definition implies a single god. Most atheists are agnostic, but say that there has never been a single shred of evidence to support the existence of a god, let alone the christian god. It is possible in the same way that the FSM is possible, or invisible pink unicorns, or magical pixies which created the universe 20 minutes ago and gave us all of the memories of events we think we experienced.
"I'd also be interested to hear your version of the origins of the universe, where God is "unnecessary".
And before you even mention the Big Bang, I'd like to point out that the Big Bang theory starts with an infinitely dense and hot point of energy."
Read up on String theory, it's slowly coming up with testable predictions, and has the explanatory power which makes any deities unnecessary. The Big Bang doesn't explain the origins of the Universe, just what the initial conditions from 10^-43 second onward, and from there everything just follows.
"So, how does an infinitely dense and hot point of energy come to being, given the 1st law of thermodynamics?"
So, how does an infinitely powerful and omnipotent god come to being, given the 1st law of thermodynamics? See, there's a fundamental logical fallacy in this question. It's called special pleading, you're asking the question about one side, but not your own. Where did god come from? How is it that an infinitely powerful god just exist, but the Universe which started out infinitely less complex than that couldn't just exist?
"If energy can never be created or destroyed, only transferred, then where did the seemingly infinite energy that makes up the universe come from?"
Note this "seemingly infinite", the visible Universe does not have infinite energy. It is big and is very energetic, but one day hundreds of billions of years from now will reach a state of equilibrium where there is no more usable energy. And again, I direct you to do a little research into string theory.
"Based on Occam's razor, the theory of an unordered, unintelligent universe is inferior to that of One with higher order and intelligence. "
You do not understand Occam's Razor. Saying "God dun it" doesn't actually explain a single thing. It is adding an extra unexplained step, that doesn't actually give an explanation to anything. It is explaining an unknown with an unknown. How did god do it? Where did god come from? Where did it go? Where is the empirical evidence which supports your hypothesis? Occam's razor eliminates hypotheses with the fewest assumptions, and the god hypothesis is full of blind assumptions. - Disgod, on 10/01/2009, -1/+8"God created us (immortal soul as opposed to material soul) and nothing will ever be able to disprove that. "
Too bad science already has.
"God has not limits.."
And yet your bible says that god can not lie.... which is a limit. So it does.... congrats for not knowing your own belief system.
"God is will always hold the trump card because HE IS."
How? That's not an answer that is a claim. How is he? Where is he? What is he? Where is the empirical evidence which demonstrates your hypothesis? - Disgod, on 10/03/2009, -0/+7"That is like saying that "people shouldn't have their own interpretation of a book because in the book there isn't explicit footnotes detailing what all of the symbolism means."
No, that's like saying "everybody has their own interpretation of the book on what to take literally and what not to take literally." Anything other than a literal interpretation means that you're just basing what you believe on the parts that you want to believe and ignoring or calling allegorical the parts you don't want to believe.
"Plus, the author is dead, therefore the most 'honest' way to interpret it is literally."
When the fact of the matter is that if you're supposedly following a book which tells you that you need to take that book literally and you don't, you're no longer actually following that religion. You're just following your own interpretation which is based on your personal opinions, and a book like the bible is long enough that anybody can pull any message out the book they want.
"You don't know for sure what was meant, even if it is quite obvious. Even if there were footnotes, or the author explained the symbolism, that can't be conclusive because, well you know, humans are known to not always be honest."
Again that's my point, you don't know, so you're not actually following the actual belief system. You're following your version of it, the parts you wish to follow, you follow, the parts you don't, you don't. A fundamentalist who tries taking the bible literally may not see the symbolism, but they are following the belief system as laid down.
"Most atheists are agnostics? That doesn't make a lick of sense. They are mutually exclusive terms.
If you actively deny the existence of God, you're an atheist. If you don't have your mind made up, you are agnostic. It's as simple as that."
No they're not. Atheist vs theism is about a state of belief. Do you believe, YES/NO. If yes then theist if no then atheist. Agnosticism vs gnosticism is about whether or not we will ever be able to answer the question. If you think that we can know the answer to whether or not there is a god then you are gnostic or if you don't think we can ever know the answer you're agnostic. You can be an atheist agnostic, theistic agnostic, atheist gnostic, or a theist gnostic. The two terms are responses to different questions.
"This is not special pleading, it is where Occam's Razor comes in."
Ummm, no that's the definition of special pleading. You're saying that one side of the argument doesn't have to apply to the same standards as the other. Why is it that an infinitely power being with the ability to magic everything into existence can just be, while a infinitely less complex Universe can't? You have no explanation on why you aren't applying the same standards to both sides of the question.
"On one side you have God, who has no beginning and has no end."
An un-evidenced claim which increases complexity without actually explaining a single thing. "God dun it" doesn't say how he did it. It is explaining an unknown with an unknown. Occam's Razor is about going with the fewest assumptions, and the existence of god, and how it works are HUGE ASSUMPTIONS with ZERO EVIDENCE to support them.
"The other side, you have string theory."
A testable, potentially falsifiable hypothesis. We can at least see if we're wrong. There is absolutely no way of disproving the existence of any deity.
""If there is God, I think "He" would have the attribute "timeless" (no beginning or end - there you go 2 assumptions). "
You're also assuming the whole "god" think, which would be 3 assumptions with one of them being one whopper of an assumption. Hint: I mean the assumption that god exists. You're basing everything off that first assumption, which you have no evidence to support.
"String theory, the BB theory, etc. will never be able to explain an unintelligent start, because as we know, in the physical, something doesn't come from nothing."
Two problems, one that's an argument from ignorance. You're saying that because we don't know right now, it means we'll never know, therefore GOD. Sorry that's not logically sound. And second, then where did god come from, besides your special pleading "god has always existed"? How did god magic up the Universe? It had to have come from nothing, he had to make it somehow. How did he make it?
"The God theory wins out in Occam's Razor because of its simplicity, and therefore less assumptions."
Fewer words does not mean better or more simple. Occam's Razor is not about simplicity, but the fewest assumptions, and the god hypothesis is absolutely filled with assumptions. You have no evidential support for the claim of the existence of gods, it is all based on your personal assumptions about god. There is no explanatory power to "God dun it". It doesn't explain how he did it.
"You honestly believe that any scientific theory on the origin of the universe has less assumptions than the God theory?"
YES, BECAUSE WE CAN TEST AGAINST THEM YOU IDIOT!!! We can probe them, find chinks in the armor, refine, and test again, we can make falsifiable predictions. If string theory is proved correct it will because we have EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT! Science is about making the fewest assumptions possible. Saying "god dun it" is a gigantic, unsupported assumption.
"You say that there have been many gods worshiped throughout history. Another way of looking at this is that there have been many different attempts to describe the nature of the same God throughout history."
Except the problem is that they're often mutually exclusive tales which do not match up in anyway.
"Lets take a quick look at pantheism. Pantheism's basic principle is that the Universe = God. Meaning that the sum of all dimensions, all energy, all frequencies, etc is what God is. If this is true, than Jesus's assertion that he is the Son of God (the Father or in this case the Universe) takes on a whole new meaning. If this were the mainstream definition of God, I doubt you would find many atheists, denying the existence of themselves and the rest of the Universe."
We are a part of the Universe true, but that doesn't prove anything. That entire paragraph is based on assumptions about the unknown. There is no evidence to support that idea it is personal belief and opinion.
"So now you see that the existence of God is largely based on how you define said God. Differences in defining God would lead to numerous religions, not numerous Gods."
Or humans have created many gods as an attempt to explain the unknown and NONE of them are correct.
"For you, disgod, would the continuity of consciousness after death imply God?"
If there ever was actual support for that perhaps, but there is no actual support for that. Near death experiences are just that NEAR-DEATH. The brain does wonky ***** when it is put under stress.
"Or would this simply lead you to make more assumptions about the nature of a godless reality?"
Well considering you're asking an unanswerable question we'll just have to wait and see.
"I ask this because there is quite a lot of research on near death experiences which show strong evidence for life (continuity of consciousness) after death. But even death is not certain to answer all questions."
NEAR-DEATH experiences are explainable as the brain going bonkers at the lack of oxygen, blood, etc. We can actually recreate the exact same experiences in a lab to people who are not dying just by ***** with the electrical signals in the brain. There is nothing unexplainable about that yet. AND you're using another argument from ignorance here, because you're saying we don't have an explanation, therefore god. And again, no. Not having an answer does not mean the answer defaults to the other option. You have to have evidence to support the claim, and only that claim before you can say that it is that answer. - mister711, on 10/01/2009, -4/+10nice *****
- ironhide, on 10/01/2009, -2/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Try that on for size. Moron. - Hetman, on 10/01/2009, -1/+7You know when you have faith like a child you can usually be manipulated by some type of priesthood. When I picture people with that much faith I automatically see a picture of someone doing something completely violent and amoral in the name of God.
- joe7845, on 10/01/2009, -2/+8Are you also an HIV denialist and an Obama birther by any chance?
- StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+7"I think the simple fact that you ask for proof demonstrates His existence, otherwise why give a *****?"
Oh please. You told us we should believe, then we asked for evidence. Nobody demanded proof, and we give a ***** because you told us we should. If not for people like you, nobody would even CARE about Yahweh. If a guy runs up to me on the street and says the sky is falling, I'm going to ask for evidence TOO. Asking is not an admission that the sky is actually falling. - FredFredrickson, on 10/01/2009, -1/+7You know, evolution never came around and said, "Hey religion! ***** you!"
The religious types are the ones who started attacking the idea, digging themselves into a hole which eventually became so deep they couldn't afford to jump out and admit they might be wrong.
So after the years and years of religious figures bashing evolution and trying to discredit it, and more news arrives on the subject, don't get all offended when the first thing someone thinks of is how creationists will respond. You ***** started this crap. - StaticThunder, on 10/01/2009, -1/+7God would have known that there were going to be losers in His game, yet he created them to be damned anyway. All this passive aggressive 'well, its not HIS fault, they chose to be damned' is *****. God knew what they would choose, God knew some people would ask for evidence that wasn't there, and instead of providing evidence, He created a Hell for them. Its a giant game of 'Just trust what some cultist says because if you don't things are set up so that you suffer, not because you have any actual reason to.'
If I had FAITH like lozeerose, I would have to believe ANYTHING, just to be consistent. - lydecker, on 10/01/2009, -1/+7"Firstly, there is only one God."
Please provide evidence of this.
"God is everywhere and He is calling to you and you are seeking Him (whether you believe it or not)."
Then this deity isn't trying very hard, given his supposed power and ability to call to people. And I do believe StaticThunder is seeking evidence of this deity and has yet to find it, and also asking you to present yours so he can examine it without prejudice. -
Show 51 - 100 of 222 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is